Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. ?

So what happened to the 2 line in open water proposal?


Gus

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is a reason Pool 4 can handle 2 lines per person, it is a world class fishery. It has a unreal amount of baitfish and great genetics. I think the DNR is more concerned about the 99% of state waters that does not have the "perfect conditions" to support a high harvest rate. This is just my opinion and a different angle to look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

idk how to feel about it... i would like it but i also feel like lazy people that dont have time to sit and wait for a limit would get theirs and ruin the fisheries.. down here in the sw corner if 100 crappie gets taken out of a 300 acre lake its going to do some harm along with 20 walleye out of the 100 that are in there..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pool 4 is just one example of a border water. What about the entire state of Wisconsin? laugh

Last I heard the fishing was pretty good over there. whistle

Let’s say there is a hot hot bite somewhere with crappies or walleyes or whatever. Everybody knows about it and the fish are committing suicide. The no brainer type of bite, throw your line out and fill your bucket. Do you really think 2 lines is going to matter? Nope, the people that are bound and determined to fish it out will do just fine with 1.

I also would favor a fee for the second line option. That would probably eliminate half the people right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no expert in statistics, but you don't ask Joe Shmoe the bike rider if he is for or against using two lines while fishing, you ask people who fish.

This HSOforum is full of people who do what? Fish.

Seems like a good place to do a survey on it.

So maybe we should just be able to use 1 line ice fishing then also if two will lead to "fishing lakes out". Seems like when as easy bite gets going more people hit it when its winter time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think of all the states that allow multiple lines and the quality of the fishing in those states. Why does MN up the # to 2 during the winter? Doesn't that put additional strain on suceptable species like crappies which are much easier to locate in the winter? (at times)

How about banning crappie fishing until June 1st every year to protect them while they spawn or move shallow to forage in early spring? Similar things like the Mille lacs night ban are currently used to protect vulnerable species.

I went fishing in Missouri this spring. Anybody have any idea how many lines you are allowed down there? 33! And that includes jug lines, limb lines, trot lines and treble hooks without the stupid bead and blade. You have to label the rod with your name & info after #10! And don't tell me they don't have some incredible fishing down there. What about side imaging and GPS systems? Do they contribute to an anglers ability to successfully catch a limit? Should they be banned? God forbid a guy use a depth finder, marker bouy, or even landmarks to allow themselves to locate structure. It might speed up how fast they catch a limit!

Lets be honest, the majority of anglers couldn't effectively use 2 lines most of the time anyway. In addition to that there are limited times when 2 lines are feasable. I for one don't think it would have a significant impact on our fisheries. Even if you are scared that it would, isn't that what we pay the DNR fisheries bioligists to determine? Couldn't they adjust limits, slots to protect fisheries? Heck, almost every body of water already has it's own special regulations anyway. In the spring on Mille lacs you can get ticketed for being on the WATER after 10 pm with fishing gear in the boat!

Should't we worry about the people with 5, 6, 7 or more limits of fish in their freezer? Not a person who simply wants to use 2 lines? If you want to use one line go ahead, but if I can use two i'm going to, even if I have to pay for it. And I'd bet you will too.

p.s. I agree with MnsnowtaWild, it would be great for catfishing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pool 4 is just one example of a border water. What about the entire state of Wisconsin? laugh

What about the state of Wisconsin? Many lakes with walleye limits of 1 or 2, and no trolling allowed. Is that what you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no expert in statistics, but you don't ask Joe Shmoe the bike rider if he is for or against using two lines while fishing, you ask people who fish.

When the state amendment for the outdoors recently passed everyone voted on it. Not just outdoorsmen, fishermen, or hunters. The outdoors is in everyone's interest, and it is elitist to say "only fishermen" should have a say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, 2 walleyes is plenty for me, especially if I take my wife along. That’s 4 and would make 2 nice meals for us and probably 3 depending on the size.

Hearing arguments about the precious walleye all the time gets old. Most fish taste pretty darn good. Even catfish, musky and bass. Done responsibly, there’s plenty of fish to eat.

