Two lines in MN passed it's first hurdle!

You made me smile bobber stop.

bobberstop4054 wrote:

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

And get off my lawn

sticker wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>basseyes wrote:</div>
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
[/quote

ClownColor wrote:

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

So can we all agree… That everyone here wants to learn how to catch more or help others catch more… Fish?

So an IDO show helps you catch fish.

A bait shop report helps you catch fish.

Many PM:s are shared on IDO when someone asks for info on a lake that helps them catch fish.

Tactics, lures, rods, motor oil, yada yada are all shared to help people catch fish.

The latest technology many own help catch fish.

Everything in the fishing industry is geared to help you catch fish, or at least make you feel better about it.

Electric augers help catch fish, and guides too

Pretty obvious support for most the above.

My ears ring with hypocrisy. Might just be because of what is between my ears, or the spam I had for supper.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

Might just be because of what is between my ears, or the spam I had for supper.

Dang it Andy! Now people are going to think we are in K-hoots!
Why fish when we can all eat Spam?

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.

“certain people.” please…enlighten us what you meant by that.

What difference does 2 lines mean in a situation like that where they are “filling buckets.” That insinuates that there’s a good bite, and a limit is a limit, so what’s the difference other than they may catch their fish faster? If you’re so concerned about the resource, you should be arguing for lower limits rather than worrying about how the fish are caught.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>bob clowncolor wrote:</div>
So we can all agree the two lines will help catch more fish?

So can we all agree… That everyone here wants to learn how to catch more or help others catch more… Fish?

So an IDO show helps you catch fish.

A bait shop report helps you catch fish.

Many PM:s are shared on IDO when someone asks for info on a lake that helps them catch fish.

Tactics, lures, rods, motor oil, yada yada are all shared to help people catch fish.

The latest technology many own help catch fish.

Everything in the fishing industry is geared to help you catch fish, or at least make you feel better about it.

Electric augers help catch fish, and guides too

Pretty obvious support for most the above.

My ears ring with hypocrisy. Might just be because of what is between my ears, or the spam I had for supper.

That’s pretty much my point!!! Why is two lines a bench mark? Why not 4-5-or 6? I can easily troll by myself with 6 lines…been deep sea fishing?

The problem is…two lines is quite a big “help” vs many others you listed. Take Leech during a spring hunt. Last year the few times i was out early, the catch rate was 1 walleye per 30 minutes (DNR Figures). Figure the slot and other variables fishing two lines, I’d expect that to be closer to 15-20 minutes (maybe even sooner if I can pattern them quicker using 4 lines vs 2 in my boat.. If every 6th fish is a keeper (not doing math here), I’d bet I’ll be taking home a limit vs the two I usually leave with…now multiply that by partner and everyone else on the lake…it’s going to add up. Someone talked about averages before. When the DNR catch surveys some out, take Leech again, it’s basically saying 30 minutes/rod in the water.

I’m not for or against BUT would expect limits to decrease with this as well. If they do nothing of that nature when this passes, I’ll be 100% against.

I’ll also argue as to WHY this is coming out? Whats the purpose of it? Can someone answer that? Is it because one group wants to catch more? Is it to help protect our fisheries? Is it to get more kids into fishing?

Maybe knowing why would help…

tornadochaser wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lindyrig79 wrote:</div>
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.

“certain people.” please…enlighten us what you meant by that.

What difference does 2 lines mean in a situation like that where they are “filling buckets.” That insinuates that there’s a good bite, and a limit is a limit, so what’s the difference other than they may catch their fish faster? If you’re so concerned about the resource, you should be arguing for lower limits rather than worrying about how the fish are caught.

I think you know just fine and I am in favor of lower limits across the board. Do you understand how limits are set by averages?

ClownColor wrote:

The problem is…two lines is quite a big “help” vs many others you listed. Take Leech during a spring hunt. Last year the few times i was out early, the catch rate was 1 walleye per 30 minutes (DNR Figures). Figure the slot and other variables fishing two lines, I’d expect that to be closer to 15-20 minutes (maybe even sooner if I can pattern them quicker using 4 lines vs 2 in my boat.. If every 6th fish is a keeper (not doing math here), I’d bet I’ll be taking home a limit vs the two I usually leave with…now multiply that by partner and everyone else on the lake…it’s going to add up. Someone talked about averages before. When the DNR catch surveys some out, take Leech again, it’s basically saying 30 minutes/rod in the water.

I’m not for or against BUT would expect limits to decrease with this as well. If they do nothing of that nature when this passes, I’ll be 100% against.

Agree.

I would swear this is a walleye law.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I would swear this is a <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye law.

No Doubt.

And only applies to Leech and Mille Lacs.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I would swear this is a <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye law.

Well, to be fair, they were discussing the idea to use the money generated by the additional line fee to be used towards walleye stocking.

blank wrote:

Well, to be fair, they were discussing the idea to use the money generated by the additional line fee to be used towards walleye stocking.

I wouldn’t waste my finger tips on that. It’s still early and changes will happen.

Although stocking more flathead further North has a nice ring to it and will make this law actually benefit me.

You guys aren’t on my lawn are you?

If you guys want two lines on catfish….. have at it. I’ll agree to that.

And also yes, thank you for pointing that out. Get off my lawn…. and stay off!!

Lindy, I use two and three lines now. Thanks though.

