Two lines in MN passed it's first hurdle!

tornadochaser wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lindyrig79 wrote:</div>
For the guys who approve of the two lines:

1) Do you honestly think it will not increase harvest?

2) Depending on your answer, do you think limits should be adjusted then?

Limits in MN should be adjusted irregardless of whether we’re allowed to use 2 lines, 10 lines, or 1 line. 3 or 4 <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye with 1 over 20″, 5 or 10 bluegill with 1 over 9″, 5-10 crappie with 1 over 14″, etc. So many lakes with the potential for not only trophy <em class=”ido-tag-em”>panfish and bass, but numbers too, but sadly we’d have to legislate to reduce harvest of fish because there’s still too many out there that scoff at selective harvest and just want to pile for the social media pics and freezer burn.

I think there’s plenty of support from minnesotans to use 2 lines…every MN tagged boat I see out here in SD whether it’s glacial lakes or on the missouri river, all of those guys have no problem using 2 lines as allowed here. Personally, I’d likely never run 2 lines when bobber fishing bluegills or occasionally for walleyes, but for moving presentations, cranks or bottom bouncers, I’ll run 2 lines all day if allowed.

So basically you are agreeing with me then. Increase the number of lines allowed while keeping limits the same would be a bad idea.

FYI- the DNR’s numbers and graphs show MANY more fish being taken in the winter time over summer fishing.

Someone help me understand.
If a limit is a limit what does fishing with 2 lines have to do with anything?

This is a bill to fish with 2 lines, it doesn’t mean that the you can keep a limit for both lines fished.

IMHO you can’t bring in the limit argument when discussing 2 lines.

What if next year twice as many people bought a license in MN, would the DNR have to re-calculate limits?

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Someone help me understand.
If a limit is a limit what does fishing with 2 lines have to do with anything?

This is a bill to fish with 2 lines, it doesn’t mean that the you can keep a limit for both lines fished.

IMHO you can’t bring in the limit argument when discussing 2 lines.

What if next year twice as many people bought a license in MN, would the DNR have to re-calculate limits?

I’m not making this specific argument myself, but I think the line of thinking is that 2 lines will lead to more DEAD fish overall because:

– hooking mortality from CPR guys who can’t efficiently and safely land two fish at the same time.

– fewer “skunked” trips all around = more fish caught = more fish dead

– more limits being taken

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Someone help me understand.
If a limit is a limit what does fishing with 2 lines have to do with anything

Just so you know, I support 2 lines.

Very few ever leave the water with a limit. Adding a line will increase the catch rate for some which will in theory increase harvest overall. By how much is the question.

To all of you comparing Mn to other states or provinces, you can’t possibly compare them without comparing stocking numbers and dollars, fishing hours, seasons, accessibility, etc. By simply suggesting one line = great fishing is utterly insane.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Someone help me understand.
If a limit is a limit what does fishing with 2 lines have to do with anything?

I was going to stay out of this topic but this question keeps coming up so I’ll tell you why it’s an issue. Not coming after you Eelpout, you are just the most recent guy to ask this question.

People do not normally get a limit of walleye ok. They go out with the 100 other boats and pontoons and bobber fish for the night. They each get 2-3 fish a person and head home. Give them two lines and you can nearly double the fish take. This happens nearly every night all summer long. I just find it hard to believe I have to spell this out.

I love the idea of two lines for the Sturgeon, cat and muskie guys. Lets not be short sighted or greedy as a group though. This law would result in many more crappie and walleye harvested, plain and simple. This in not even negotiable. The question is can the lakes handle it. If so great. If not oh well I guess we’ll have to fish Sturgeon… I know where there’s a big one

This is an interesting thread. Its obvious that most people on here commenting are only thinking about what may or may not happen to the “harvest” of fish if 2 lines in the open water season were allowed.

I mostly bass and muskie fish and I release 100% of them that I catch. I almost exclusively cast and retrieve with artificial lures for them so I literally would not be able to use a second line. That would require 4 hands. The only conceivable way I could use 2 lines at once would be what someone has already mentioned: soak a big decoy sucker on a quick strike rig AND cast artificial lures at the same time.

Good post, Joe.

Those in favor of 2 lines seem to only have the simple argument of “it would be nice”.

Is that how we’re deciding on regulations now?

blank wrote:

Good post, Joe.

Those in favor of 2 lines seem to only have the simple argument of “it would be nice”.

Is that how we’re deciding on regulations now?

How about attracting out of state anglers? Don’t you think the dnr would like to increase license sales? If we’re one of the very few states where one line is allowed, it doesn’t help your case for attracting out of state anglers.

In my opinion, I doubt allowing a second line would attract any significant amount of out of state anglers. Out of state anglers come for the quality lakes, fishing opportunities, local attractions, tradition, and beautiful scenery.

