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

[mainbutter]

“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.”

Circle hooks people. Circle hooks.

Not only do they guard against hook swallowing, they also are self-setting when the fish runs after taking your bait, that is if you have the drag engaged and the rod in a good rod holder.

Circle hooks are all I use when I multi-line fish (not in MN obviously) for that very reason.

Other arguments have some validity, but some people just need to experience how to correctly fish multiple lines to realize that it can be done with no problem.

[BobT]

Catch it...kill it...eat it!

[Barbelboy]

I'm with BobT.

Walleyes, catfish, musky(tastes like yummy), white bass, perch, salmon, pike, largemouth, sunfish, carp, etc.

As long as it's legal to keep and I ain't over my limit, break out the club & fillet knife!

[Barbelboy]

Now I've gone and done it!

[LMITOUT]

Well I'm president of the Central MN Chapter of Two-Lines Inc. and I don't believe that two lines will affect the fisheries....even muskies!

I guess that makes me an expert too?

I would have liked to have heard a follow up question to the DNR "expert" asking specifically what kind of impact two lines would have on the fisheries. Never mind, I already know the answer and that is "they don't know" as stated themselves in various testimony given to the legislature when they were asked the question.

People need to realize that if two lines were allowed not every Tom, Richard, and Harry are going to be out there fishing with two lines every minute they're on the water. It was stated above that when ice fishing one hole is preferred because it allows mobility. Well, dealing with two lines isn't exactly easy and something that everyone will find out in short order when they start trying it. They'll be back to one line and probably remain with one most of the time. To claim that the number of lines is going to automatically double is simply not true....not by a long shot.

Although I'm a proponent of two lines, I would bet a majority of my time will be spent using only one just because of various conditions that don't allow me to be as efficient trying to operate two such as rough water, snaggy areas, too many people, etc. When the conditions are favorable to use more than one rod then I'd like to have that opportunity available, but I'm fairly sure that would be the exception and not the norm. Talk about statistics 101....

Common sense, people.

[Jameson]

Well I'm president of the Central MN Chapter of Two-Lines Inc...

...

lol, we need a new president that will get the job done...

[LMITOUT]

[rushing]

Imagine what the money from an extra rod stamp could do for peoples precious walleye/musky stocking or maybe get a few more CO's out there.

[PerchJerker]

Well I'm president of the Central MN Chapter of Two-Lines Inc.

I'm the Executive Director

[kg2]

Lots of experts on this site. (in their own minds)

[Jim Almquist]

Lots of experts on this site. (in their own minds)

I stayed at a Holiday Inn for almost a month

[bturck]

I'm no expert, just my opinion. It ain't broke so don't try to fix it. One line in the summer its worked for years

[collegepaul]

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?

Yes, there is data that would suggest two-lines would be more devastating to our fisheries. Personally, I don't care what other states do. I care about what happens here.

Let's make a couple things clear....a limit is not a limit. A limit is what you get to keep! I don't know about you, but generally what you catch is not what you keep...either too small or it was in the slot limit. Some people enjoy fishing for the sport of it, not just for food...imagine that, huh?! It's well documented that some fish die after they are caught and released. Using two lines and two hooks during open water will result in more fish being caught, why else would you be pushing for it so much?

[chub]

Yes, there is data that would suggest two-lines would be more devastating to our fisheries. Personally, I don't care what other states do. I care about what happens here.

Let's make a couple things clear....a limit is not a limit. A limit is what you get to keep! I don't know about you, but generally what you catch is not what you keep...either too small or it was in the slot limit. Some people enjoy fishing for the sport of it, not just for food...imagine that, huh?! It's well documented that some fish die after they are caught and released. Using two lines and two hooks during open water will result in more fish being caught, why else would you be pushing for it so much?

More devastating than what? Do you feel that putting a pointy hook in a fish with one line is DEVASTATING in itself....LOL (nice touchy feely language btw...) Would it DEVASTATE 1/100% of 1% more of a species? Would it be a 99.99% increase? I'm guessing you, I, the Dali Lama, your favorite biologist, or the Most Interesting Man In The World from the Dos Equis beer commercials won't be able to have a solid, fact based answer.

Then as long as we're "being clear"....

When you fish for "sport", do you quit fishing after you have landed a "limit" of a particular species to minimize the devastation, or if your on a good bite, do you pound and release them for as long as your out?

Look, nobody snivels about two lines through the ice, it hasn't lead to "more devastaion", nor would two lines in the open water season. Would some more fish be killed because of it? I would guess. Would it "devastate" our fisheries? I have a hard time seeing it.

Too bad someone from either side of the issue doesn't have any real data, other than it seems to work for many other states without a problem.

[DTro]

Hey I’m back

I’m all cleaned off and ready to P into the wind a bit more here.

Chub makes a great point about the sport fishing aspect. I have no doubt that 99% of us here has run into one of those bites that is just phenomenal, when do you quit? Sometime these bites can go on for days. Do you come back the next day? Of course you do.

We can split hairs and say that there are other things that can do far more damage than having an extra line in the water. Sonar, map chips, GPS waypoints, underwater cameras, heck even warm clothing.

I won’t disagree that there is the potential for more fish to be caught under the right circumstances, by the right person, using the right gear, fishing in the right spot, but to suggest that the bottom will fall out is a bit overboard.