The trolling law is a bit misunderstood in WI, looks to me like you can troll in a lot of places:

Trolling is currently allowed on the following inland waters:

• All waters of Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Dane, Douglas, Grant, Iowa, LaFayette, Polk, Racine, Richland, Rusk, Taylor, Washburn and Waukesha Counties;

• the Wisconsin River including sloughs, bayous and flowages from County Highway A downstream (east of Tomahawk, WI in Lincoln County), excluding Lake Mohawksin, and excluding that portion of the Castle Rock Flowage north of the County Highway G bridge;

• the Chippewa river including sloughs, bayous and flowages up to the flowing portion of all tributary streams from the Holcombe flowage, Chippewa county, downstream;

• the Fox River from Buffalo Lake downstream to the DePere Dam, and

Additional Waters

The following named lakes and rivers, their flowages and sloughs, also allow trolling.

• Adams County - Mason; Wisconsin River (including Castle Rock and Pentwell Flowages)

• Ashland County - Kakagon River and Slough

• Brown County - Fox River

• Buffalo County - Chippewa River

• Calumet County - Lake Winnebago

• Chippewa County - Chain; Long (T32N, R8W) including Herde Lake. On the Chippewa River (including Lake Wissota, Old Abe, Chippewa Falls, and Cornell flowages and tributaries of the river from their mouths upstream to the first dam or lake), motor trolling is permitted, but only up to the first road, bridge orrailroad bridge. On the Holcombe Flowage and tributaries, motor trolling is permitted up to the flowing portion of the tributary streams.

• Clark County - Arbutus

• Columbia County - Columbia; Wisconsin River (including Lake Wisconsin all impoundments and sloughs)

• Crawford County - Wisconsin River

• Dodge County - Beaver Dam; Fox; Sinnissippi

• Door County - Clarks; Kangaroo

• Dunn County - Menomin; Tainter. Chippewa River including streams flowing into the Chippewa River from their mouths up to the first road or railroad bridge, motor trolling is permitted.

• Eau Claire County - Altoona; Eau Claire. Chippewa River (includes Dells Pond and tributaries upstream to the first dam or lake), motor trolling is permitted (including tributaries, but only up to the first road or railroad bridge).

• Florence County - Halsey

• Fond du Lac County - Lake Winnebago

• Forest County - Butternut; Franklin; Lucerne; Metonga; Pickerel; Pine; Wabikon

• Green Lake County - Big Green; Maria; Puckaway; Fox River

• Jackson County - Arbutus

• Jefferson County - Koshkonong; Rock Lake

• Juneau County - Wisconsin River (including all impoundments and sloughs, except that portion of the Castle Rock Flowage north of the County Highway G bridge); Kilburn Flowage

• Kenosha County - Elizabeth

• La Crosse County - Neshonoc

• Langlade County - Post (Lower); Post (Upper); Rolling Stone; Pickeral

• Lincoln County - Spirit River Flowage; Wisconsin River from County Highway A downstream, excluding Lake Mohawksin

• Marathon County - Big Eau Pleine Reservoir upstream to highway 153 bridge; Wisconsin River (including all impoundments and sloughs

• Marinette County - High Falls Reservoir; Noquebay

• Marquette County - Buffalo; Mason; Fox River (downstream from Buffalo Lake)

• Oconto County - Christie; Machickanee (Stiles Pond); White Potato

• Oneida County - Columbus; Rainbow Flowage; Sugar Camp; Thunder; Willow Flowage

• Outagamie - Fox River

• Pepin County - Chippewa River including tributaries up to the first road or railroad bridge

• Portage County - Little Eau Pleine Flowage east of county highway "O"; Wisconsin River (including all impoundments and sloughs)

• Price County - Pike; Round

• Rock County - Koshkonong

• St. Croix County - Cedar

• Sauk County - Redstone; Wisconsin River (including Lake Wisconsin and all impoundments and sloughs)

• Sawyer County - Big Lake Chetac; Grindstone; Lac Court Oreilles; Nelson; Round; Whitefish; Windigo

• Shawano County - Shawano

• Sheboygan County - Sheboygan Marsh (including Sheboygan Lake and its tributaries upstream to the first road crossing)

