Two lines in MN passed it's first hurdle!

I had been spending 75% of my fishing and vacation money in MN 5-6 years ago), once I found SD and ND to have way better (IMO) fishing, that has flipped to be about 25% or even less spent in MN. Both SD and ND can have less fishing pressure, and in some instances most boats I see on the water are from out of state. Talk to many folks at the cleaning table who have MN stickers on the sides of their boats who won’t fish in MN. That is my observations. In some instances I use 2 lines, never have kept more than 4 walleye in one day though, even if ND allows more. No worries though, I still pay property taxes in MN and will continue to purchase an annual license for fishing. I like that one guys attitude (with a Mille Lacs location) that everyone from out of state should stay off his lawn! Makes me laugh

You are correct, ND and SD have way less fishing pressure in general and so they can probably handle two lines. Most of the MN guys heading over there are typically in it for the meat and/or just a change or scenery. I wonder why people aren’t flocking to WI for fishing vacations?

Never said stay off my lawn. I have a place at a resort, on Mille Lacs, and there are plenty of people that come currently from out of state. I have zero problem with it and happy for the resort owners. If you can read, what I said was we don’t need to add two lines, for a primary reason of marketing to even more out of state folks. Not the way to protect the resource.

Oh and by the way I fish plenty of lakes all over northern MN and so my observations are not limited to or directed at Mille Lacs.

disco bobber wrote:

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.

Disco Bobber gets it. Limits are set on averages. Similar to actuaries and insurance. Shouldn’t be that hard to understand, but I guess for some people it is.

Just one guide boat livewell likely sees more walleyes and crappies in a week than my livewell sees all summer.But its the guys that want to fish two lines that is going to do damage to the resource?I dont need one but I suppose I could just hire an exspensive guide to help find a pattern,then I could help fill his livewell and his wallet.

lindyrig79 wrote:

Oh and by the way I fish plenty of lakes all over northern MN and so my observations are not limited to or directed at Mille Lacs.

As I said earlier, there seems to be a line in the state where two lines are or are not acceptable.

Yes there are plenty that go to WI as well. Heck even on the border waters people from out of state (that normally want to take home fish) will buy a WI license over a MN license because of the difference in possession limits.

If anyone thinks that fishing isn’t a business that’s part of the economy AND that two lines won’t improve out of state fishing in MN… well, we’ll just have to disagree on that one.

The killer for me is if you don’t want/support 2 lines…don’t do it. As I’ve said about P4 where 2 or 3 lines are ok to use all year, is the fishery starts showing a decline, change it back. P4 has had ups and downs for decades but it’s not the fishing pressure that is causing it. Please don’t make me pull out the DNR surveys for the last twenty years!

There are some here that give the sport fisherman too much credit. I wish I was that good.

The fear runs high. The sky is falling. You would think we were talking about legalization. An extra fishing line is going to cause the lakes and rivers to be pillaged beyond repair? Wow.

For what it’s worth, I kept a walleye limit every outing for the last three seasons, on Mille Lacs.
Bring on the 2nd line. Sadly we don’t make laws based on facts. Fear rules the day.

Nobody said the sky is falling. I have stated I am against it, and given reasons why.

I’m glad the MN DNR is against it also.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lindyrig79 wrote:</div>
Oh and by the way I fish plenty of lakes all over northern MN and so my observations are not limited to or directed at Mille Lacs.

As I said earlier, there seems to be a line in the state where two lines are or are not acceptable.

I never refuted that observation. It’s probably pretty accurate!

Latest update:

“S.F. 226: Senator Koran: Two-line angling with second-line endorsement authorization.

Senator Koran introduces SF 226

Senator Koran gives oral amendment pg 1, line 11 “on waters not subject to special regulations”

Amendment is adopted

Darren Troseth gives testimony on SF 226

Vern Wagner gives testimony in opposition

Lance Ness (Anglers for Habitat; Fish and Wildlife Alliance) gives testimony in opposition

Brad Parsons (MN DNR, Fisheries Chief) gives testimony (Edit: Notice the DNR’s testimony is not for or against?)

Senator Koran moved that S.F. 226, as amended, recommended to pass and re-referred to the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Housing Finance Committee. – MOTION CARRIED.
***************
Still a long way to go.

lindyrig79 wrote:

I never refuted that observation. It’s probably pretty accurate!

See? We do agree on something!

Eelpoutguy wrote:

If that is you point, well it is not valid because the DNR has decided that the determined “limit” is the proper number. Correct?

I hear ya…and that’s why I don’t get why people get their panties in a bunch when i shoot my wife’s deer every year. DNR set that limit. Lol

bob clowncolor,
Not sure what you’re getting at? Sarcasm maybe?
If you are “party” hunting or fishing legally, there is nothing wrong with that.
If you are harvesting a deer for your wife she needs to be afield and carrying a legal fire arm, otherwise it is poaching.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

bob clowncolor,
Not sure what you’re getting at? Sarcasm maybe?
If you are “party” hunting or fishing legally, there is nothing wrong with that.
If you are harvesting a deer for your wife she needs to be afield and carrying a legal fire arm, otherwise it is poaching.

[/quote/]

No, I’m just being sarcastic and dumb. Just derailing it some more.

It’s a non-issue. If St. Paul is following this thread (why would they) they will see it’s not as auto-matic that everybody wants two lines as some would have us believe.

If they are following this thread I encourage (courage being the key) them to read the discussions about Mille Lacs Lake.

More limits will be caught that’s for dam sure, the result will be crappy fishing! We vote no.

MN = let’s make more laws! Not reverse them.

I’m actually really surprised this is even up for debate. Not being able to use two rods is downright dumb

Let people/kids have fun. Throw some lines out. It’s a resource and as long as we don’t abuse it, is fine to take from. Good grief.