I do understand the added revenue argument for a second line if there is indeed a fee to allow the second line. It sounds great to have some more revenue, but I think it also complicates things a bit and not sure if it’s really worth it. I watched/listened to the bill hearing via the link that BK posted a while back, and they were discussing where the added revenue would be allocated. Do you use it for enforcement? Walleye stocking? General fund?

biggill wrote:

If we’re one of the very few states where one line is allowed, it doesn’t help your case for attracting out of state anglers.

IMO, I think we have plenty to offer, great fishing (arguably better than the 2 line states) and plenty of other attractions to get anglers here. If there were 5 of me in Alexandria we still couldn’t handle all of the anglers that want to go fishing from out of state.

If it was about license money they would raise the cost. Most of my clients can’t believe how cheap the licenses are here.

sticker wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
Ontario has even more strict regulations and look at their fishing

Ontario doesn’t even fit in this conversation, it’s apples to bananas. Ontario has more lakes than people that fish and a lot of them are to remote to have decent access. Of course they are going to have outstanding fishing.

I’m not attacking you at all Bucky, several people have mentioned Ontario.

I agree completely that it’s apples to oranges. That however was not my point. The point of the whole post I made (not just the part you copied forward), was that it is very easy to get an uniformed law-maker or even a citizen angler to believe that 2 lines is a bad thing whether that’s by comparing MN inland fisheries to other states or selectively gathering data. I in no way feel that 2 lines would really have a major negative impact, it’s just that a lot of people do.

I still do not see this passing. That’s just my prediction, NOT my opinion.

Regardless of where everyone opinions stand….what are your predictions? Will this truly pass or not?

Deuces wrote:

Your trolling motor clinics, and marine shops will be flooded with lower units wrapped in fishing line, Cabela’s will be packed with guys to replace all the lost rods, broken rods, lost tackle from snags on bottom or as mentioned above gets wrapped in motor from forgetting about 2nd rod when going around a point, playing a fish, etc.

Well if that’s not a good enough reason to pass this measure.

Imagine the boost for the fishing related industry’s bottom line.

I come at this with a different perspective having grown up in Kansas where you can fish with two lines and buy an additional permit for a third line.

I’ve been here over 10 years now and I spend far more of my annual fishing trip dollars in Kansas, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Iowa solely because I can use multiple rods in those states.

If two lines were an option; even if I had to pay extra for the 2nd line, I’d rarely leave the state of Minnesota to fish.

Just thinking about it from an economics standpoint for the resorts, bait shops and restaurants.

Joe Scegura wrote:

People do not normally get a limit of walleye ok. They go out with the 100 other boats and pontoons and bobber fish for the night. They each get 2-3 fish a person and head home. Give them two lines and you can nearly double the fish take. This happens nearly every night all summer long. I just find it hard to believe I have to spell this out.

Agree.

Here is a crazy idea that would suit me fine, how about two lines but zero harvest or one line and normal limits remain in place?

I want to use two lines so I can run a couple colors or different presentations, etc. If you find something that works, put away the second rod and keep a few or go with two and keep busy.

Currently all the states around us allow more than one line, when the two line bill passes, it should be promoted on ExploreMN. There are plenty of anglers that choose not to come to MN because we only allow one line. How do I know this? I worked at a bait shop for 12 years on the MN/WI border waters. Over the years I can’t count the number of folks (and groups) that first thought of going to Mille Lacs or Lake of the Woods for their vacation, but came to the river specifically because they could use more than one line. When your allowed more then one line in your home state, it’s hard to be limited to just one on your vacation.

Two lines will increased discretionary spending to resorts, tackle, and small businesses increasing the tourism dollars in the entire state. When they spend the money on the second rod, reel, line and lures it will add to the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Dingell-Johnson Act as well.

In a time with declining angling participants I believe we should be looking at ways to attract more people to our state known for it superb fishing.

However if the folks in those large lakes feel it’s not going to help them, it would be very easy for the DNR to exclude Minnesota’s Large Lakes from the two line rule. They are separated already.

Great theory BK. Now if you could please address the real concerns people have here.

Joe Scegura wrote:

People do not normally get a limit of walleye ok. They go out with the 100 other boats and pontoons and bobber fish for the night. They each get 2-3 fish a person and head home. Give them two lines and you can nearly double the fish take. This happens nearly every night all summer long. I just find it hard to believe I have to spell this out.
I love the idea of two lines for the Sturgeon, cat and muskie guys. Lets not be short sighted or greedy as a group though. This law would result in many more crappie and walleye harvested, plain and simple. This in not even negotiable. The question is can the lakes handle it.

