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
fishin58

2 Lines

61 posts in this topic

My buddy just tried to tell me it was passed... Is there any truth to this? I checked the MN DNR site, could not find anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that wade!!! He said he heard it had cleared the legislature...anyone elso hear this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it did pass, it may have, it would not take effect till next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has that always been the case for border waters? I thought I read in the regs that a MN angler or resident has to follow MN regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see myself using two lines, except in the winter anyways, which is already legal. Fishing is either too fast and furious to keep up with two, or most of the methods I use aren't condusive to using two (lindys/jigs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is true- I'm immediately going to buy some planer boards....WOO HOO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is true- I'm immediately going to buy some planer boards....WOO HOO!!

My thought exactly! smile jig rod with a dead rod in the holder is also a killer tactic. Rod holders will also be in short supply.

Someone pinch me. Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone confirm or deny the validity of this info? I can't make the links work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this would be sweet to have a bobber set up while casting or jigging too. that way, you'd be able to really key in on what the fish want. It makes sense though since it'd kind of be like setting up a tippy and jiggin in the winter. I wonder if we'd see some abuse of this though with people exceeding their limit simply because they can catch more now. And what happens when you're trolling 4 rods with 2 people and God smiles upon you and you have 3 fish on? Maybe some trolling restrictions on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got off the phone with the Fishery Dept of the DNR and they stated that it did not pass and will not go into effect,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nooooo..Are you kidding? C'mon two lines will not change limit. Just pass it! People will gut and kill fish 1 line or 2, it does not matter. I fished Lake Superior with three lines and still only caught so many fish. What is holding this thing up? I would even pay a little more to use two lines. Good for the state. More lures lost, good for the economy. More people fishing and buying lic, good for state. What gives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got off the phone with the Fishery Dept of the DNR and they stated that it did not pass and will not go into effect,.

Thanks for checking this out! I thought I missed the big news while out in SD... where I was fishing with two lines. wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned, it did not pass. It was in the bill until literally the final moments before the Senate conference committee pulled it out.

The language for the two line provision was in the House version of the Omnibus bill where there was little to no debate about this issue and it appeared likely it would make it through. The companion Omnibus bill in the Senate did not have this language. When the conference committee met to hash out the differences between the two bills, including the two-line provision, the Senate members wouldn't vote for it and it was pulled out.

This was blatant politics by the Senate, and in watching the debate on the floor the last evening of the session it was clear that Representatives were unhappy that essentially if the House proposed something and the Senate didn't, it got the ax. If the Senate proposed it, then it was fine and dandy. It didn't get the votes due to pure political reasons as this was a non-controversial issue otherwise.

You can be sure it will appear again next session as this is the closest it has come to passing yet in the many attempts of trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DNR opposes the use of two line, and I do also. DNR studies have shown less than 10% of anglers actually catch a limit. So if two lines were allowed, more would catch a limit and put a strain on the resource. Having a limit does not prevent more fish being caught and harming the fish population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly could the DNR study this? It's not legal right now.

As I've said before I'm all for it, most people can't handle 1 rod effectivly, much less two, and they would still try, most likely catching fewer fish in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see this pass! It would be great to be able to troll 2 lines when crankbaiting lakers, northerns, or 'eyes. I like to fish alone unless my wife or kids are with me, and it's times when I'm alone in the boat, I'd love to be able to fish 2 lines. I don't really buy that a person will catch more fish with 2 lines. The limits for fish are already set, so all you would do is catch your fish sooner IF you are catching fish. If you aren't on the bite, you could have 10 lines out and still not catch anything. Just my .02 worth!

