|
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Not sure if this is old news or not, but it comes up every year.
I was driving in N.Mn. 2 weeks ago and they were talking on the radio about it... they seemed to think it may become a reality in the next yr. or two.
Soooo,.... What do you think? Some think that this will HURT the fishery.
I like the Idea of being able to troll 2 lines in mid Nov. or have 1 line with live bait hanging over the edge while Casting..
Jerome |
|
| |
|
| Make it 2 lines per person and only 1 can have live bait |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | My opinion as a conservationist is that it's a major step in the wrong direction. My opinion as an angler is, if two lines are good, three or four is better.
However, the conservationist in me would like to see Wisconsin and Michigan follow Minnesota's lead and drop down to one line per on inland waters sooner, rather than later. If sustainable healthy fisheries are truly the goal, one line per everywhere should be an eventuality in the future.
Edited by Jerry Newman 3/6/2011 11:13 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Jerry Newman - 3/6/2011 11:12 AM
However, the conservationist in me would like to see Wisconsin and Michigan follow Minnesota's lead and drop down to one line per on inland waters sooner, rather than later. If sustainable healthy fisheries are truly the goal, one line per everywhere should be an eventuality in the future.
I completely disagree with that. There are times and places that I very much appreciate the Wisconsin's legality to have two lines per angler in the water. Prime example is in the Fall, when you can have a Sucker rig hanging over the side while simultaneously casting a lure with your 2nd line. I wouldn't vote to give that up for anything, and I don't believe that it does one iota of harm to the fishery. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | As a resident of a state that allows 2 lines, fishings not any easier with 2 than 1 if the fish are negative. For muskies 1 lines plenty for eyes 2 lines are nice to establish the days patterns but don't catch fish any faster just gives you another option to try to figure it out. BTW fishing is fantastic..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hiya,
I would have to say I would appreciate being able to have two lines given the opportunity for the most part. Jerome, you and I are in the same "boat" so to speak that being able to troll two lines in the fall would be a welcomed addition. I also would like the idea of being able to have a sucker out the back for an added opportunity for a following fish to come and take a bait, as overall I don't feel it would negatively impact the fishery (my own opinion on that one...)
For muskies, I would not see this as a problem as the large majority of us do not ever intend to keep a fish, except for maybe a really large one. Even with that, there is a high probability of it being released.
As for other species, if the limits are kept the same, I feel all the extra line does is allow someone to obtain the limit faster, or if out for just the sport, the potential of more action. If practiced properly (the major operative word here being properly), adding a 2nd line I feel should really be of no issue. I know if they followed Wisconsin's lead, where you could have 3 lines on the ice, I would really be happy. Two tip-ups and a jig rod would be welcome.
If this is something that could potentially come into being, I would like to see an impact study on a few lakes, just to see if there are any positive and/or negative impacts an implementation like this might make on the bodies of water selected.
Although I would be for an implementation like this as I see it currently, I would definitely feel better about it if there was evidence that would support making the move if there are no major negative impacts on the fishery as a whole. If evidence shows otherwise, or negative effects on populations of certain species show up, then I would be against making the move. I'm really good either way, since I have known no other options in MN, but would adjust my point of view as the evidence reflects.
I feel that open mindedness on something like this allows for a well-informed decision.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| The two line thing is going to change guide boats to 6 line trolling spreads. Or 3 follow suckers, as they go down a break.
More suckers more dead fish imo. I would rather see the move toward one line in KY and elsewhere. An uncaught fish isn't a tragedy. It is just a later opportunity. In WI they want to troll suckers and cast at the same time. Everything doesn't have to be about making fishing easier. We have electronics, lines, leaders, baits, topo maps, gps, high quality reels with drags, and sidefinders that have already done a heap of that.
Maybe the next big regs coming up on lakes and rivers should be that landowners have to restore tree cover to all banks, and all human habitations must be partially or totally masked from view of the water?? |
|
| |
|
| Well said Steve. I do think, though, it would be difficult to really do an accurate study on a small scale. I feel adding a line would increase two specific items that would negatively effect Muskies. First, it would increase the use of live bait. While live bait used correctly may not negatively effect muskies, if it is used incorrectly(single hooks) it's plain deadly! I'm constantly amazed by the number of live bait fisherman who still use single hook suckers for pike, bass and muskies. Novice guys who are fishing for whatever bites and are unprepared to handle and release muskies. I see these guys all over the metro and quite often on "vacation lakes" like Leech, Cass, Miltona ect. Nothing wrong with it, it's their right, but they could increase mortality.
Secondly, is walleye trollers on the big lakes that see major pressure.(Mille Lacs, Leech, Cass, Winnie) Walleye guys pulling crank bait spreads constantly catch muskies on light tackle and, again, are unprepared to handle and release. They catch a lot of them before the season opens which can effect spawn. Plus, we all know there are plenty of walleye guys who intentionally kill muskies because they are eating all of "their Walleyes".
Bottom line is: Minnesota's muskie management plan is working! Our fisheries are healthier than ever! The simple fact is: some percentage of hooked fish will die. Increase the amount of hooked fish and you increase the amount of dead fish. I'm not sure adding a line would dramatically increase the amount of catches by avid muskie anglers anyway. Guys in states where two lines or more are allowed catch slightly more fish but the best size averages come from MN.
