|
|
| We've had 90 years of single line fishing and 20 years of intense management to get to where we are today. Now we'll need a complete overhaul of our regulations to maintain the quality of or fishery; the MN DNR is strongly opposed to this legislation as well.
* We have millions of our License dollars invested into research and regulation for 1 line.
* We'll see additional reductions in Bag limits as well as more slot limits on our waters to maintain the fishery we enjoy.
* Added mortality from bait hooks, Muskies, Walleyes and Pike will suffer from swallowed hooks.
* Potential increase stocking costs.
* Reducing the quality of our fishery will cost jobs in MN.
* At a 30% increase in harvest we will remove one million more Pike and Walleye and 19.5 million pan-fish.
* 1.2 million more pounds of Walleyes alone.
* 43000 Jobs rely directly on our fishery generating $1.3 billion in wages that generate millions in tax revenue.
* An additional 630,000 live bait hooks and artificial lures will produce many more deep hooked fish; resulting in delayed mortality.
Our fishery will not sustain this added harvest and delayed mortality for long; and the clock will turn back to MN fishing in the 1970's when a 7# Walleye was mounted and a 40 inch Muskie was a giant catch of a lifetime written about in all the local papers; now 10# walleyes and 40# Muskies are seen every year. The proposition of getting an extra line may look good to us on the surface; but we need to look at what it will do to our fishery, as well as the additional regulations we'll have to follow while fishing.
Please help to stop this legislation and keep our fishery safe and sustainable for the future.
This language should be removed for the sake of our fishery, economy and for the anglers and outdoor lovers of tomorrow.
Link to take action for MN Anglers
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=1356&Screen=alert&IssueId=2...
Edited by Muskiefool 4/28/2011 11:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Adding two lines will increase some tourism to your state. I for one don't really care to go to Minnesota for that very reason, I like to troll and trolling with one line is just plain wrong IMHO. I think you are over reacting about all the things that will happen if two lines gets legalized. A few more fish might be caught and kept but not the numbers that you have listed, at least I don't think so. I don't buy the deeper hooking thing either, in Wisconsin we can use 3 lines and I don't see that as an issue as most times when you are using multiple lines you are either trolling or sitting watching a couple baited rods, when one get hit you grab it and set the hook, no different than if you were using one rod. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Bag limits would still be in place. Maybe people would limit out faster and the lakes would be less crowded for the c&r guys.?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin |
Nice to see someone thinking about the fishery not about benefits for the fisherman. Being from WI, the three line state, where sucker fishing for muskie was born, I see what the use of more then one line can do to the fishery. We tried a few years back to reduce the number of lines from 3 to 2. No luck. Anyone who thinks a live bait left in a fishes mouth from seconds up to many minutes before the hookset, doesn't have a better chance of getting deep hooked then an artificial lure where the hook is set immediately, must be living on another planet.
Fight to keep it at one line because once it gets to 2, you will never see it reduced.
John Aschenbrenner |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3136
| keep them dam two lines out of here...thats all we need is l the huge imigrant population in the meto being able to now throw out a sucker or now legal bullhead along with their crappie minnow rig,, when that muskie gets hooked hes kept!! |
|
| |
|
| Every year this proposal comes up and one of these years its actually going to happen. Before it does pass in a way that you don't like, why not change the game and propose a change to the proposal? Change it to only one line can have live bait, that will fix your concern about more people limiting out than would occur with only one line and it would make the proposal essentially only effective for trollers. |
|
| |
|
| The MN fishery speaks for itself and stands on its own, its own resident anglers spend double that of Wisconsin resident anglers and it generates a Billion more in revenue and 4 million more fishing days. Hunting you have us beat hands down. If one more line is keeping you home I would say get over it and come and see what your missing.
The MN Fishery is unlike any other especially Muskie. If you want a real chance at a 50# fish without getting a passport its here and I for one want to see 50# muskies caught for the next 100 years, single line is a big factor.
