Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
broken_line

trolling motors on wmas?

11 posts in this topic

this spring i seen the minnow men drving around witha gas powered jon boat but the sign says no motorized vehicles does that mean in the water to?? the sloughs i mainly hunt are 2 feet of water and 3 feet of mud.. so a trolling motor would be nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most WMA or all do not allow any motor/trolling motors on the water. I could be wrong though, I'll have to check on that.

wait til the waterfowl regulation book comes out to be sure. There'll be very few changes for sure but not sure on what yet though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No motors mean no nothing. Paddles or likewise only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not having trolling motor is a stupid rule.... what does a troling motor even do to a lake ?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

normally these types of lakes are rest stops or refuge so the no motor thing is a great idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there legal issues involved with trapping minnows on a WMA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, we used to (still do occassionally, but not much at all) hunt a lake in WC MN, small farm lake. There were 6 groups of guys hunting it, and not crowding at all. Everybody got shooting and didn't mess each other up.

For years (like 50...) there was a gentlemen's agreement NOT to use motors on the lake. We also never hunted it past about 11 am. We let the ducks sit back down and rest. And boy did they build!

Well, a farmer sells land to some people/hunters from nearby town. No prob, I just wish we could have bought it... oh well. But they put out docks, started using motors, even waterskiing on it in summer. and Three / four boats with motors in fall. They had right to do it, but it sure got to be bad hunting after that. Ducks never had a chance to raft up, as they hunted all day, ran the boats after cripples, etc. Nothing illegal. But the lake went downhill hunting wise.

That is just my little story, but reinforces what I like about the no motor rule on WMAs. If you don't have the desire to row for a little ways, or have a strong young hunter to row you wink then, oh well. smile At least the motor won't chase off ducks for others.

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a law that's just in play DURING the duck season? I seem to remember that if we wanted to, we could trolling motor out to the blind on opening morning on a WMA, but once the season opened we would have to paddle back to the access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just looked at the regs, and you would have been in violation, unless you were on some of the exceptions, but even then its only legal during hunting season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No motors what so ever, it has to do with tearing up vegitation that the are managing hence the WMA. That is the answer I got from a DNR employee when I asked about using a trolling motor. Makes sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there better not be laws on trapping minners in wmas or im outa bait sources..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
    •  Come on.   The world, life is a bit more complicated then that.          Quit passing the blame. Your whole thesis is on choice and owning it.   Let me guess, you hate big banking also since they made it easy to refinance and purchase.   It just proves that general society is incapable of making the right decisions as a whole.   Sorry, you go down with the ship.    
  • Our Sponsors