what do you guys think of the new Conservation License?

[LMITOUT]

Take some of your own advice and stop and think about it yourself....So if you could use two lines but agree to not keep any fish that's not 'ultra-conservative'? Not keeping any fish is nearly as conservative as quitting the sport all together. Even if it's the half limit- you're not keeping any more fish with a 2nd line.

What you posted makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You tell me to think about it and then more or less make the same point I was making.

Why would you pay a king's ransom when you're effecting the resource the least? The trade-off is right there: you get to double your lines but only get to take half the normal limit.

There is no reason to pay extra for that.

Good grief.

[Sherpa]

Limitout, what is so hard to understand about wanting to use a second line to catch more fish? Whether I'm keeping fish or not I prefer to catch fish in larger numbers. A second line helps me to do this.

[Alagnak]

There's no option to do such a thing now and no option in sight. Money seems to be a motivator so PERHAPS they'd think about it if they were going to make some money- that's why I'd pay a 'king's ransom'. Put it this way, I would be willing to pay less than or equal to what a ticket is for extra line. I'm not keeping any fish, and especially when I'm by myself- I want to have two bait options out there until I know what they prefer that day. I would pay that to do it legally during daylight.

Like I said- nobody has to buy it whether they don't like the idea or the price.

[DTro]

My comment regarding buying a second full price license was based on the first license being a standard full limit license.

I agree that if there was a conservative type license that has very low bag limits but allowed a second line it shouldn't cost more.

Sorry to throw this whole thread off track with the bonus line talk. But with the MNDNR starting to offer a handful of options, I would love to see a bonus line option.

[merkman]

I've always said i would purchase a second license at full price to use another line.

That makes the most sense.

The state of Minnesota would love to increase fishing participation by having people new to the sport buy a license and allow them to keep a legal possession of fish.

With the idea DTRO proposes the state would get their money for the "extra angler" but the fishery would not feel the pressure of another person taking another possession limit.

Let people buy two licenses, but keep the possession limits the same for the person no mater how many lines they purchased.

Keep it simple:

2 consevation licences 1 conservation possession limit,

2 regular licences 1 regular limit.

A conservation licence and a regular licence... not allowed

.

[DTro]

There's no option to do such a thing now and no option in sight. Money seems to be a motivator so PERHAPS they'd think about it if they were going to make some money- that's why I'd pay a 'king's ransom'. Put it this way, I would be willing to pay less than or equal to what a ticket is for extra line. I'm not keeping any fish, and especially when I'm by myself- I want to have two bait options out there until I know what they prefer that day. I would pay that to do it legally during daylight.

Like I said- nobody has to buy it whether they don't like the idea or the price.

Geez dude, you always beat me to it by a couple of minutes.

[merkman]

Why would you pay a king's ransom when you're effecting the resource the least?

Don't be so sure that "catch and release only" affects the resouce the least.

Possession limits limit the number of fish havest anglers take.. (ie they get their limit of fish and go home) possession limits do not limit the catch and release only crowd.

As a mater of fact there is no limit in Minnesota on catch and release only.

Catch and release 500+ fish in one day (killing a certain percent in the process) no problem...

I am also unaware of anyway to regulate catch and release only, other than to close seasons.

If you know of another way to regulate a catch and release only fishery, please let me know.

Thanks

Merk

.

[LMITOUT]

Limitout, what is so hard to understand about wanting to use a second line to catch more fish? Whether I'm keeping fish or not I prefer to catch fish in larger numbers. A second line helps me to do this.

I'm all for it. Always have been.

However, paying extra for this option makes no sense.

[merkman]

However, paying extra for this option makes no sense.

It makes sense as a compromise to get it done.

.

[Alagnak]

Limit-

On the other hand (your approach)- waiting around year after year wishing for it for free has been working so well. ;-/ The DNR isn't going to give a F it they aren't going to make $ on it.

[LMITOUT]

Keep it simple:

2 consevation licences 1 conservation possession limit,

2 regular licences 1 regular limit.

A conservation licence and a regular licence... not allowed

.

Yeah, let's "keep it simple".

[LMITOUT]

On the other hand (your approach)- waiting around year after year wishing for it for free has been working so well. ;-/ The DNR isn't going to give a F it they aren't going to make $ on it.

So let's make it $500 for another line. Heck, let's stop beating around the bush and charge $1000/yr. How's that?

[LMITOUT]

It makes sense as a compromise to get it done.

.

Why does there have to be a compromise? How about just plain ol' common sense?

People need to quit thinking they have you over a barrel on everything. Maybe, just maybe, some wrongs finally need to be made right.

[Alagnak]

Limit-

You are the master at spinning chit into worthlessness just to argue . Congrats, my hat's off to you, you are the winner. You and I both know that 500-1000$ is nuts/out of the question/idiotic, and not even in this conversation until you spewed out more manure here. Like I said- equal too or less than the fine for an extra line would be a good starting point, the price of another license makes ever more sense. Obviously if it was more than that then there's no point to buy it you'd just 'gamble' like many do now and hope you don't get caught and just pay the fine. I'm sure you thought about that obvious fact before posting your 500-1000$ worthless post.

I totally agree- free would be great, fair, common sense, 'right' whatever in my mind but it's not happening in anyone's lifetime and we only have one of those.

[LMITOUT]

Nothing worthless about it. People appear to be willing to unnecessarily shell out money for this so what is the breaking point? I think that paying the equivalent of a second license is "nuts/out of the question/idiotic".

[TruthWalleyes]

I just want to get it done. Cost doens't bother me too much. This state is motivated by money.