Two lines in MN passed it's first hurdle!

Ahh, nevermind. I read it wrong.

biggill wrote:

OK, no worries

I hope this passes just because I want this thread to go into 2020. I need more popcorn

IMO, if the DNR wants to increase license sales all they have to do is make the license last 1 yr from the date of sale.

For example, An angler wants to try fishing in the winter but realizes the license would expire in 1-2 months or maybe weeks or days. Then they decide to wait until spring and end up never buying one. I’ve heard this from the hockey, basketball and wrestling dads so many times I couldn’t even tell you.

Life can get busy and if Dad stops buying his license now the kids aren’t exposed to it. I know this won’t pertain to everyone but I’m willing to bet anything this change would generate more income than adding a second line ever could.

sticker wrote:

I hope this passes just because I want this thread to go into 2020. I need more popcorn

Like

Simple resolution – if you want to fish with two lines, you must buy a special license to do so. Having another option at a higher cost (~2x the cost of current) would add $$ to the DNR to help the stocking/habitat programs.

As far as those that do not have to purchase a license to fish – require them to buy the “special” one if they want to use 2 lines.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

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).

Great info and thanks for sharing! Obviously you’ve done some reasearch and answered the questions.

If this data is correct, I’m not one to argue.

I remember a day when I used to think any lake with walleyes could be a good lake if limits were appropriate. Would drive me nuts to see lakes cycle every few years from harvest pressure.

Eventually I realized the walleye is “the harvest fish” and the DNR goal is never to create a trophy fishery. Their goal is to maintain harvest.

I wanted the opportunity to catch a lunker like I see on pictures… On a Tuesday. I.e. on any given day.

I learned I must fish fisheries that are trophy class and if I wanted that opportunity on any given Tuesday I’ll need to go to a fishery that can sustain trophy class fishery.

I didn’t pick LOTW, mille lacs, leech or winni as they’re all managed for harvest.
I moved to the Mississippi where zero stocking occurs and on any given day, a trophy and or a limit can be achieved without harming the fishery.

I hear “MN lakes are great”. All I think is… You got no idea what a good fishery really is!

Lindyrig guy you sound like I did before I realized little lakes are junk and always will be. Must more relaxing to accept reality than to fight it at every thought.

I’m all for two lines. Most lakes cycle with harvest. Harvest pressure is most related to people sharing a hot bite during a hot bite.
If there are a few lakes that don’t cycle currently from harvest but would with two lines, I you are full of self deception that they aren’t already cycling up and down.

DNR stocks fish so you can kill em.

Want to ease your mind. Go to fisheries and are healthy well beyond harvest.

Since limits are set on averages, then why are limits not going up due to less licenses being sold?
1978 – 1.3 million
2018 – .8 million sold as of July 1.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Since limits are set on averages, then why are limits not going up due to less being sold?
1978 – 1.3 million
2018 – .8 million sold as of July 1.

Technology… are these real questions you have?

Also, maybe part of the answer is more people have purchased a Lifetime License and not being counted in those numbers you found? I have one and so does my wife. I am planning on purchasing them also for my son and daughter.

At a certain point you just need to open your eyes and use common sense. I rarely even fish near the Metro anymore. Tired of stunted fish, garbage, and of course the crowds. I accept that there isn’t much I can do about that and choose to spend my time in Northern MN where you can still find quality fish. Not easy, and not like it used to be, but you still can.

Now we have AIS, technology, pollution, etc, etc. But limits have largely remained the same. But sure, let’s add another line. Step in the wrong direction.

lindyrig79 wrote:

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

Great Point.

And Fish Blood you make some good observations and I certainly don’t discount your experiences. But I personally don’t think the answer is everything is junk and just give up and fish the Mississippi.

lindyrig79 wrote:

And nobody has answered my question, why is it OK to compare MN to SD, ND, and WI in terms of regulations but not to Canada. They all border us! And look who has the best fishing of all!

And if your reply is because they have far less people, then your only helping me make my point!

Great point, under that same logic we should start limiting and regulating numbers of anglers on lakes.

