Two lines in MN passed it's first hurdle!

SF226 just passed it’s first committee with a unanimous approval.
Onto the finance committee!

There was an amendment added. The two lines would be excluded on special regs bodies of water.

I wonder if they are excluded on any special regs water or will certain waters be one line only?

I am unfamiliar with the process of bills being passed but what is the process from here? Goes to finance committee and then where?

Brian Klawitter wrote:

SF226 just passed it’s first committee with a unanimous approval.
Onto the finance committee!

Yes!

Brian Klawitter wrote:

There was an amendment added. The two lines would be excluded on special regs bodies of water.

Do you have a link where a person can read more about that amendment? I have the same question as Aaron.

Thanks!

grubson wrote:

This is upsetting. Imo why bother when the majority of the lakes that are popular for fishing have special regs…

1 step closer

Thanks for following this BK.

Is there anything us anglers who are for, or against it, do in terms of writing local rep? Out of our hands now or what?

Thanks for any info.

I have zero faith that the bill could ever pass as a stand alone bill. It will need to get buried in another spending bill to pass. The good news is this state has no problems spending taxpayer money so there will be plenty of places to hide it.

Soon I will be able to get skunked with twice the lines as usual.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Soon I will be able to get skunked with twice the lines as usual.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Soon I will be able to get skunked with twice the lines as usual.

That may be true, but we will be able to get skunked in only half the time!

If this passes, I hope they cut all the limits in half because those poor fish need a break.

cool, I soon will be able to cast 2 buzzbaits at once. But how will I reel them in?? hmmmm, another problem to overcome…

grubson wrote:

Imo why bother when the majority of the lakes that are popular for fishing have special regs…

Kinda my sentiment…There’s a reason it was sacrificed, but I don’t feel like starting a finger pointing argument…

Brian Klawitter wrote:

There was an amendment added. The two lines would be excluded on special regs bodies of water.

Ever wonder why North Dakota fishing regs (not counting boat ramp locations, etc.) are about 32 pages of regulations and Minnesota is 69 (not counting fish illustrations, etc.)? The State of MN can’t stop themselves from tacking on to any reg.

Funny Dutch…we (the supporters) are all hoping that it is a stand alone bill.

I posted a link to the members of the senate a while back. Just be polite, for or against they are just trying to do their job.

The bill has a long ways to go yet so your email will certainly help direct it whichever way you want it to go. I’ll post the process shortly as well.

Here’s the full video from yesterday.

https://mnsenate.granicus.com/player/clip/3343?view_id=1&meta_id=16633&fbclid=IwAR0MMhXw-SltCtq5M5u9DrhlKuk_kDh15o7v58xlzzkyvPkn6Q5iOmKk5iY

https://www.gis.leg.mn/iMaps/districts/

An angler can enter their address, and their reps will show up with links to a very easy fill out form to send to let them know how you feel on this.

Nothing needs to be fancy, bad English is just fine, just let your voice be heard! Its either you or the PETA people…and I guarantee they are emailing!

Takes 2 minutes, and when it does pass you can say you helped, or if it doesn’t at least you’ll have good reason to biatch why it didn’t

Edit: Dtro lands huge sturg and gets a kudos in the house!? Wow, that’s a great time for that guy, and lots of hard work getting to that point. Well done Sir, well done.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

SF226 just passed it’s first committee with a unanimous approval.
Onto the finance committee!

There was an amendment added. The two lines would be excluded on special regs bodies of water.

What’s the point of the bill now when so many lakes have special regulations? Yeah, there are also lots of lakes that don’t, but IMO it should make no difference if there are special regs or not to allow multiple lines.

This bill is in its infancy Capt. It can change many times before it becomes law or dies. It made it out of the first committee with that change. I haven’t watched the committee video yet but that should explain more then my guessing.

Here’s bill passage 101 painstakingly typed out by Darren.

Here’s today’s lesson on how a Bill (such as this 2 line Bill) becomes a law. For reference the 2 line Bill (SF226) was introduced into the Senate and had its first reading and been sent to the Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Legacy Finance committee. Next step is getting a Bill introduced into the House:

Before a bill can begin to be processed through either of the two houses, it must first be given its first formal “reading.” The first reading occurs when the bill is introduced, given a file number and assigned to a committee for study. The committee chair decides a hearing date for the bill. During the hearing, proponents and opponents give testimony on the merits of the legislation. Any person may testify on any bill. Members of the committee can change a bill. These changes are called amendments.

The committee members may propose amendments to improve the bill or to reach a compromise among the bill’s proponents and opponents. After weighing all the testimony and thoroughly examining and discussing the pros and cons of the bill, committee members may take several courses of action.

The committee, after a vote, may: recommend that the bill be passed–or passed as amended–and send it directly to the Senate or House floor; recommend that the bill be passed–or passed as amended–and be placed on the Consent Calendar; approve the bill and send it on to another committee for further discussion; send the bill to the floor or another committee without a recommendation for passage; keep it in committee indefinitely; or simply defeat it.

