2 line fishing bill?

[mnhunter2]

Anyone heard anything about the 2 line bill this session?

[DTro]

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages...=0&y=2011#H

[PrairieLakeLogJam]

That Idea was talked about a feew weeks ago on KTLK, Bear Facts & Fish tails it think its called,, Host: Lesmister (Who I Really enjoy) was thinking the DNR (would or could) charge a $1.00 fee extra for the extra line idea. Im ok with that, but im Not ok with across the board fee increase like the DNR wants, when I found out the DNR has $6 million of Un-Obligated funds sitting in the bank & just this week, Sen: Amy Klobuchar passed $25 million from the Feds, to the DNR. The spending bill looked good with words of Education,Teaching & Restoration, but that Sneaky word of "OTHER" was in the bill, and I know that could mean, "spend it on anything".

[prov1900]

But if your state cuts aid to DNR, like Nebraska is discussing (and other states)that reserve $$ would be gone in a flash and ultimately a deterioration of what you have now. With the way things are projected, savings are a good thing. Just my opinion of course. I like the 2 line idea but also have never complained about high prices when it comes to fishing/hunting...as long as I can see the benefit. (Which, of course, isn't always the case)

[Kyhl]

I get the point but don't see the need.

If two is better, why not three or four?

I watched two shows this morning where they were fishing with three lines each. One was fishing crappies with three lines, one was trolling musky's with six lines, three for the fisherman, and three for the camera man who didn't actually fish.

They were both catching more fish. Seems to reason, more lines equals increased odds, all other things being equal. At least they were catch and release.

Juxtapose the extra lines with the countless threads we see about the need for lower limits and tighter slots. On one hand some people need to catch more fish, on the other hand people want less fish kept.

Are they the same people? Probably not, so how about a compromise, 1 line. Problem solved.

If you need another line, bring a friend or neighbor fishing.

[live4chrome]

I think the whole two lines Idea is nothing but a bad idea, unless they want to split the limit in half, sure you will catch a ton more fish, but surely the fishing will suffer down the line.

[PierBridge]

Remember a limit is a limit....

It's not going to be a DOLLAR for the extra line if this passes. I'd say closer to $10 with $5 being the lowest possible number!

[mainbutter]

I'd happily pay $10 to have an extra line, and I'd also happily split my limit in half.

[reddog]

I'd happily pay $10 to have an extra line, and I'd also happily split my limit in half.

My thoughts exactly!

[goose89]

I'd happily pay $10 to have an extra line, and I'd also happily split my limit in half.

+2

IMO, most of us that are "pro" 2 line, are also "pro" conservation, Selective Harvest and ultimately respect the fisheries. I'd like to try different things to yes, hopefully catch more fish, but not to keep more fish. I keep enough fish to keep me happy with one line. Two lines isn't gonna affect my harvest one iota. I THINK, (not sure) most of us in favor of 2 lines have similar views.

[PrairieLakeLogJam]

Remember a limit is a limit....

Great Call! PierBridge

But there is a Way Around the limit, and still be 100% legal!

I have a good friend that is a C/O and works Mille Lacs alot,, The story goes with out to much detail YET, pack the Toyota Mini-Van with all 12 Kids and head North/West,,, maybe Not ethical but is legal.

Next week,( If I don't get kicked off of here ) I would like to start up a discussion on some of the Problems this C/O has seen and some of the Ideas this C/O has to make them Fair to all sportsmen!

If we could get a Solid agreement of consensus, I would like to head over to the Capital (1 mile away) and to the DNR HQ and start shaking some cages. Media EZ.....

[goose89]

If we could get a Solid agreement of consensus, .....

Good luck.... .

I think we have a great forum / discussion going (has been going for a couple years now), and we can agree to disagree, and re-hash it to pieces, but a "Solid agreement of consensus" (whatever that is) "ain't happenin".

[Down Deep]

I don't really care if the rule stays one line or a second line is allowed. What I do care about is that the proposal is being used as a fundraiser and an extra line would cost extra. I seen absolutely no reason how adding a line or two would add additional cost to the DNR or the State, thus it is a fee increase. Conversely, adding a fee would increase costs for administration and enforcement by the DNR. The cost of the fishing license should cover any number of lines that is allowable whatever that cost may be.

[PrairieLakeLogJam]

OK:goose89!

