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.
Not buying this. Maybe as a percentage as to the overall percentage of population increase. But there are still more people fishing today than 10 – 20 years ago. Statistics can be skewed very easily to support almost any argument you want.
IMHO you can’t bring in the limit argument when discussing 2 lines.
Do you not think you could achieve a limit, faster, easier, and more often using two lines?
I think it will help narrow what the fish want, so in turn yes catch more fish in less amount of time. The double your catch rate could only really be applied about as often as you and a buddy get a double in the boat.
I guess i’m confused as to what the argument is against it, Dead fish? more limits caught? or both? If it is a Limit issue shouldn’t the argument be geared towards lowering the limit and not 2 lines?
Also if they pass this and it decimates the population on any given body of water, that lake will be added to the 1 line list which will probably already include all the Top lakes in the state.
<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.
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 <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>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
Sooooo as long as it’s NIMBY you’re OK with it?
It doesn’t matter if an angler is following the limit rules?
<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.
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 <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>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
The limit is the limit and if two lines would cause that much stress on the resource, what about protecting the resource by limiting the number of anglers on each body of water and putting limits on technology such as depth finders, mapping software, boats that are increasingly more efficient, clothing, etc?
Two lines is such a minuscule factor compared to other issues that are affecting and facing the resource.
If it’s about putting to much pressure on the resource, other things should be looked at and we would should start regulating angler hours on a body of water and possibly the number of hours a guide is allowed to take clients out day after day, while effectively and efficiently tapping into the resource with lots of knowledge and keying in on vulnerable fish populations with extensive knowledge of his core area for financial gain and limiting the lakes and number of hours they can fish high pressured bodies of water. Joe that’s not targeted at you at all. Fish pool 4 and there’s guides all over the place, and have no problem with them. But think about the knowledge they have shared with countless people, me being one. Went with Turk and learned an incredible amount about that system in one day. The L factor of information and technology has, as Leupold said, increased the pump but not the well.
2 good anglers allowed one line each, is more detrimental to a lake than most anglers could do with 3 lines each. Most guys can’t fish one line well enough.
With catch and release being the norm more often than not, the aspect of two lines killing the resource is a mute point when guys can fish more effectively with one line anyways in most circumstances and fish all day long. The fear everyone will be doing it constantly and keeping way more fish than they normally would be is trumped by the fact if they caught their limit legally quicker with two lines, they could actually be putting less stress on fish by getting off the body of water faster vs staying twice as long disrupting the fish. If you’re in a good spot and the bite is hot, a lot of times it wouldn’t be worth the hassle to run 2 lines. If the timing and bite is off, 2 lines might help a little but it won’t trump the weather, the bite or the spot. There will be times it will help increase catch rates, but it’s not going to cripple the resource any more than all the information a good fishing show like ido puts out or forums like this one.
Understand the fear and concern for the resource and respect that. But for me personally, I’m for it and would take advantage of it just like any other tool to help catch more fish. Don’t believe it is unethical or going to harm the resource, and if it did, would admit I was wrong and would want it appealed.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>biggill wrote:</div>
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.
Not buying this. Maybe as a percentage as to the overall percentage of population increase. But there are still more people fishing today than 10 – 20 years ago. Statistics can be skewed very easily to support almost any argument you want.
I did a quick search on this and it seems that it is both. Actual license sales are declining and if compared to a percentage of the overall population that fishes the trend is even worse.
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-fishing-license-sales-hit-new-low-since-2013/487830321/
Not buying this. Maybe as a percentage as to the overall percentage of population increase. But there are still more people fishing today than 10 – 20 years ago. Statistics can be skewed very easily to support almost any argument you want.
Not buying it, try google. I can’t find actual statistics but there is clearly a downward trend.
I read the article and it’s far from conclusive. Never saw an article from the Star Trib that skewed any information to make their point, LOL
Guess we all agree that there are mounting pressures on the resource, but sure go ahead and add two lines that shouldn’t affect anything? Heck maybe we can even get a bunch of people from out-of-state to come add to the pressure?
Too much to risk in my opinion.