• Walworth County - Beulah; Como; Delavan; Geneva; Whitewater

• Washington County - Big Cedar; Pike

• Waupaca County - Partridge; White

• Waushara County - Poygan; Fox River

• Winnebago County - Winnebago Pool Lakes (includes Butte des Morts, Poygan, Winnebago, Winneconne); Rush; Little Lake Butte des Morts; Fox River

• Wood County - Wisconsin River (including all impoundments and sloughs)

Is there a perfect system? NO

Will the fishery collapse with a 2 line law? I don’t think so

Do I think arguments against 2 lines are valid? Yes

Are there benefits to this legislation? Considering that people will purchase extra gear, and also if a fee is adopted, that is also additional revenue for the State and or DNR I would say, Yes.

Are there negatives? There very well could be, but most if not all are based on speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question is as stupid as taking a poll and asking people if they want an ice cream cone? Obviously they are going to say yes for their pleasure. If I was greedy and wanted to catch more fish with 2 lines, (I would no doubt) I am obviously going to be in favor of 2 lines, duh! Now, if I sit down and think about the future of our fisherys and the quality of those fish, I say NO I'm not in favor of 2 lines.

And on the other side of the ice cream cone issue, if I sit down and think about it, I say No I don't want an ice cream cone because I'm fat enough. But it's such a dumb question that obviously you are going to get responses in favor, but the question is what is BEST for our fisheries, not our bellies. Again please get more greedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DHanson, you sound like the kind of guy that likes to legislate thinking. Maybe we should make double cheeseburgers illegal too. Single cheeseburgers are a much smarter choice, not only for our bodies, but also for the environment.

There is data to show that multiple lines will not devastate a fishery in neighboring states, do you have data to reciprocate that argument?

Are we too greedy using 1 line? Lot's of greedy icefishermen huh? laugh What is the threshold? Pop bottle and 50yrds of twine?

I’m done with this one for a while now. Someone else can toss it back and forth for a while. smile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
What about the entire state of Wisconsin?

Last I heard the fishing was pretty good over there.

It is just my opinion on having one line. I guess I am a believer in "if it's not broke don't fix it".

I am not saying that the fishing sucks in WI, but does it really compare to Minnesota?

I am out of this debate as I have expressed my opinion and I will leave it at that.

There is one parting question here. If catfish were actually caught and kept on a ongoing basis on the Minnesota River would you feel the same knowing that there will be a better chance for fishermen to take home a limit. I know that there are times of the year you are going to catch a lot but there are times that you don't. A limit is not a limit if you can not put a limit in the boat with one line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got time too toss this one around so I will...

DHanson and alg, who should we survey about being able to use two lines and if they are in favor of it?

Secondly, make a stamp that you buy that allows use of two lines but only half limits (no matter number of lines used), solves your problem of over harvest huh? And all you self righteous "I only need one line because thats all I ever had and I'm the best and can catch my limit where ever and whenever" guys can save the $5 bucks and keep more fish than us greedy guys who can use two lines.

If people so rarly catch a limit then will they catch one using two lines? Does using two lines double your catch?

IMO no it doesn't and no they won't. It might increase it by a third or so, but you only put your bait infront of so many fish in a day, maybe your first presentation doesn't do it but the second does and you catch a few more. It will give me another thing to tinker with in the boat and one more chance to figure out what is working, which means more fun for this guy. Call me greedy if you want, but I sure like to have fun.

If the DNR feels that this won't hurt the fisherys, then let them do their job and open up the restrictions some.

A limit is not a limit if you can not put a limit in the boat with one line.

Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pool 4 is just one example of a border water. What about the entire state of Wisconsin? laugh

Last I heard the fishing was pretty good over there. whistle

Let’s say there is a hot hot bite somewhere with crappies or walleyes or whatever. Everybody knows about it and the fish are committing suicide. The no brainer type of bite, throw your line out and fill your bucket. Do you really think 2 lines is going to matter? Nope, the people that are bound and determined to fish it out will do just fine with 1.

I also would favor a fee for the second line option. That would probably eliminate half the people right there.

