Two Line Law Proposal

[Blue Kayak]

In the thread “Could we get some new catfish laws?” one of the most popular proposals was lobbying the DNR to allow two lines instead of only one. Once again, I’d like to state that I have never fished for catfish, but plan to in 2006. Thanks to you experienced cat anglers for your insights. While we are discussing this in the catfish forum, a two line revision would affect all species (except perhaps trout on DNR designated streams and lakes). Once we have a pretty good idea of what we want, we should post this proposal on other FM sights and get support (along with their insights) for two lines.

A review of current regulations is in order before proposing any changes. In addition, we should also review any problems related to enforcing the current regulations. Finally, we should try and predict how these changes would impact the fishery resource and potential enforcement challenges. These are quotes from the current Minnesota statutes that have implications for allowing two lines.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97C.315 Angling lines and hooks.

Subdivision 1. Lines. An angler may not use more than one line except:

(1) two lines may be used to take fish through the ice; and

(2) the commissioner may, by rule, authorize the use of two lines in areas designated by the commissioner in Lake Superior.

Subd. 2. Hooks. An angler may not have more than one hook on a line, except:

(1) three artificial flies may be on a line used to take largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, trout, crappies, sunfish, and rock bass; and

(2) a single artificial bait may contain more than one hook.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97C.321 Restrictions on unattended lines.

Subdivision 1. General prohibition. A person may not take fish by angling with a set line or an unattended line except as provided in this section and rules adopted under the game and fish laws.

Subd. 2. Ice fishing. A person may use an unattended

line to take fish through the ice if:

(1) the person is within sight of the line; or

(2) a tip-up is attached to the line and the person is within 200 feet of the tip-up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97C.317 Fishing as a party.

While two or more persons are taking fish by angling as a party, the total number of fish taken and the total number of fish possessed by the party may not exceed the limit of the number of persons in the party that may take and possess fish by angling. For the purpose of this section, a party means:

(1) for persons who are not on the water, the persons are maintaining unaided visual and vocal contact;

(2) for persons who are on frozen water surfaces, the persons are maintaining unaided visual and vocal contact; and

(3) for persons who are on open water surfaces, the persons are angling from a single watercraft.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A great thing about this forum is learning from other anglers including violations of fish laws. Here are some relevant FM DNR violation posts.

“Am I Wrong?

Well I got my first ticket in my life, 36 years, yesterday. Unattended line. I don't think I did anything wrong but I let you guys decide. My buddy and I are on Red, we have caught one walleye in 3 hours, released, and I decide do go outside the portable and drill a hole. I leave my dead stick in the house with the bail open and my buddy keeping an eye on it and I take my jigging stick outside to jig. 15 minutes later, I'm about 75 feet from the house and guess who shows up. He identifies himself and asks for our licenses. He then sees I have one line in the house and writes me a ticket. What’s the difference between this and using a tip up, or bringing 3 kids and having 8 lines down, or sleeping in a house with lines down …

Here is another relevant FM thread.

Officers Ponder Pattern of Ice Fishing Violations

From the Star Tribune.....

DNR officers aren't sure if it's a trend, but they say plenty of anglers are choosing to fish illegally with too many lines. Officers say a 2002 Supreme Court ruling forcing them to knock on ice house doors isn't helping.

When conservation officer Jim Guida checked 10 ice fishing houses in northern Crow Wing County one evening last week, anglers in eight of them were fishing illegally with too many lines ...

"It was after dark," Guida said. "I don't know if they felt more comfortable [breaking the law] because they figured there wouldn't be an officer out then or what."

Whatever the reason, officers are seeing plenty of winter anglers fishing with more than the two lines allowed by law. At least a dozen DNR conservation officers reported such violations last week.

"It's the third most common [winter fishing] violation" behind no valid license and no license in possession, said Al Heidebrink, DNR enforcement division operations manager.

Heidebrink said it's uncertain whether such violations are on the rise since the state Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that conservation officers need permission before entering ice-fishing houses to check anglers.

"It's always been an extremely common violation," Heidebrink said ...

We also need to look at the implications (both resource and enforcement) of allowing two lines.

Allowing two lines will increase the number of fish hooked (increased mortality for C & R) and also the number of fish harvested. Therefore, allowing two lines has the potential to harm the resource. There should be something to help offset this harm. Here are some ideas that might make allowing two lines more palatable from the DNR’s objective of protecting the resource.

You cannot cast and retrieve two lines at the same time. Therefore, you will either be trolling with two lines, or at least one of the lines will be in a holder with bait. In my experience, baited lines more likely result in deeply hooked fish than using artificial lures. If you are fighting a fish on one line, you may not be able to quickly set the hook on the other. In addition, large fish can quickly (and deeply) swallow small baits. I wouldn’t mind requiring barbless hooks if (and only if) you are using two lines. This would reduce the impact on the increased number of C & R fish. I think there are ways to keep even large minnows on barbless hooks.

The current statute states: ‘’ (1) three artificial flies may be on a line used to take largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, trout, crappies, sunfish, and rock bass;” If two lines are allowed, I’d favor changing the above to something like, “If fishing with two lines only one hook may be on each line. If fishing with a single line, two hooks are allowed.” Or, the current language could be kept and allow two hooks on a single line for other fishing.

