2 line fishing bill?

[TooTallTom]

goose89, my edit window has expired, so I can't make any changes to the original post (two up from this one).

[goose89]

People that are only keeping the biggest fish they catch, and are keeping as many of them as possible, are going to take advantage of any option to use two lines that is available. And that's going to harm the fishery. I don't see any reason to make that outcome any more likely than necessary.

I gotcha TTT. Thanks, and no worries...

TTT, I see your point, but I believe we can advance the principles of Selective Harvest, rather than be hindered by those that don't agree with or understand it. I don't always promote it by attraction (my bad, I'm workin on it), but do believe harvest practices are the crux of the "over-harvest fear" issue, not two lines.

[harvey lee]

You got it Goose, people who over harvest are the real issue not 2, 3 or even 4 lines.

The fish hogs hurt every lake out there but I am sure through education, it is getting better.

[TooTallTom]

I think selective harvest and quality deer management are birds of a feather. My response is the same to both: I generally agree with the principle, but getting everyone on board is necessary in order to make them work. And that's the problem, since you'll always have a few that just don't care or know enough to hold themselves back. There are others that won't even let the law hold them back, but that's a whole other problem. With two (or more) lines to fish, how many people will be triple-tripping instead of double-tripping? I know they're the minority of angles, but they're still a concern...

Like many of the other posters have said, I'd like to see limits addressed at the same time that number of lines is addressed. (Why can you have double the daily take fishing, but not hunting?)

[DaRangeFinder]

I don't think two lines is such a big deal as long as they keep it away from Muskies they have a hard enough time already especially with all the people that pretend to practice catch and release.

[goose89]

... selective harvest ... I generally agree with the principle, but getting everyone on board is necessary in order to make them work.

I don't agree there. I don't believe we'll get "everyone" on board anytime in the near future. If "everyone" has to be on board before we can feel safe letting responsible fisherman to use two line, well, I've got a few trolling combo's I bought over the last couple of years (hoping for 2- line "clearance") that I better put up on the classifieds.

I agree with Harvey, that it is getting better, and will continue if we set examples, especially voluntary (no law imposed) examples. Nobody likes to be told what they have to do, but if they can see some benefits without being forced into it, they're more likely to change, IMO.

[goose89]

(Why can you have double the daily take fishing, but not hunting?)

Is there proposals to double the daily take?? That would be news to me, but I've heard of stranger things...

[TooTallTom]

No, there again, more words would have been better. (Usually my problem is too many words. )

The possession limit for fishing is double the daily limit. Hunting has gotten away from that. Or am I not remembering this correctly on either side?

[Stringerless!]

2 lines.

[tunrevir]

I do believe the overharvest issues are part of the 2 line debate but everywhere I have fished where you are allowed multiple lines it is less of an issue. My point is, people that are fish mongers and want to stock up are going to continue to 2x trip and take and harvest more then they are allowed whether they can fish with 1 line or ten. It is a non issue with folks that are fishing within the regs right now. The areas where I see an impact are lakes like Red, LOW, Mille Lacs, Winne and such. Sometimes when folks are on a good bite they are tempted to overlimit and 1 line or 10 or more isn't going to change that. The best thing we can do as a fisherperson or conservationist is report what we see as a "Viable" disregard for limits for those that feel the need to take more then a law allowed share of fish. Enforcement has to do the other part IMHO. Therein, lies the problem, we are low on CO's, they get a bad rap when they check a group and then the internet discussion takes off. 2 lines aren't the issue in my opinion it is the habitual folks that take more then they are allowed under the law in the first place. Hooking mortality will go up on tribal managed lakes so is that something we can live with while the gillnets go out each year? If it is, not a problem and we can live with that then lets move on. I do not see 2 lines as the issue. Is it really a debate? Is it species specific? Maybe, but we live in a great country that allows us to have a voice. I say if you are yeay or ney, speak your voice to the legislators, the people that have the most vocal opinion will win this debate whether it is biological or otherwise. Talk to your legislator, backroom internet chat isn't going to get you very far other then being on the disgruntled side if you are against it or the victorious side if you are for it. This is a political animal, not based on biology other then the loudest most vocal voice will be heard. Again, I love fishing with 2 or more lines where allowed but I am also fine with one. Minnesota has a longstanding "tradition" of 1 line during open water and for those that catch a limit it truly means you caught your limit without the aide of an extra line. Maybe that makes us better fisherpeople as a whole, maybe it hinders our productivity when on the water, but it is something to think about. Technology is helping ordinary or subpar fishermen get into fish so maybe it should be a tech ban versus a 2 line issue. I can honestly say, I really don't get it other then the few who take more then their share. This post wasn't meant to be inflammatory but thought provoking. If it spurs you to act on either side of the debate good for you! Tightlines, I will be on the water either way, 1 or 2 lines and working hard to catch the fish that I am after.