How about pool 3, the st. croix, all of north and south dakota as well? Multiple lines can be used and no issues with fishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says you are guaranteed a limit with 10 lines? You aren't. Still have to find them and fish for them. Two lines don't ensure a limit.

I didn't say you are guaranteed a limit with 10 lines. I said more people would catch limits if fishermen used more lines. If less than 7% now catch a limit and it jumped to 15 or 20% (not a 100%), the amount of fish harvested would double or triple. If a second line were allowed, it's not "just one more line". It's twice as many lines. If there were 250 boats fishing on Mille Lacs Lake, with two lines it would be like 500 boats fishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If people so rarly catch a limit then will they catch one using two lines? Does using two lines double your catch?

IMO no it doesn't and no they won't. It might increase it by a third or so,"

I never said it would double their catch. I said more people would catch a limit. And if you're right, that the fish harvest would increase by one-third, that's a lot! The DNR feared over-harvest at present levels, let alone at an increased harvest of one-third. That's why they pushed to lower the walleye limit to 2 or 4. Why would you take the chance of harming the resource by allowing two lines when it works perfectly well the way it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only use 1 line in winter. 2 lines definitely help catch more crappie when they are roaming through. Catch them quick while they are under you.

I prefer to stay mobile and try to stay on top of the fish. Call it a challenge, if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can compare using 2 lines when ice fishing to 1 line in open water. The obvious difference is mobility. Some ice fisherman are relatively mobile, but you're basically fishing straight down an 8 or 10 inch circle. That doesn't compare to having a trolling motor, drifting or casting where you can work an entire structure in very little time with very little effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than you often see NUMEROUS houses packed in a small area, effectively covering the structure. Being less mobile, I'd be willing to bet that those extra hours put in the shack result in more fish being caught than would be on open water.

The wind blows, you can fish. Too cold out, turn up the heat. Tired, leave lines in and take a nap. Bored, leave lines in and play cards.

Might just be me, but from what I see in my area, I would guess more fish are caught and KEPT during the ice season than the open water season. Might not be that way everywhere, but I strongly suspect it is.

The people that are adept at catching fish will still catch them whether they use one line or twenty. Those that struggle will continue to struggle.

Guess my question would be, would the states that allow more than one line become exponentialy better fisheries if they dropped their multiple line rules? If any of them thought that I would think it would be a VERY cost effective way of boosting their tourism and fishing experience.

Apparently none of them feel that way.

I get the feeling many of the people that fear the two line deal are the ones that have trouble maintaining one, let alone two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason people want 2 lines is to have the opportunity to increase their fishing success. With more fishermen each year why would we do that and put more stress on a natural resource?

Not to pick on Riverrat 56, but he said, “If the DNR feels that this won't hurt the fisherys, then let them do their job and open up the restrictions some.” I agree, let the DNR do their job. The DNR has weighed in on this issue, and they oppose allowing 2 lines.

Here is what their expert said in a Star Tribune article on the 2 line proposal:

"It's not a fishery population issue, it's a quality issue," said Ed Boggess, deputy director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Boggess said putting more lines in the water would result in more fish being caught, potentially causing more stress on the fish, sometimes leading to death. The DNR might have to respond with more restrictions on certain lakes if that became an issue, Boggess said.”

Not enough? How about the next quote in the article:

“Shawn Kellett, president of the Twin Cities chapter of Muskies Inc., said allowing anglers to use two lines for muskie could be especially harmful. Anglers distracted by having two lines might not reel in a muskie right away, leading the fish to swallow the hook and eventually die, he said.”

Here’s a link to the full article.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/38404799.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiacyKUUr

So far there are two experts who fear using 2 lines in MN would be a bad idea. That’s good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess if two "experts" say it's so then it is. It's just too bad all the other states out there just aren't as morally advanced as we here in MN. They are really missing out!

Just think how much better fishing could be if we reduced the number of lines through the ice by 50%

Guess it really doesn't matter to me from a catching or keeping standpoint. I still get all I want with the current regs. If I feel like the challenge of running boards and multiple lines, I'll just skip on out to Bigstone and pull my lines through the fishless waters there... .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now ↓↓↓ or ask your question and then register. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.