[PierBridge]

I was kidding about the limit is a limit comment. The DNR doesn't set the limit's based on everyone getting a limit.

The harvest and mortality will go up with more line's in the water. I think most who favor the 2 line bill believe the increased harvest will have little impact on the fisheries as a whole.

[mainbutter]

I think most who favor the 2 line bill believe the increased harvest will have little impact on the fisheries as a whole.

I support 2 line open water fishing.

I believe increased harvest will always have an impact on fisheries.

I also know that many states allow multiple line fishing, and are able to regulate accordingly.

For my own selfish enjoyment, I'd like to have multi-line fishing, and if that means increased regulation on limiting harvest, so be it.

[DTro]

I support 2 line open water fishing.

I believe increased harvest will always have an impact on fisheries.

I also know that many states allow multiple line fishing, and are able to regulate accordingly.

For my own selfish enjoyment, I'd like to have multi-line fishing, and if that means increased regulation on limiting harvest, so be it.

Right on!

[Brad B]

some may not agree with me but I would like to see a 2 line rule passed but in there have a exception that says something to the effect that if you use 2 lines and they are set up to use live bait then there should be a requirement that circle hooks are to be used. some walleye guys probable would say you can't lindy rig with circle hooks but there has been a few people on here that have used circles when lindy rigging and had no issues. the other thing some would say is that circles won't work on lures. I know this and that is why the circle hook restriction would apply to live bait rigs where there is a greater chance of a gut hook. I have personally switched to all circle hooks with live bait rigs(except for flatheads, I use 8/0 j style hooks on them but will try 10/0 circles in place of them) and have had no issues with using them.

[Loose]

Yea Brad I can say we disagree on the circle hooks

[harvey lee]

I would be all for this bill if they did not have to take more money. No ten bucks is no big deal at all but why do they have to charge more? It does not cost anymore.

So if they feel it has to go up in price but the 2 line ice fishing never had to, then fine I will stay against simply out off principal.

There is a time when a person has to say no even if it hurts you a bit or those donkey's will keep charging more for everything and wasting the money.

To each his own I guess.

[Ed Carlson]

I OK with up to 4 lines if the angler will purchase a new license for each individual line, up to 4 total per angler.

*A second rod option, buy another license for it.

*All daily and possession limits must remain the same.

If you wish it to pass the legislature, then they will need an incentive..(New revenue stream)..as usual.

It wouldn't be that difficult to put into play, and to enforce effectively.

Each license has a code # on it now, just code the number so it reads XXXXXXX-1, or XXXXXXX-2, or XXXXXXXX-3, ect..and so on.

Enforcement practices wouldn't need to change at all really.

Simply check the party, count the lines observed in use by the officer at hand, see the code on the license that party is registered under, immediately evaluate compliance.

I don't see any huge overcomplicated enforcement issues with that process personally.

As for who's rod is who's in a group, that enforcement challenge is already one they deal with daily, and they appear to be doing so without any major complications.

[harvey lee]

I could probably live with that. I really do not agree with the license increase but I guess that's the way it has to be. My thinking more than likely needs to change.

[Ufatz]

Well fellas, I've always believed a two line guy would also be happy with a belt-fed shotgun for pheasants and legal corn piles for deer.

C;mon.....gimme a break: most of you guys can't catch a fish with ONE line so whats the deal with two? Oh....I get it: you don't catch TWICE as many fish with two lines.

Two line fishin' is a hillbilly throwback to the backwaters of Alabama.

But ya'll go ahead a gnaw on it for a while. Have fun.

[harvey lee]

I guess I would be for using 2 lines for trolling and fishing catfish.

Yes, I can catch fish with one line. It would be nice to use 2 lines trolling with cranks to see what the fish might prefer that day. It also would be nice to use 2 lines for fishing flatheads to fish 2 different types of structure at the same time to see where the fish are located. I realease all my catfish so I would not do the fishery any harm or at a minimim very little.

I already have an automatic shotgun so there is no need for a belt fed gun for bird hunting.

Never thought I was a hillbilly but by your thoughts, maybe I am and I am fine with that.

I have no issues with 2 sides to every discussion but I doubt you have to call those who disagree with you a hillbilly.

I guess I should get back to checking my new batch of shine now.

[walleye365]

theres no need for 2 lines. As for the money+dnr+state= us and some of the dnr employees getting screwed,and the other state employees getting fuller pockets.