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

Noooooope, not passed. I'm sure that woulda been all over the place.

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

You have always been able to on minn/wis as far back as ican remember.

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

    • Either I'm slackin', or the sun is rising earlier than it did last year! Didn't make it to the river until 6, but surprisingly I was still the first to arrive  walked to my normal starting spot, but once there, something told me to go out of the ordinary. So I packed away my black panther martin and put on a crayfish husky jerk. I didn't catch the trophy I desired, but I did catch some nice ones, with the biggest being about 15 inches. I ventured farther downstream than I ever had before, and wanted to keep going, but it appeared that the fishing easement ended, and I may have been on private property. I stayed in the river the entire time, but didn't want to push my luck, so I went back upstream. Caught 19 total, probably lost at least as many. Surprisingly, no brook trout though. 
    • Oh yeah, a lot of the newer 1/2 tons have frame rust issues as well.  If you want a serious off-road machine, you need to go back to the models with the straight front axles, and of course, they're getting harder to find in decent shape too.  Especially in the rust belt.  You can still find solid older trucks if you head west, young man...        
    • Just to be clear- The wrangler wasn't introduced until 87 so at least compare apples to apples and having owned ford,chevy and dodge trucks of the Wrangler era I can testify they all have issues. My 08 Ram had more frame and fender rust than my older Jeep. The Chevy's have plenty of frame issues as well. Yes. It's a concern but if you want something like this,there is no better alternative.   https://www.google.com/search?q=chevy+frame+rust+problems&client=opera&hs=Lrs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAnPz1kMrTAhVpw4MKHSs9B1UQ_AUICigB&biw=800&bih=381
    •   Good questions. You have 3 body style configurations to choose from.  The YJ body was made from 87-97 and that had either a 4 cyl or an inline 6. It had leaf springs and a pretty spartan interior IMO. Some serious off roaders liked the leaf springs but they rode pretty rough IMO.   I feel the 4 cyl is anemic especially with bigger tires. The 4.0 inline 6 is bulletproof, has decent torque and power and fits the Jeep about perfectly. In the YJ series the manual transmission seemed like a better option in my experience.   The TJ ran from 98-06. This version replaces leaf springs with coil over shocks. Mine is an 06 and has the dana rear with the 4.0 and auto trans. I have BFG AT KO 32x10s and on gravel they have taken out 2 side mirrors by throwing rocks at them.    I prefer the TJ series. It has better suspension and interior than the YJ while keeping the original drive train. Fuel economy pretty much sucks as you are essentially driving a brick. I probably get about 12 MPG. If they had done a diesel I would think the wrangler could get 30 but...   The JK series replaced the TJ and was a pretty radical redesign. The body is wider, the drivetrain is totally different and the interior was upgraded quite a bit as well. They went to a pentastar V6 instead of the inline 4.0. trans was upgraded as well. They also started to sell the 4 door unlimited which gives more interior space as well. The new ones are much more civilized and refined which is great for taking the top off and driving to the lake or beach. OTOH they are expensive and harder to justify taking off the top and heading into the woods to hunt or find mud. 
    • Yes, you do have to have at least a weak cell signal and battery for the GPS to work. I know that can be challenging at times in the woods.
    •   Not sure about the new V6, but the old inline 6 was bulletproof, and had a lot of low end torque, which is a desirable feature in an off-road vehicle.       Any 1/2 ton pickup truck from the 70's and early 80's in particular, had a much better frame than a Jeep.  Body panels rust in all of them.   Not saying this is a deal-breaker for a Jeep, just something to watch for, since it is a very common problem.    
    • After doing a little looking there are a lot of options to these things. Anyone know how that new V6 compares to the in line 6? Some of the stuff I would like is the bigger tires and because I would consider putting a plow on it a lower rear end gear. The Dana 44 rear axel would be nice and would want a hard and soft top. I'm in no hurry to get one so Ill wait till the right one comes around. There are a lot of them out there that never leave the tar. More options in the later models as far as transmissions to. So it also comes down to how much I want to spend on one and how late of a model to buy. Sure don't want to spend 35K on a new one.
    • Well yeah but can you name a vehicle built for off road including any domestic pickup truck that doesn't have issues with rust. Fenders, rockers, frames etc. If you play in the mud and salt you need to maintain them. UTVs are no different. Ask yourself why Polaris would put the air filter canister intake in the rear wheel well so it is sucking in the air from the dustiest area they could possibly draw it from resulting in a 4k bill when the motor grenades.    Jeeps are fun, used ones can be had at a reasonable price but by their nature you need to be careful when you purchase because if the previous owner drove them the way they were marketed then they may have some issues.   But the aftermarket has an amazing amount of mods,upgrades and accessories to make your Jeep into anything you want and because the generally go 10 years between major design changes there are a large number of parts available if you need them.     
    • Anyfish it's still points and way better than a zero for points! Congrats on the fine eating bird.
  • Our Sponsors