Canada has good fishing because of geographic location, not because of it’s regulations.

basseyes wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lindyrig79 wrote:</div>
And nobody has answered my question, why is it OK to compare MN to SD, ND, and WI in terms of regulations but not to Canada. They all border us! And look who has the best fishing of all!

And if your reply is because they have far less people, then your only helping me make my point!

Great point, under that same logic we should start limiting and regulating numbers of anglers on lakes.

Canada has good fishing because of geographic location, not because of it’s regulations.

If you flooded Canada with the same number of people we have, you would get the same outcome.

basseyes wrote:

Great point, under that same logic we should start limiting and regulating numbers of anglers on lakes.

But ya, I guess if you want to start taking some of the extreme measures as you have suggested before…. just so we can have two lines….. then maybe that would work.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

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.

If it is ok for the one but not the other, it’s a bias based off traditional usage.

The weather during the spawn affects fish numbers more than angling pressure in non stocked waters.

If one line is the reason for our great fishing, think of how much better it’d be if we cut it back to one ice fishing.

If it was one line ice fishing and people were trying to pass two lines for ice fishing, but not open water, people would be crying foul and be against it as to how hypocritical that was.

lindyrig79 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>basseyes wrote:</div>
Great point, under that same logic we should start limiting and regulating numbers of anglers on lakes.

But ya, I guess if you want to start taking some of the extreme measures as you have suggested before…. just so we can have two lines….. then maybe that would work.

If their fishing is good because of lack of pressure, how do you produce good fishing if our lakes are over crowded? You limit angler hours, it’s the same thing with two lines. If you can’t do this or that because fishing pressure is to high already, then the dialogue needs to start addressing how many boats can be on a body of water at once. Maybe guides need a limit on hours and a limit that is less because of their knowledge and long term affect on a lake because of the volume of fish they help people harvest and the pressure they have on the resource. That’s not an attack at guides at all, just a fact guides put a lot of pressure on a lake both directly and indirectly by people learning spots and techniques that work.

basseyes wrote:

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

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>basseyes wrote:</div>
Great point, under that same logic we should start limiting and regulating numbers of anglers on lakes.

But ya, I guess if you want to start taking some of the extreme measures as you have suggested before…. just so we can have two lines….. then maybe that would work.

If their fishing is good because of lack of pressure, how do you produce good fishing if our lakes are over crowded? You limit angler hours, it’s the same thing with two lines. If you can’t do this or that because fishing pressure is to high already, then the dialogue needs to start addressing how many boats can be on a body of water at once. Maybe guides need a limit on hours and a limit that is less because of their knowledge and long term affect on a lake because of the volume of fish they help people harvest and the pressure they have on the resource. That’s not an attack at guides at all, just a fact guides put a lot of pressure on a lake both directly and indirectly by people learning spots and techniques that work.

I have said before that I am in favor of lowering limits. I would be open to other conservation efforts as well.

I am not in favor of keeping everything else the same, and adding another line. Something has to give.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

I remember a day when I used to think any lake with walleyes could be a good lake if limits were appropriate. Would drive me nuts to see lakes cycle every few years from harvest pressure.

Eventually I realized the walleye is “the harvest fish” and the DNR goal is never to create a trophy fishery. Their goal is to maintain harvest.

I wanted the opportunity to catch a lunker like I see on pictures… On a Tuesday. I.e. on any given day.

I learned I must fish fisheries that are trophy class and if I wanted that opportunity on any given Tuesday I’ll need to go to a fishery that can sustain trophy class fishery.

I didn’t pick LOTW, mille lacs, leech or winni as they’re all managed for harvest.
I moved to the Mississippi where zero stocking occurs and on any given day, a trophy and or a limit can be achieved without harming the fishery.

I hear “MN lakes are great”. All I think is… You got no idea what a good fishery really is!

Lindyrig guy you sound like I did before I realized little lakes are junk and always will be. Must more relaxing to accept reality than to fight it at every thought.

I’m all for two lines. Most lakes cycle with harvest. Harvest pressure is most related to people sharing a hot bite during a hot bite.
If there are a few lakes that don’t cycle currently from harvest but would with two lines, I you are full of self deception that they aren’t already cycling up and down.

DNR stocks fish so you can kill em.

