Half license

[mrklean]

Im not sure if this had been talked about yet or not but i saw they off this half limit license now, whats the deal with it?

[mainbutter]

It's cheaper, and you're only allowed half the normal limit of fish, pretty typical "conservation" license.

[fishnhuntnboy]

i have a feeling there is going to be some problems with this. Im sure people will ignore that it is a half license and will still keep there full bag limit. They will think heck i have a license who cares. The only thing i see from it is if the person who gets one doesnt fish much at all and just wanted a license so they can fish whenever they can. Which in all is good tho too. I just feel like they will be taken advantage of and ppl should just get the full license to 1)play it safe and 2)they are also helping out protecting the sport we all love a little bit more.

[SkunkedAgain]

Jeez, I can't remember the last time I held a stringer of walleye. I agree with fishnhuntnboy though, and will continue to get the full license just to support the DNR.

[Northlander]

I would buy a half license. Heck I can only keep 2 walleyes now where I fish 80% of the time. I dont need a full limit anyways. I always get the conservation license when I go to Maple Leaf land.

Then again I will need a full license to fish any Tourneys so I guess I better get the full. DUH! I almost spaced that one out.

[mainbutter]

I always get conservation licences fishing out of state, but I think I'll stick to the normal license.

[DTro]

Then again I will need a full license to fish any Tourneys so I guess I better get the full. DUH! I almost spaced that one out.

That is where people are going to have to be real careful. Even though they might be C&R tourneys, you are still in possession of them.

[Ralph Wiggum]

It's like $7 a year cheaper to get the conservation license. That's nothing.

In my opinion, it's called a "fishing license", not a "keeping license". I don't keep that many fish, but I will continue to buy a full license.

[ozzie]

what a dumb idea....if you want to fish you buy a fishing license.....to many rules and regulations and license oppertunities!!! they should just raise the cost of a lic. to $30 a year and you should be able to fish all species (trout, sturgeon) and the only other lic. should be a 3 day lic for $15!! people are still going to keep whatever they want but I see alot of people buying the cons. lic cause most of the time they don't catch a limit anyways......

[mainbutter]

The introduction of conservation licenses encourages C&R.. There's still the ability to keep a fish or two, but the idea is to get more people to throw back their catches. I'm surprised minnesota has not had a conservation license until now, many states and I know for sure many regions in Canada offer conservation licenses. It's not a new idea by any means.

[frazwood]

I like the idea of a half or conservation license. When I go to Ontario, I always buy a conservation license since I never keep very many fish (I never freeze fish).

The problem with the Minnesota half license for a resident is that all species have a half-limit and the price difference isn't very big. If they merely cut the limit of northern, bass, and walleye... then I'd go for it.

But I like to keep more than 5 crappies a few times a year (especially when I ice fish), so I'll buy a full license because it's worth the extra $8 to me so that I can keep a few extra crappie.

[south_metro_fish]

I think most people will ended up getting the full with fishing they do. The conservation license might bring more people out to fish though if they don't fish but a couple times a year. It will be cheaper and that might be the determining factor in whether they get a license and get out for the year.

[metro fisherman]

Is it half your daily limit but you still have a full possession limit? Meaning you would have to keep them over 2 days.

[blackdog1101]

Dumb idea. A regular licesne is $17, and the conservation license is $11. Saves $6, big deal. I buy a MN license and a WI license, and trout stamps for both. $97 per year, and it's worth every penny.

[mainbutter]

Is it half your daily limit but you still have a full possession limit? Meaning you would have to keep them over 2 days.

No, half daily limit, half posession limit.

[toughguy]

Leave it to the State of MN to confuse the @#$@ out of us all once again. Imagine being totally new to fishing and picking up a reg book. Talk about overkill with all the rules. This new lic. had good intentions but it will do nothing but create confusion.

I agree with the post above. One lic. should allow you to fish for everything. No stamps. I understand that the trout stamp is used to stock and protect streams but what about the trout fishermen that only fish for trout? They have to pay for all that walleye stocking that they'll never use. What's next an open water only lic.? Or ice only? how about a 1/4 lic.?

[PierBridge]

Good Rant!...

[toughguy]

Thanks. I try.

[ZEEK1223]

Every year I will bring some new people out fishing, and I always talk them into getting the full license. I just tell them the money goes to good use and its an easy sell, even if they only fish that one time I doubt they remember spending $17 a week later.

[LMITOUT]

I rarely keep fish and when I do it isn't more than what I can eat anyway so I'm considering the new license. We can only fish for about 2/3's of the year so they should only get 2/3's of my money as far as I'm concerned. They get enough anyway in other unnecessary fees and taxes.

[MNice]

I just bought a sportsman's lic. for the year, but for my daughter ,who is 16, I will buy her the conservation lic. She goes both open water & ice, but we rarely keep any fish, so why not.

Not every one is as in to fishing as many on this board, so if they only go out 2 or 3 times a year this is a nice option for those folks.

[shizzy]

Im fine with giving the state the full $18. I would probbly pay twice that without complaint.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Im fine with giving the state the full $18. I would probbly pay twice that without complaint.

Me, too.

[blackdog1101]

The license fees are to pay for fisheries management and enforcement, not to operate hatcheries and stocking programs. Those are funded from other areas. So whether an angler keeps no fish or a limit every time, the cost of the license should not change.

[ZEEK1223]

Limit out, your name and aviator couldnt contradict your statement any more. Just thought that was funny, not looking for a fight.....