Well you have to take those fish that are supposedly caught on an extra line, then determine what is happening to them, X% are caught, Y% are kept and Z% are released. So you have the small percentage of extra fish that is made even smaller when harvest and mortality are factored in. I bet the number is pretty small, considering that the first (extra fish %) is probably small to begin with.

Nobody yet has came up with a good argument to counter why the other states fisheries haven’t been devastated by the introduction of multiple lines. Like someone mentioned, Missouri allows 33 lines. I tell ya what, I’m surprised there is a fish left to swim down there.

I tell ya what, just give me the chance to purchase the right to a second line and even make it a handsome fee while you are at it. That will deter most folks yet still provide the opportunity to enrich my experience if I so choose to do so.

[collegepaul]

More devastating than what? Do you feel that putting a pointy hook in a fish with one line is DEVASTATING in itself....LOL (nice touchy feely language btw...) Would it DEVASTATE 1/100% of 1% more of a species? Would it be a 99.99% increase?

Would some more fish be killed because of it? I would guess. Would it "devastate" our fisheries? I have a hard time seeing it.

Too bad someone from either side of the issue doesn't have any real data, other than it seems to work for many other states without a problem.

Devastate was the wrong word to use but the point is that two hooks during open water season would have a negative/harmful/bad (however you prefer) impact on fish populations compared to single lines (that's what this forum is about einstein). You agreed more fish would be killed because of it. There's no way of telling how many people gut hook a fish that ends up dead on the bottom of a lake. I don't believe you have to have an exact number, it's simply based what kind of impact will it have on the fish population....positive or negative. That's what the DNR is acting on.

[Getanet]

I'm still listening to the experts. I'll grant you the guy from Muskie's Inc may or may not be an expert. But I'm very confident Ed Boggess, deputy director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, is an expert on the issue. And he's not acting alone, he's representing the Division of Fish and Wildlife stance on the idea.

The only reason the legislator gave for 2 lines was it's financial impact. If there is a law change, it should be for the benefit of the resource, not someone's budget. The legislators who had to vote looked to experts on the issue to influence their vote.

That's great if other states allow two lines. I'll guarantee you there are people in those states who wish only 1 line was allowed. The grass is always greener on the other side, until you get to the other side.

[DHanson]

The useage of 2 or more lines in the open water season does not support "sport" fishing and catch and release. That is a FACT. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there will be more gut hooked fish as the number of lines increases per angler. Again, this is a quality issue, nothing else. MINNESOTA is the most well-rounded fishing state in the mid-west. No other state is even close to the quality of fishing that we have here in MN. Those other states have a FEW quality fisheries, but not even close to the well-balanced fisheries we have in MN. We are further advanced in our natural resource management than any other state by a far margin. If you are a "sport" fisherman and prefer quality fish, then you are not in favor of 2 lines in the open water season. If you are a sport fisherman and are in favor of 2 lines, then you have not sat down and thought about the big picture yet. Plain and simple.

[PerchJerker]

The useage of 2 or more lines in the open water season does not support "sport" fishing and catch and release. That is a FACT.

That sounds to me like an OPINION

[DHanson]

How is it not a fact? How in the world does the useage of 2 or more lines support catch and release (sport) fishing? Basically, you stated your opinion on a fact.

[fish-n-fool]

Besides.... it's too hard to hold two poles when you're trolling..

[Fishinguy40]

Originally Posted By: DHansonThe useage of 2 or more lines in the open water season does not support "sport" fishing and catch and release. That is a FACT.

That sounds to me like an OPINION

I agree...sounds more like an OPINION than FACT

[mainbutter]

Besides.... it's too hard to hold two poles when you're trolling..

Rodholders are an amazing thing.

[fish-n-fool]

Don't have any...(except my hands, that is.)

I'd rather feel the fish biting than just watch the pole.

[chub]

Devastate was the wrong word to use but the point is that two hooks during open water season would have a negative/harmful/bad (however you prefer) impact on fish populations compared to single lines (that's what this forum is about einstein). You agreed more fish would be killed because of it. There's no way of telling how many people gut hook a fish that ends up dead on the bottom of a lake. I don't believe you have to have an exact number, it's simply based what kind of impact will it have on the fish population....positive or negative. That's what the DNR is acting on.

Thanks for the comparison to Einstein, Beavis.

Wouldn't the act of fishing in itself be a negative impact on the fish population? Be it a single line or multiple? Guess if I were so concerned about it, I'd quit fishing and join one of "those" organizations for the welfare of critters.

How about this.

Much of the southern part of the state is stocked. Little natural reproduction. Those fish are stocked for one reason. If the mysterious # of extra dead fish(that everyone is worried about, but can't state) becomes too high, we put more in.

"Who pays for that?".....cry the naysayers. Well, as few if any have mentioned a problem with an additional stamp or fee, that may be a logical starting point.

Until then, I guess I'll just lament on what the magical additional dead fish figure might be....... . Will it be six? Will it be six hundred? Six thousand? Six trillion?

Perhaps the additional income derived from the stamp/endorsement, additional fee, or what have you, will actually benefit the fishery by adding more stocking or programs that actually offset the additional mortality?

Huh? you mean there could be more of a benefit and not an utter and complete devastaion to our fisheries?

Einstein eh?

I like the ring of it