Want to ease your mind. Go to fisheries and are healthy well beyond harvest.

I generally use anywhere from 12-15 lines on the river and have never caught a walleye. Hopefully one day I get the opportunity to fish more of those world-class lakes to land one.

Joe Scegura wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
Since limits are set on averages, then why are limits not going up due to less being sold?
1978 – 1.3 million
2018 – .8 million sold as of July 1.

Technology… are these real questions you have?

Yes Joe they are real questions, and back in the 70’s and even the early 80’s there was no such thing as catch and release.
You caught something, you kept it. Limits were statewide.

Are you keeping all the walleye you catch? I don’t.

lindyrig79 wrote:

I rarely even fish near the Metro anymore. Tired of stunted fish, garbage, and of course the crowds.

I live in a western suburb and fish almost exclusively within the greater metro area. The bass and muskie fishing is excellent. Ya, you painted that one with a broad brush and you are wrong because I live it and prove it wrong every summer.

basseyes wrote:

If one line is the reason for our great fishing, think of how much better it’d be if we cut it back to one ice fishing.

I’d be for limiting the ice fishing to 1 line right now. SOLD!

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lindyrig79 wrote:</div>
I rarely even fish near the Metro anymore. Tired of stunted fish, garbage, and of course the crowds.

I live in a western suburb and fish almost exclusively within the greater metro area. The bass and muskie fishing is excellent. Ya, you painted that one with a broad brush and you are wrong because I live it and prove it wrong every summer.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>basseyes wrote:</div>
If one line is the reason for our great fishing, think of how much better it’d be if we cut it back to one ice fishing.

I’d be for limiting the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>ice fishing to 1 line right now. SOLD!

You guys are exhausting, I’m about to check out on this one. Yes…. C&R species like bass and muskie are a different story. We are talking about harvest fish here

lindyrig79 wrote:

Also, maybe part of the answer is more people have purchased a Lifetime License and not being counted in those numbers you found? I have one and so does my wife. I am planning on purchasing them also for my son and daughter.

At a certain point you just need to open your eyes and use common sense. I rarely even fish near the Metro anymore. Tired of stunted fish, garbage, and of course the crowds. I accept that there isn’t much I can do about that and choose to spend my time in Northern MN where you can still find quality fish. Not easy, and not like it used to be, but you still can.

Now we have AIS, technology, pollution, etc, etc. But limits have largely remained the same. But sure, let’s add another line. Step in the wrong direction.

Pollution? Seriously? Clearly you are a young Lad.
AIS? Seriously? Some people argue it makes Fishing better.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Yes Joe they are real questions, and back in the 70’s and even the early 80’s there was no such thing as catch and release.
You caught something, you kept it. Limits were statewide.

And tell me what has happened since the glorious 70’s and 80’s??? Lots of lakes have gotten fished-out. Thanks for that.

Lindyrig79,
Could you clarify, are you saying the lakes got fished out in the 70’s and 80’s or they are now being fished out?

Could you be specific on which lakes are fished out?

Joe and Lindy,
What electronics do you run on your boat(s)? You could always go back to a Lowrance Green box and give all the fish in MN a decent chance.:

lindyrig79 wrote:

You guys are exhausting, I’m about to check out on this one.

I checked out on page 2. Then checked just now and saw it was to page 7…had to see what the fuss was about. Didn’t miss much…see ya on page 14.

The argument that they can add a fee for a second line because the DNR could use the money for stocking is also a pipe dream. This bill is proposed by a elected official, not the DNR. Any and all funds they would generate would instantly go into the general fund and be poured down the rat hole like our taxes are. The DNR would see nothing of it.

I support 2 lines ONLY IF it’s 100% supported by the DNR and 100% of any funds raised is used for hiring of conservation agents. Not training, not trucks, not seminars, not support personal in St. Paul. Live living officers to roam our lakes and woods.

Until that happens, nope i’m not interested in risking the future fishing over somebody needing a second line for whatever reason.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Joe and Lindy,
What electronics do you run on your boat(s)? You could always go back to a Lowrance Green box and give all the fish in MN a decent chance.:

Or just fish on eelpoutguys toon.

Sorry, I’ll try to keep them above the belt from now on.