I’m assuming you have no idea just like the rest of us. I guess some of us are willing to gamble all we have and others are not.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Currently all the states around us allow more than one line, when the two line bill passes, it should be promoted on ExploreMN. There are plenty of anglers that choose not to come to MN because we only allow one line. How do I know this? I worked at a bait shop for 12 years on the MN/WI border waters. Over the years I can’t count the number of folks (and groups) that first thought of going to Mille Lacs or Lake of the Woods for their vacation, but came to the river specifically because they could use more than one line. When your allowed more then one line in your home state, it’s hard to be limited to just one on your vacation.

Two lines will increased discretionary spending to resorts, tackle, and small businesses increasing the tourism dollars in the entire state. When they spend the money on the second rod, reel, line and lures it will add to the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Dingell-Johnson Act as well.

In a time with declining angling participants I believe we should be looking at ways to attract more people to our state known for it superb fishing.

However if the folks in those large lakes feel it’s not going to help them, it would be very easy for the DNR to exclude Minnesota’s Large Lakes from the two line rule. They are separated already.

1) because everybody else does it doesn’t mean they are right.

2) Being inside a bait shop and actually working there is open to debate I suppose.

3) If tourism and the money generated mattered we wouldn’t have 53 (an exaggeration) slots across the state.

Joe Scegura wrote:

IMO, I think we have plenty to offer, great fishing (arguably better than the 2 line states) and plenty of other attractions to get anglers here. I

Tell that to those who won’t come here because of it.

There are relatively few angling methods where 2 lines can effectively be used. The suggestion that harvest would double for those that use two lines is an exaggeration. The suggested impacts are greatly overblown in my opinion.

If this passes I will take advantage of it but I’m having trouble even thinking of the situations where I would even use 2 lines to catch fish to keep on inland waters.

It’s my understanding that the dnr doesn’t have an official position on it but rumors indicate they are against it. I personally believe it’s a long shot this year still.

Uhhhhhhhhhh………… Honestly I don’t think we need to be attracting a bunch more people from out of state to come fish our lakes. Our fishing is good, but is strained enough with technology and population increase as is.

Like, seriously that is a reason you want two lines?

Fewer licenses means less stocking less management, higher fees and fewer opportunities.

As BK said, license sales have been on the decline for some time now. That’s not good.

Joe Scegura wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
Someone help me understand.
If a limit is a limit what does fishing with 2 lines have to do with anything?

I was going to stay out of this topic but this question keeps coming up so I’ll tell you why it’s an issue. Not coming after you Eelpout, you are just the most recent guy to ask this question.

People do not normally get a limit of walleye ok. They go out with the 100 other boats and pontoons and bobber fish for the night. They each get 2-3 fish a person and head home. Give them two lines and you can nearly double the fish take. This happens nearly every night all summer long. I just find it hard to believe I have to spell this out.

Joe,
What are you spelling out?
That a legally abiding angler can be limit compliant if they fish 1 or 2 lines?
Limit and lines allowed have nothing to do with each other.

The “Bill” is about letting someone fish 2 lines, it has nothing to do with limits or harvest.

Dutchboy wrote:

2) Being inside a bait shop and actually working there is open to debate I suppose.

Agreed.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Joe,
What are you spelling out?
That a legally abiding angler can be limit compliant if they fish 1 or 2 lines?
Limit and lines allowed have nothing to do with each other.
The “Bill” is about letting someone fish 2 lines, it has nothing to do with limits or harvest.

Cause and effect! Can’t talk about one without the other.

Joe Scegura wrote:

I’m assuming you have no idea just like the rest of us. I guess some of us are willing to gamble all we have and others are not.

Now don’t be assuming Joe. The DNR’s in the other states haven’t been sitting on their hands you know.

IF the sky started falling as some would like us to believe, this wouldn’t be a constitutional right and can be changed.

I know you didn’t read all the replies Joe, but I was agreeing with Ryan Spears that drives out of state to fish.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I know you didn’t read all the replies Joe,

Don’t go assuming… someone once told me that.

Its ok for a guide to make money bringing people out and help them catch fish and maybe fill their limits when many of those people on their own couldnt catch anything.God forbid the angler out on his own not making any money off the resource fish two lines and maybe take a couple more fish home.Huh

Got it. I didn’t want to assume you just skipped over that one.

matt wrote:

Its ok for a guide to make money bringing people out and help them catch fish and maybe fill their limits when many of those people on their own couldnt catch anything.God forbid the angler out on his own not making any money off the resource fish two lines and maybe take a couple more fish home.Huh

It’s funny how every time I discuss a topic regarding conservation I get the fact I guide thrown in my face. It would be a lot easier for me just not to care. That has been made very clear, but I won’t give up that easy. Caring and preserving our resource will always be number one. Anyone who as ever fished with me knows that.