You guys wouldn't believe the fish that never make it to the internet. We need to understand we cant have it all.
Edited by Muskiefool 4/29/2011 8:13 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| One line only please.
I sent in my emails... |
|
| |
|
| Thanks for the reminder - I sent my emails is support of the change. It would be a good thing for MN.
Maybe the Muskie Mafia should propose a ban on single hook sucker rigs and more restrictive limits as a compromise. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 42
Location: Becker MN | I believe the DNR has already testified that bag limits will be reduced and further size restrictions if needed as well. They basically will try and restrict to keep the fisheries where they are. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | Guest, the 2 line issue affects a LOT more than just muskies. This is a muskie site, so of course the point of topic may be muskie fishing, but everything else that swims in MN waters will be affected by this. MN doesn't have the world class fishing for just about every species because of bad management. Let the resource people manage the resources, and their vote is in btw, MN DNR says don't go to 2 lines. If you support the 2 lines I believe you'll be in the minority. MN WILL BE FORCED to create the lower bag limits and stricter slot restrictions to offset the additional lines/angling pressure created by the extra harvest/pressure. What most of the people supporting the change to 2 lines don't realize is that those "other" changes will come if the 2 line provision is passed. If more people knew the repercussions public support for 2 lines would disappear almost immediately at least amongst residents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1405
Location: Detroit River | Going to 2 lines won't hurt the fishery. Trollers will welcome 2 lines as will the people coming from out-of-state.
|
|
| |
|
| Until the lakes turn into another Leech Lake, how long did it take for everyone to abandon Walker and close 1/2 of main-street; not to mention the resorts. How would have 2 line helped bring people to Leech? How would it have effected the harvest in 2000-2001. How would it help pay for 100 Million fry to rebuild one lake.
How is it going to help the 19 native Brook Trout streams in SE MN, when we can gut hook 2 fish at a time split shotting worms.
The legislature will not listen to the MN DNR they for the most part have issues with the department for many reasons. Its up to us to let them know. |
|
| |
|
| I fish Leech every winter and I can use two lines and I'm hardly raping any resources! I don't see someone fishing a little brook trout stream with more than one line, heck most of the time you hardly have enough room to cast one line let alone two. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 34
| Well the 2 lines have to hurt our Great fishing resource why else would the DNR not support it, Let the guys down at MN DNR to do their job, whats next we won't have a closed season that way we can fish for all them pregnant fish |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32798
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The biologists in MN should run the fisheries management program as they see fit. Legislators shouldn't. They can't seem to keep the government running, and they are supposed to good at that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| This thread reminds of the story about the sky falling. Paranoia much? If people are worried about the impact allowing two lines will have, why not just try it on a few lakes at first and see what happens? |
|
| |
|
| The only reason I would want 2 lines is for trolling for muskies and maybe fishing cats. Other wise I catch more than enough eyes' using just one line. All my panfishing is done in the winter when we already use 2 lines. As for trout I'm a fly fisherman, good luck using 2 lines doing that! I'm in the trees enough with just one fly rod. It would just make trolling for ski's a little funner.
In hindsight there are SOOOOOO many lakes that get small amounts of pressure. I think the only lakes that it would negatively effect are the lakes around the Cities and I can't stand to fish them anyhow. |
|
| |
|
| Thats not how politics works, they have an idea generally given to them by a special interest that is pumping them up, it could be anything from road-way material to the number of feet from a car you can blast at deer. It could be there ol' uncle Franny that always wanted to poison song birds for his wall of death. So do they;
A. Investigate the issue with all of the professionals the state has hired and educated for the past 150 years.
B. Write a bill saying anything; then make the people and those whom the people have supported and educated for the past 150 years spend hours away from what they should be doing and in many cases spend thousands if not more to fight this something one or two legislators are married to.
C. Just let the kids eat all the cake they want and run with the scissors.
|
|
| |