And even if you manage to find proof that angling licenses are in decline it is not even central to this debate. It’s a smoke/mirror tactic for those who want this passed.
You will never convince me that fishing two lines and marketing to other states “To come fish MN!” will help conserve our resource.
I don’t have a dog in this line number fight because I see too many instances where people can’t manage two lines on the river. I think there’s a lot of people out there like that regardless of where they fish.
I do however agree that limits need to be re-vamped state-wide on walleyes and on walleye/sauger, crappie and sunfish on at least the MN/WI border waters.
Never said anyone didnt care.Wonder how many more fish are taken by those with 2 lines or those that hire a guide?Whats the difference there?Both may or may not help someone catch and keep more fish why treat one any different than the other.Two lines would be nice to use when trolling by myself.I can see why a guide who has 3 or 4 lines in the boat may object I may catch some of the fish he needed for his paying clients to go home happy
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
IMHO you can’t bring in the limit argument when discussing 2 lines.Do you not think you could achieve a limit, faster, easier, and more often using two lines?
I guess I am not making myself clear.
The 2nd line option has absolutely nothing to do with limits.
You are blurring the debate if you think it is.
A limit is a limit whether you use 1 line or 100 lines.
Two lines would be nice to use when trolling by myself.I can see why a guide who has 3 or 4 lines in the boat may object I may catch some of the fish he needed for his paying clients to go home happy
Actually my concerns are 100% the opposite of what you might think. I won’t even keep fish for my extended family. If they want fish they should come with me and catch em. It’s about the experience. If I keep my limit every time out then the kid fishing with his Dad may not catch any and to me that’s not right. Even though I’d be within the law to keep my limit and gift it I don’t feel it’s right but now we are just off topic.
A limit is a limit whether you use 1 line or 100 lines.
This is only true in the argument people get a limit every time out. 
If every angler was guaranteed a limit when they hit the water and they had to go home as soon as they got their limit with no catch and release at all. Then you would be correct no one would care how many lines were used to do it. But we do not live in that world do we?
Joe,
Once again we are not talking about limits, the discussion is about amount of lines used.
Where in the bill does it speak of limits?
What is your point in this argument? That more “Walleyes” would be harvested?
If that is you point, well it is not valid because the DNR has decided that the determined “limit” is the proper number. Correct?
Lets also keep in mind that there are species other than walleye, many of which are more fun to catch in my opinion.
As it stands now with a single line, it is relatively easy to catch a limit of walleye, crappie, bluegill… if that is the goal. For that reason, I do not agree that the number of lines will drastically increase the harvest rate.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lindyrig79 wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
IMHO you can’t bring in the limit argument when discussing 2 lines.Do you not think you could achieve a limit, faster, easier, and more often using two lines?
I guess I am not making myself clear.
The 2nd line option has absolutely nothing to do with limits.
You are blurring the debate if you think it is.A limit is a limit whether you use 1 line or 100 lines.
You are making yourself clear. Clear that you won’t answer the question 
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lindyrig79 wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
IMHO you can’t bring in the limit argument when discussing 2 lines.Do you not think you could achieve a limit, faster, easier, and more often using two lines?
I guess I am not making myself clear.
The 2nd line option has absolutely nothing to do with limits.
You are blurring the debate if you think it is.A limit is a limit whether you use 1 line or 100 lines.
You are making yourself clear. Clear that you won’t answer the question
OK.
Not sure what the question is, but I will answer it in either a yes or no whatever the question is.
Maybe to save time, I am in favor of 2 lines.
No to get the bill past the next hurdle. Remember that all other attempts to get 2 lines have been shot down. Ya’ll may be stressing for nothing.
I don’t have a dog in this line number fight because I see too many instances where people can’t manage two lines on the river. I think there’s a lot of people out there like that regardless of where they fish.
I do however agree that limits need to be re-vamped state-wide on walleyes and on walleye/sauger, crappie and sunfish on at least the MN/WI border waters.
And you and I agree on this as well. (Mississippi river). It’ll be a coming. 
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
A limit is a limit whether you use 1 line or 100 lines.This is only true in the argument people get a limit every time out.