Reminds me of the fella from the pike group “if you want to use two lines for your catfish, go to Iowa.”

Inland water people forget about the border waters and two be fair, border water people forget about inland water people frequently. The latter would be me.

Back to my lawn chair.

blank wrote:

Well, to be fair,

Brian Klawitter wrote:

two be fair,

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I would swear this is a <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye law.

What’s you’re argument? Walleye are fish. Fish live in lakes and rivers. This would affect ALL fish. You can’t change a rule and not think about ALL fishies. So if it helps you pound cats but takes a toll against walleye you are in favor?

Again, help me understand WHY you want this passed!!! Maybe you have good points. Is it to get more kids involved? Is it to protect our fishery? Is it to catch more fish? Why did they not push for 4-5-6 lines?

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Lindy, I use two and three lines now. Thanks though.

There are other places to fish for catfish. Like the Horseshoe Chain of Lakes near Richmond, for example. That is what I was referring to.

Absolutely won’t do a thing for getting kids involved. Kids can barely use one line.

There is no upside and a possible downside is real. But the “me, me” movement is gaining momentum.

Let me know when the DNR endorses the idea.

Dutchboy wrote:

Absolutely won’t do a thing for getting kids involved. Kids can barely use one line.

Agree.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I would swear this is a walleye law.

You are correct.

And this is why… Straight from the DNR website.

“The walleye is the most sought-after fish in Minnesota. Its thick, white fillets, handsome shape and coloring, and elusive nature make it the ultimate prize among anglers.”

If any law could possibly effect the prize fish of MN it WILL be the main focus. Pretty simple.

lindyrig79 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
Absolutely won’t do a thing for getting kids involved. Kids can barely use one line.

Agree.

X2

ClownColor wrote:

X2

/4

Again, help me understand WHY you want this passed!!! Maybe you have good points. Is it to get more kids involved? Is it to protect our fishery? Is it to catch more fish? Why did they not push for 4-5-6 lines?

[/quote]

It will give me another one of those floatey things too watch when I’m drinking Coronas, listening to country western, sitting on the pontoon.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

listening to country western

eelpoutguy

who needs to take out the pontoon with a fancy new dock.

corona’s are good on the dock.

Attachments:

1. 

   corona.jpg
   

MN currently allows 2 lines on all border waters except for Rainy River and Lake of the Woods and also allows 2 lines Statewide for ice fishing.

More bait and gear sold. This was started as a grassroot effort by Conservative fishermen. Not an attempt to fill a live well or cooler or bucket.

Wisconsin (they have walleyes too) allows 3 lines, Iowa allows 2 lines with an optional 3rd permit. South Dakota allows 2 lines and North Dakota allows 2 lines. Travel South just a little bit down to Missouri and you can use 33 lines.

There is a published study from Pool 4 of the Mississippi River that concluded that 2 lines and a continuous season year round had no negative effect on the fish population.

According to our own DNR data, harvest levels in the winter can exceed that of in the summer. A perfect example is Lake of the Woods. The DNR presented a slide at the roundtable this year that showed nearly double the harvest of >walleyes< in the winter compared to open water……yet we allow 2 lines in the winter.

Other states have set a precedent of offering a bonus line endorsement. Most states already allow 2 lines so in those cases it’s actually a 3rd line. I have not found any data from those states that show the extra line has had any negative affect.

Several large polls since 2003 have been made. These have been polls with a simple yes/no answer. Do you support 2 lines or not. Every poll ran has resulted in 80% saying they were in favor of it. The most recent poll ran was just this year on a FB Fishing group called “Fishing Minnesota” This group has approx 50,000 members that spans all types of fishermen around the state from Roseau to Rochester. It asked if they would support this bill with a $5 endorsement fee. There were approx 4000 responses and once again the result was 80% in favor. Ironically of the 20% that said no, about half of those said they want 2 lines, but didn’t want to pay $5.

Data shows that the revenue gained from this bill could approach a million dollars. A number of us think that these are funds that could be used to hire more conservation officers. In my opinion this is a big need. Anglers WANT more officers in the field enforcing our laws. We can change the bag limits to anything we want, but if those bag limits aren’t strictly enforced does it really matter?

This bill in some sort of fashion has passed through the legislature twice, only to be added to a bloated Omnibus bill and defeated by a Governor’s veto both times.

The anglers of this State want this law (of course there are some that don’t but they are a minority).

More gear and bait sold? That’s ridiculous.

Wisconsin? Seriously not known as a fishing destination. Sure, they have pockets of awesome stuff. But mostly they are known for over-fishing their waters and for MN people who want a cheaper cabin.

ND and SD, fraction of the population MN has.

A study from Pool 4? That’s a fraction of the fishing population that fishes there, not to mention it’s a river.

A poll of 50,000 online people in which 4,000 responded? Very skewed.

And your last comment, I just flat out respectfully disagree.

And why is it OK to compare MN to WI, ND, and SD but not Canada when it comes to regulations?

I have a feeling that if the DNR can see it generating more revenue (like a $5 fee for using a second line), then it eventually might pass. Its very similar to charging a fee for using a cross bow during “archery” season, which both Wisconsin and Michigan have implemented in recent years. The DNR knows that their license sales across the board have been slowly falling for years as our outdoorsmen population ages, and they are struggling to recruit new ones. Their salaries depend on license sales and associated fees, and thus, so do their jobs.