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think you'd catch more fish if you were fishing with a buddy, rather than by yourself? That's two lines. Let me say this again. Very few people, now, who fish, actually catch a limit-------around 7%. If fishermen were allowed to use two lines they'd more likely catch their limit. More people catching limits would mean more fish being caught. That would harm the fish population. There was a strong push this year to lower the limit to four walleyes, indicating we're close to, or at, harming the resource. In fact, allowing two lines would most likely assure that limits would be lowered. If we were to follow your reasoning that using two lines only gets you to your limit quicker, then why not allow five or ten lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people that will benefit are those 7%, they maybe will get a limit faster, no way do I believe that it will benefit the 93% that will never get their limit with 1 line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's been said before, but I know a lot of catters would like to run live bait on one line, and cut on another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just keep fishing the Croix and using my two lines. laugh

Two lines don't hurt the fishing. I've been out many times where I don't get a limit with two lines. Catch more fish yes, but you still have to get them in the slot. There have been times where I could have had my limit in shorter time because they were biting fast. But even with one rod I would have got my limit, it would have just taken 15 minutes more.

This is way overblown IMO. Two lines are not going to do any harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • We live in some sort of Bizarro world now - Sarah Palin calling Trump sinfully stupid.     Here's another one from Ann Coulter, who literally wrote a book "In Trump We Trust"    
    • You do realize that if the taxes were done that way, the cities would get $2.53 billion richer, and rural areas would get $2.53 billion poorer. The 7 county metro pays substantially more taxes (nearly 2/3 of the states total) than the other 80 counties in Minnesota combined, but only receives roughly half of the state expenditures.   Sorry to break it to you, but rural America is not fiscally solvent. Those citiots you speak of are bankrolling the entire country. It's easy to see on this chart: more urban states are to the left (givers) and more rural states are to the right (takers).  
    • I tried to purchase the screws yetti uses from Fastenal who is their vendor for the screws. They are only sold in large reels designed for a self loading screwgun. I finally called Casey at Glacial lake docks where I purchased my yetti and he sent me out the amount I needed. They work great to add additional fir strips. The plastic used to tie them together comes right off as you screw them in. Hope that helps. 
    • Sorry...was wrong on the specs.   Manufacturer is Core Ice.  It was 1450# for a 12' and 1250# for a 8'.  
    • I believe you want to use a zinc coated or galvanized steel according to the charts.  I'm sure someone will come along to correct me
    • In the back room there is a company that is using bonded foam panels (similar to garage door panels, but really clean looking), and had weights of 1250# for a 12' and 1450# for a 16'.  Aluminum trailer frames that could convert to a skid frame.  Can't recall the name.  I'm sure they were spendy, but I can see a concept like that going somewhere for the hardcore fishing crowd.   Yetti, Firebrand, Big Bite, and Glacier all had really nice display models.      Lots of campers (disguised as fish houses) out there at prices that make me want to jump into the business.  I was in two different manufacturers houses with prices well over $30k that had wire nuts for connections.  That is going to be a fun adventure for someone 2-3 years down the road when they find out their manufacturer saved $15 on their wiring.           
    • Thank you for all the help!  Ended up going with the Marcum VS485C.  After some research, there were a few other Marcums that were on the list (825 & 625), the Aqua Vu HD, and the Pan Cam.  The mini cams from all manufactures weren't what I was looking for, but they are cool and do have their place.     After seeing everything in person, I think the Aqua Vu HD had the best camera/screen.  The Marcums were a little bit behind, but the 825, 625, 485, and Pan Cam had similar real life clarity.  The 485 won out because of the $300 price point vs the others at $450-700, and was almost identical for resolution, other than the HD.
      I honestly think these cameras are all about 5+ years behind in technology in comparison to the broader camera/tv screen market.  Running off a 7-9ah battery is probably one of the limiting factors.  Another may be the cold.  The main reason (IMO) is that the manufacturers are hoping they can incrementally rape us by trickling out technology each year, similar to the computer manufacturers of the 90s/early 2000's.  For the price of a middle of the road underwater camera, I can buy a Chinese made 50" TV (these all have Chinese made 5-8" screens) and a GoPro or Sony Action Cam (which is 10x's the picture quality).       
    • Any newcomers in the wheelhouse business at the Ice show in St. Paul?
    • Im sure it's hard to see through your Liberal tears.  
  • Our Sponsors