After a bill is reported out of its final committee, it is given its second reading and placed before the entire body for discussion and consideration. Floor amendments are considered and a preliminary vote on the bill is taken. If approved, the bill is laid over for at least a day before being considered for final passage.

The bill is given a third reading prior to the vote for final passage. After final passage, the bill is sent to the other body.

In the Minnesota Legislature, a bill must pass the Senate and the House of Representatives in identical form to become law. If a measure does not go through in the same form, a conference committee is established consisting of both Senators and Representatives to work out the final version. The compromise version must then be repassed by both bodies.

If a proposal survives all these obstacles, it is sent to the governor, where it faces another test. The governor may sign the bill into law, veto it, or allow the bill to expire without signing it. A veto may be overridden if both the Senate and the House of Representatives repass the bill with a two-thirds majority vote.

Anyone interested in running for senate?

Dennis Williams wrote:

Ever wonder why North Dakota fishing regs (not counting boat ramp locations, etc.) are about 32 pages of regulations and Minnesota is 69 (not counting fish illustrations, etc.)? The State of MN can’t stop themselves from tacking on to any reg.

Maybe it’s because MN has 2x more license sales and 10x more lakes to manage.

Not to mention most fisheries in MN are reliant on natural reproduction whereas ND generally has more lakes that are heavily stocked put-and-take fisheries.

I would argue if you have 10,000 lakes all the more reason to simplify and have uniform regs statewide.

Brian,
Is there a companion bill on the House side?

Not a fan.

Just wait,if it passes there’ll be a 1 fish limit state wide, no matter what species plus a nonresident sticker to put on your boat trailer show they generate funds to privatise lakes that have a association on them

riverbasher wrote:

Brian,
Is there a companion bill on the House side?

Not as of today that I’ve heard or seen.

lindyrig79 wrote:

Not a fan.

Your display name speaks volumes. (and i’m saying that with a smile)

I’m not sure anyone that was lindy rigging would use two lines and unless something pops up that is unforeseeable now, Mille Lacs will be excluded.

I know the muskie guys won’t be happy about that, but it’s being manage forever was a walleye lake.

I don’t understand why people are against someone using 2 lines for open water fishing. We are able to use 2 lines in the winter. Aren’t fish limits set by science, meaning based on estimated fish populations, not by method of take? Personally, I’d love to be able to set a catfish rod out into the river, and then toss a second line with another bait, or target another species while waiting for action on the catfish rod. Honestly, method of take shouldn’t matter anyway. A limit is a limit, and if i’m reading this bill correctly, you would have to pay for a 2nd line endorsement, which would mean more license revenue for the DNR. Isn’t the DNR complaining about declining license revenues too? The 2nd line endorsement would be a new revenue stream.

I might be old fashioned but I don’t think it makes sense to have a two line rule.. I jig and lindy rig mostly so two lines just isn’t a good idea. For trolling I can see maybe having two lines, but just have more people in the boat and there you go. For tip ups, two lines makes sense being you are not trolling or moving around much, in the summer time you can cast and move your lure more than through the ice. I know two lines are allowed on the river and stuff now, but I personally don’t want to see every boat with planers out and a tree of rods off the back. Might as well go commercial fishing at that point.

Just my opinion, I am sure alot more people are in favor for this

Brian Klawitter wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lindyrig79 wrote:</div>
Not a fan.

Your display name speaks volumes. (and i’m saying that with a smile)

I’m not sure anyone that was lindy rigging would use two lines and unless something pops up that is unforeseeable now, Mille Lacs will be excluded.

I know the muskie guys won’t be happy about that, but it’s being manage forever was a walleye lake.

Agree.

But I know plenty of people, who while fishing crappies in the reed beds, would toss a 2nd bobber out there. Thus resulting in more fish being harvested overall, not to mention more death from gut hooks because they were focusing on their first bobber, while their 2nd bobber went down.

I’m on the fence on the 2 line issue. Those who say it will have 0 effect on the fish population are kidding themselves. For those people who are all about catching and keeping a limit of fish – It will aid them in doing so. If you think 2 lines does not help in catching more fish then why would you in any way be in Favor of this. Where I see it really negatively effecting the fishing population is in regards to hooking mortality. Say while bobber fishing with live bait for panfish or walleyes. While you are reeling in, unhooking, baiting, and casting back out. another fish has spend time swallowing bait #2. leading to its death rather you decide to keep it or not. I guess the more I think about it the less overall I am in Favor of it. Just my .02 worth.

Ice fishing gets two lines.

The Mississippi border waters get two lines.

Am all for two lines on open water. If that’s not acceptable, maybe we should get rid of two lines ice fishing and on the river. Every argument against two lines on open water can be applicable to ice fishing.

Thanks for all the info Brian K.