IMO the current language relating to parties is troubling. Parties must maintain "...unaided visual and vocal contact. I think we should work to get the law changed to read "unaided visual or vocal contact", and this may have been the legislative intent. Also, the language as written seems to discriminate against anglers that are either blind or deaf.

Maintaining visual contact with line is not always the best way to know if a fish is on your line. Here are some examples. It’s dark and your catfish rod is in a holder. The clicker is on, but can you see the line? You’re in a fish house with one line and watching a tip up out the window. The flag goes up so you step outside to catch a fish. Can you still maintain visual contact with your rig in the fish house? You’re sleeping on the bank or in your fish house with an audible alarm (strike sensor or clicker). Obviously, your line is not in sight. Is this a violation?

IMO shore anglers more deserve using two lines than ice anglers. Perhaps change the current ice fishing law to only allow one line within a fish house and only one hole per angler inside the fish house. The additional line may be outside within either visual or audible contact. Also, the current law for being within 200 feet of a tip-up does not allow for tip-downs or strike sensors. This would make it much easier to enforce the current two line law for ice fishing. Ice anglers jigging inside a fish house would not favor the change. However, if they could also use two lines all year, many of them are likely to support the change. Cameras, Structures On a String (SOS), and similar devices would also have to be outside the fish house (or in the same hole you angle from).

There have been some posts on the Muskies-Pike forum about quick strike rigs (multiple hooks in the same bait). Apparently these are not legal unless they have a spinner to make them an artificial lure. If we propose a two line rule, this language should be researched and improved.

Charge an extra fee to use two lines, perhaps a two line stamp similar to a trout stamp. However, there are other options. Charge everyone more and allow two lines. Allow two lines if you purchase a second license. I suspect a lot of anglers would support additional fees for two lines, and the extra revenue would be used to improve the resource. The revenue could include increased enforcement, more fish stocked, and studies on methods to reduce the mortality to C & R fish.

I’m sorry this post is so long, but changing a law is a difficult process. I’d really like to hear your opinions. Going to two lines will be a difficult process, but it has a chance. I think allowing two lines for shore fishing has more potential than a general two line law. If it is proposed only for shore fishing, shore fishing would have to be defined. Does shore fishing include wading? Does it include fishing from piers?

[Dirk W]

Has anyone ever thought of getting a two line law passed, but it would only apply to fishig Minnesota Rivers? Don't know if that makes any sense, just brainstorming. Two lines across the state seems like too large of a battle to fight and not enough concensus among anglers. One line for you MN River guys fishing cats just ain't right though .

[DTro]

This issue sure seems to be coming up a lot lately. A while back I created an online petition to gather info. There's currently about 60 signatures, all in favor of 2 lines.

You can sign it here Two Line Petition

I'm not sure, what is a good number to have before I forward all sigs to DNR? Maybe a couple of hundred

[Blue Kayak]

Thanks for setting up this petition dtro. I just signed it and encourage others reading this to do the same. There is a place where you enter your comments if you have suggestions or special concerns.

[Dennis Steele]

Signed it!

[Ralph Wiggum]

Me, too.

[Guest]

I signed the petition a while ago.

I think the best way would be to print up something simple and hand them out at the lake, boat access, etc.. A few simple questions, and a yes or no box along the side.. a spot for comments on the bottom.

Printed Name

Signature

5 SIMPLE, short questions .. yes/no

and a place for comments on the bottom if a person wants to spend the time.

A couple cute girls with *2 lines* T shirts would get all kinds of attention and feedback.

Any river access in the spring, and the city lakes.. I am sure it would take no time to get 1000's of responses.

Im not getting into it again, but I am not for the barbless hooks. As you stated in the beginning of your post, you havent chased catfish.. many assumptions you made are incorrect(seeing your rod/line) is one.

You go after a fish with a 12" wide mouth with a 10/0 hook in it, and possibly a bullhead still attatched.. you will have all kinds of lights around too. Its hard enough on the hands when the fish start thrashing and tearing your skin up.. thats tolerable, a 10/0 hook isnt with a 40# fish connected to it!

[I Da Man]

This is worthy of the effort!

I would suggest that an email or phone call be made to the DNR to ask them why they aren't in favor of two lines. At least we would know what the reasoning is.

I'm sure that if there wasn't a good reason, the DNR would have changed the law a while ago....

just my penny and a half.

[hanson]

We can already use 2 lines on a few border waters- Mississippi between MN/WI & the Red River between MN/ND. So really, we're only asking for the rest of the MN locked portion of the Mississippi and maybe the Minnesota river. Is that too much to ask?

[I Da Man]

If you're asking me Hanson...I don't think so and I'm for THREE LINES on the Croix like our friends from anywhere else in the world...except MN can do...

The reason I stated the above is because I asked that very question to the DNR in an email. I don't recall what the reply was and since my pc's hard drive works better as a fish scaler than anything else...I don't have access to it.

I just recall, they had a reason and I'm left with the impression that it was a good one...if only in their mind...but again, I don't recall.

I'd send them one myself but I can't get the emails out that I need to get out...and I like posting!

[rushing]

Signed it!

[superhawk16]

I just signed it too. dtro, if you haven't already put this in the open water forum you might want to. I bet you could get a couple 1000 if you put it in there!