Tunrevir~

[TooTallTom]

ToDaRange, how do you differentiate (for enforcement purposes) between someone trolling for muskies, northerns, or walleyes?

goose89, I know that we can't wait for every single angler, but the population of anglers that doesn't give a poorwordusage about the fishery, and will do as much as the law allows them to do regardless of the impact of their actions, is pretty big at the moment (and I fear will always be pretty big).

That's why I think that setting a good example is really important (especially where new or young participants are concerned) but having laws that do the protecting is also a good thing. I'd love to rely on people to do the right (not necessarily legal) thing, but I don't have much hope that they will do so in big enough numbers (or maybe just not act a fool is small enough numbers) to count on that for management. That's the cynical part of my nature.

[goose89]

I do believe the overharvest issues are part of the 2 line debate but everywhere I have fished where you are allowed multiple lines it is less of an issue. My point is, people that are fish mongers and want to stock up are going to continue to 2x trip and take and harvest more then they are allowed whether they can fish with 1 line or ten. It is a non issue with folks that are fishing within the regs right now. Tunrevir~

+1 !!

Actually, + 1 on the whole thing!

[goose89]

TTT,

I hear you for the most part (after your last post.)

Didn't mean to knitpick your prior post, but I didn't agree with what I was reading. I think we're probably on the same page....

I've got a cynic nature as well. I'm trying to be less of a cynic, and have more faith in humanity (obviously, up to a point). It ain't easy....but if I went along with all the "fear" we're exposed to........well, I wouldn't care about any of this because the world is gonna come to an end in 12/2012 But I have faith that, assuming 12/12 doesn't happen, the next generation will utilize the fishery as differently as we do compared to our fore-fathers. Selective Harvest wasn't even a thought 30-40 yrs ago. Hopefully the growth / change rate will continue to grow faster with sites like this, and more examples of how it works (taking a kid(s) fishing).

Sorry this thread has "swerved" from it's original topic.

Two lines supporter...for reasons already mentioned. No fear...

[TooTallTom]

Not to worry about nitpicking. I spent a lot of time in philosophy classrooms, so intense attention to detail is something I'm pretty comfortable with. I don't think we're too far apart either, but I'm probably a bit more skeptical. That's just my nature.

...the world is gonna come to an end in 12/2012

I know. It's actually slated for right near my birthday, I don't remember the exact date (of the world ending, I do remember my birthday) but I'm really looking forward to really excitedly (In my best borderline-crazy voice, complete with googly-eye.) telling everyone that the world got a new lease on life as a birthday present to me. Especially the ones that are freaking out about the world ending. Maybe I should offer my candle-blowing wish up for bids? Someone could use it to save the world, you know, just to make sure.

[goose89]

TTT, PM sent.

[mainbutter]

The possession limit for fishing is double the daily limit.

[DTro]

I believe Perch is the only species that has a different possession limit than daily bag limit. I think it's double.

[jwmiller33]

I believe Perch is the only species that has a different possession limit than daily bag limit. I think it's double.

dtro is correct

[TooTallTom]

Great, thanks guys. I'm glad to see that that law has changed. I'm also glad I've never had to worry too much about it personally...

[TruthWalleyes]

Great, thanks guys. I'm glad to see that that law has changed. I'm also glad I've never had to worry too much about it personally...

I love that change... But sadly i've heard too many people in the last year talk about their limit in freezer and limit on the water - not knowing the regs...They were quickly informed

[Gordie]

I still think that with all the technology today, the 2 lines allowed in the winter and not in the summer has to be the biggest hypocrisy in the MN regs book.

very true

[Rost]

Didn't MN come out with a walleye stamp a few years ago? It was my understanding that it really had no purpose other than to create more revenue. IMO they should put the stamp to use. Only those that have a stamp affixed (and signed) to their license may use an extra line. Pretty simple, I'd say.

In SD, we have a 4 walleye limit with 2 lines and I love it. The 4 fish limit doesn't really affect me anyways since I C+R a lot.

It's funny, a buddy of mine back in MN will argue for the one line law, but when he comes out to Chamberlain each spring (while the MN season is closed), he always uses two lines.

[goose89]

In SD, we have a 4 walleye limit with 2 lines and I love it. The 4 fish limit doesn't really affect me anyways since I C+R a lot.

I'd sign up for that, and the stamp idea.

[desert_bulls]

The walleye stamp is supposed to be used for walleye stocking and related activities.

[goose89]

The walleye stamp is supposed to be used for walleye stocking and related activities.

Ya.... Walleye account for (I don't know exact #) the great majority of DNR fish stocking. I can think of trout being sustantial, but they've already got a trout stamp that generates $$ for trout habit and stocking. Musky as well, so I may see your point, but not sure what your point was exactly.

I'll buy another stamp for two lines, or another liscense for a second line, no matter. I'll still buy a walleye stamp as well. I "think" I know where that money is going.