The people way up on their high horse about people keeping fish can kick rocks

I love when guys from other states chime in about what’s best for MN. If you are sitting in the Dakotas or Iowa then you don’t see the masses of people. You don’t see certain people, lined along the shore in big groups filling buckets of crappie in spawn. Sure, let’s give those people another line to work with.

My kid has plenty of fun with one fishing rod.

Personally I feel listening to a person that has experience with two lines (or more) make more sense then listening to a person that has never used two lines. But I listen to both.

If the “big groups” are pulling crappies on spawn that fast, it would be difficult at best to use two lines. I can see where it would actually slow a person down if they wanted to limit out.

Now if it was a slow bite two lines would be more effective.

My kid has plenty of fun with one fishing rod.
[/quote]

lindyrig79 wrote:

I love when guys from other states chime in about what’s best for MN. If you are sitting in the Dakotas or Iowa then you don’t see the masses of people. You don’t see certain people, lined along the shore in big groups filling buckets of crappie in spawn. Sure, let’s give those people another line to work with.

My kid has plenty of fun with one fishing rod.

So why is it when people from Minnesota go to other states they use more than 1 line if they know what’s best for everyone

Outdraft wrote:

So why is it when people from Minnesota go to other states they use more than 1 line if they know what’s best for everyone

It is like gambling. We hate gambling. But when we go to Vegas we go nuts.

ajw wrote:

The people way up on their high horse about people keeping fish can kick rocks

I don’t think anyone is on a high horse on either side of this debate, so lets try to keep this discussion civil. I agree fish are meant to be kept and I think based on responses everyone here practices selective harvest so this crew won’t be an issue.

The only difference in opinion I see here is some are worried it may negatively impact fish populations and others are not worried about that. I’ve been saying from the start I have no idea how it will impact the fish population but I feel more fish will be kept. Right or wrong, that’s why I’m personally just a bit worried.

The DNR will make the decision though and there’s not much we can do about it. Lets just hope our leaders do what science tells them to do rather than any one persons opinion… whether that is one line or two.

lindyrig79 wrote:

<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?

Seriously… EPG, not even with 6 lines, but that was funny of you to ask him

Comically thing is, if it’s legal, how many whom are opposed to it, would get acclimated to it and possibly start utilizing it at some point. Then understand it’s not all it’s cracked up to be as a fisheries killer.

Imo it’s regionally not traditional in Minnesota, and people are just afraid of it. It’s the boogeyman. It’s just like party hunting for deer or bear baiting. We have grown up with both of those deemed as acceptable, while it horrifies westerners how unethical it is. Very similar to two lines. We didn’t grow up with it and it’s inbred in us it has to be unethical.

The hypocrisy or ignorance is more geographically than anything. Traditional usage is more engrained in us than we care to admit.

As far as crappie fishing, 100 boats are detrimental to spawning crappies, whether one line or two is legal. If everyone keeps their 10 out of those 100 boats, 1,000 crappies are coming off that spot no matter what. If concerns of over fishing spawning crappies is truly a major factor, maybe we should close panfish fishing from April 15th through June 1st? And keep all anglers off the water between that time period to protect all fish from anglers.

One line has been more detrimental in spots than none, so maybe we should start closing lakes to fishing altogether, or strictly limiting angling hours, to where if you fish more than 10 days a year, you should have to buy a different license that’s substantially more expensive to help protect the resource. And go to all barbless hooks like parts of Canada and completely ban lead, or ban trolling like some states, and ban live bait too.

basseyes wrote:

Traditional usage is more engrained in us than we care to admit.

Totally agree!

That and this law always turns to walleyes mostly. I guess that’s why the state is pretty much divided.

We’ll see what the next few weeks brings.

basseyes wrote:

Comically thing is, if it’s legal, how many whom are opposed to it, would get acclimated to it and possibly start utilizing it at some point. Then understand it’s not all it’s cracked up to be as a fisheries killer.

Imo it’s regionally not traditional in Minnesota, and people are just afraid of it. It’s the boogeyman. It’s just like party hunting for deer or bear baiting. We have grown up with both of those deemed as acceptable, while it horrifies westerners how unethical it is. Very similar to two lines. We didn’t grow up with it and it’s inbred in us it has to be unethical.

The hypocrisy or ignorance is more geographically than anything. Traditional usage is more engrained in us than we care to admit.

This is by far the most accurate and true post on this entire thread! You nailed it Basseyes

So we can all agree the two lines will help catch more fish?

My biggest concerns are with the amendments to the original bill and the fact that it now has “special regulation waters” exempted.

If 2 lines truly are not going to change fish populations, cause over-harvest, etc. etc. etc. then why wouldn’t this potential change to be applied to ALL bodies of water? If it’s harmless, apply it as a blanket regulation across even the most “prized” lakes in MN. Something smells a bit “fishy” here, pun intended.

(On a side note: This hypocrisy parallels SD’s weapons legislation about carrying firearms anywhere without a permit BUT in the state capital buildings. If being armed with guns truly makes you safer in all scenarios, why are there restrictions in these areas? This one doesn’t smell fishy…just more like $*** from politicians.)

I’ve been on the record repeatedly that I am very neutral on this topic. I fish primarily border waters and do sometimes use 2 lines on the MN side and 3 on the WI side where allowed depending on the application. Other times I use only one line due to the style of fishing. I sometimes see other anglers doing the same with little harm done and a more enjoyable experience overall. I also sometimes see a boat pulling 3 lines with someone who could barely tend to one, much less three as they’re dragging a 10″ sauger a quarter mile at 3mph only to be released to a sure death.

one line per person should be plenty like it has been since day one.