If every angler was guaranteed a limit when they hit the water and they had to go home as soon as they got their limit with no catch and release at all. Then you would be correct no one would care how many lines were used to do it. But we do not live in that world do we?
What kind of world do we live in, one lived off of fears and emotions about speculations or one built off facts and science?
Fact is, angling pressure is increasing, because of a vast amounts of shared information and technology increases that can’t seem to have their affects really monitored or regulated. Catch and release affects the resource, as does keeping fish. Harvesting fish is not the only pressure on the resource, catch and release puts stress on fish as well. Pressure also increases as knowledgeable guides like yourself take good anglers out on bodies of water that are new to them and shrinks the learning curve significantly.
Limits keep getting brought up, but that’s a regulator process where the biologists set acceptable harvest numbers. Two lines and limits are fairly separate issues, similar seemingly, but different.
Technology was questioned with underwater cameras, but since then there’s been little to no conversation about anything related to advances like mapping software that is the single best advancement in the fishing industry over anything else imo since I’ve been alive. With spot lock tmtrs being a close second.
Having the option of two lines is a tool, like having one line. There will be times it might be highly effective, but the majority of the time it will be unused or ineffective. Just like a net, another tool that goes unused or is inefficient when the fish aren’t cooperating.
If two lines turns 2 fish days into 4 fish days, as long as the limit the dnr has set by all the biologists off their data is followed, good for the guys who had another tool to help them catch more fish. Just like the people that don’t know how to fish who hire a guide to increase their catch rate exponentially. For a guide to not want people to have a better chance at improving their odds and catching a few more fish, seems interesting, when most guides pitch their abilities as teaching and helping people get on more fish.
Have fished bodies of water where multiple lines are legal and guys take advantage of it. But there’s more times than not where the vast majority of the anglers on those waters aren’t using two lines.
It’d be interesting to know the dynamics of the people who are pro or anti two lines and if they have or haven’t fished where two lines are legal, or if they have fish those areas, how often they use two lines on those waters.
It’s funny. I realized I spent about 90% of my time fishing Mn waters where 2 lines are allowed. One of those bodies of water I never used 2 lines.
Big stone, traverse, and all border can have two lines. It’s fine. I would be open to 3 lines ice fishing as well. You still gotta find and catch the fish. Those that just take take take will never change regardless unless they get stopped and checked by dnr.
It’s funny how every time I discuss a topic regarding conservation I get the fact I guide thrown in my face
Lol, you should be use to it by now, after all you are a guide.
Basseye that was a post to make a person think!
We here in Minnesota aren’t allowed two lines because it going to harm fish populations but for $200. each a couple three maybe 4 anglers have a better then average chance of taking home a 6 fish limit.
Now there’s something that will take the fishing memories of a dad and son away!
They have these things called “rod holders” now. You can mount them on your boat and they hold your rod securely while that rod while the line is in the water waiting for a fish to bite. People will figure out how to fish effectively with 2 lines.
For the record; I lived for 4oish years in MN, I now live in ND and am fishing 2 lines almost all the time and mostly jigging in the Missouri River. Sometimes a rod in each hand and sometimes the second one is in a rod holder. I can’t tell you the number of times I get hit, pull in the fish, check my second rod there is also a fish on there. I definitely catch more fish with two lines.
The crowds of fisherman out here are not anything like the ones I experienced in MN. The Game and Fish is not shy about stocking. In my opinion fishing is better out here.
A limit is a limit but it is more about the average number of fish killed. If that average goes up something is going to have to give. A limit is just a way of controlling the average.
Maybe with all the technology and better equipment something has to give even without allowing 2 lines. I would bet that cell phones are one of the biggest factors.
So basically you are agreeing with me then. Increase the number of lines allowed while keeping limits the same would be a bad idea.
No, I said that limits should be adjusted regardless if we go to 2 lines or not. Meaning limits are a separate issue.
Maybe if the 2nd line permit came with a pamphlet on selective harvest we could change the minds of a few meat hogs.
There will always be C&R guy
There will always be guys that C&R and keeps some fish
There will always be meat hunters
and
There will always be meat hogs.
forgot one…
There will always be poachers.
This is written in stone someplace on Mount Sinai.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