If you look at it in a simple pros vs cons way; all the pros benefit anglers and all the cons effect the resource. I'm not willing the gamble our quality for a few more fish each season. My $.02; If it ain't broke...
Edited by Ben Olsen 3/6/2011 1:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Here in Ontario we are allowed 1 line except for Great Lakes. Often when fishing alone in the late fall I would like to troll 2 lines. Could you have a law allowing a solo angler to use 2 lines and two or more in the boat 1 line per person.
I could put a inflatable doll inthe front of the boat and troll 2 lines or kids don't need a licence I could offer free boat rides and troll 8. ( get out of the way kid I'm busy) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| If it finally becomes law in Minnesota, which I doubt it will, I would love to be a a Rep for walleye crankbaits and planer boards the first year it's legal! You could make a killing!
As long as limits are watched I don't see a difference if someone catches their limit with one rod or two rods. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I would say good points to both Ben and FSF..
Piques my interest that if something like this were to be put into play, that there could be a way to have a maximum number of lines for certain situations, so we wouldn't see that 6-line spread out of a guide boat unless there are enough people to do so. I'm thinking...something like this:
1 person: 2 lines max
2 people: 3 lines maximum
3 people or more people: One line per person.
FSF...I would Highly agree in replanting shorelines. Would help run-off of many items, help control algae and water clarity....and a much more aesthetically pleasing experience for those who do not enjoy seeing someones well manicured lawn to water's edge.
Steve
Edited by VMS 3/6/2011 2:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | You guys are making to much out of this IMO, there comes a point when multiple lines become more of a problem than they are worth. A fishemans skill has way more to do with success than how many lines one can use. We may drag 1 sucker with 2 guys casting but 2 would be a pain trying to keep the rods out of the way and from them becoming tangled. When walleye trolling with 2 of us we run 4 lines with 3/4 guys still 4 lines just take turns. I would still own the same number of crankbaits if we were only allowed 1 line each rather than 2, how many lines I'm allowed has no bearing on my crankbait buying. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Gotta keep in mind, though, there are times when a family goes out on a party barge for panfish...lots of room to spread out to fish, so limiting the number of lines to 3 - 4 would not fit this kind of fishing. Trolling, though.. no doubt more than 4 lines and it could get to be a huge mess...
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | True when we anchor up and slip bobber eyes everyone runs 2 set ups, different depth's/baits ect untill a pattern emerges. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Shaley and VMS, you might be thinking of yourselves, but the reality is seen on Green Bay when they are running 6 lines with spreaders for just two guys. I can run 5 just with my boat, and I have done it just to see. Not difficult at all, and that setup can cover 20 feet without spreaders and no outrigging or specialty rods. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Ben Olsen - 3/6/2011 1:49 PM
I feel adding a line would increase two specific items that would negatively effect Muskies.
Bottom line is: Minnesota's muskie management plan is working! Our fisheries are healthier than ever! The simple fact is: some percentage of hooked fish will die. Increase the amount of hooked fish and you increase the amount of dead fish. I'm not sure adding a line would dramatically increase the amount of catches by avid muskie anglers anyway.
Well Ben, I understand what your saying and agree with most of it, but if more hooks are in the water and you say hooks kill fish than why do you guide 2 other guys each time you go out on the water?
I'd bet that you and fsf both use more than 1 line when fishing in KY or WI. I've seen Gregg T.and Tony G.,and Crash and Justin M. and Scott S, Jim S. Mike T. ,ect,ect, Troll 6-8 lines...... does that mean these guys kill more fish?
I fish by myself 80% of the time past Oct. 1rst, and I think I would like the choice of using 2 lines, but according to your philosophy,..... I would be killing more fish than I already kill.
Maybe let 2 lines go for a yr. and study the results,... then make a decision on whether or not it is hurting the fishery.
I don't think its gonna be a big deal...but If it does result in more dead fish I'll be against it.
Jerome
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | Everyplace is different to, troll that same set up on my home waters I'll put my money on the 1 guy casting over the 6 line spread for boating fish. 2 lines are and always have been legal here, but other than the few guys who troll it's rare you see a muskie boat fishing more than 1 line each. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | And that is where I say a limit is needed. If a guide and one other person are out there trolling 6 lines, I say that is too much...4 is plenty. Any more people, and it should then be down to one line per person. I'm not looking at this as about myself, I'm looking at it from the perspective of limiting the number of lines so messes don't happen out there and nobody is taking up such a huge amount of space on a body of water due to their planer board set ups. There becomes a point where it can be considered overkill for your set-up. Think of running 6 lines for walleyes (which I am sure probably happens) and you get into a good school that is biting. you could potentially have 4 lines with fish, only two hands to deal with it, and that only leads to longer fight times, and mortality, even when that is not desired. It would be highly doubtful to do that with muskies, but laws like this need to go for all people... It is much bigger than just us here on M1st
Not everyone is able to efficiently run 6 lines (I know I couldn't because I have never put it into practice).
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| Most of the big lakes in Mn have special reulations right now, the DNR does this for a reason, if the two line bill passes the DNR will put even more regulations on the lakes. Is this what you want? The DNR is opposed to the two line bill and so am I. |
|
| |
|
| The points I was making related to non-muskie guys. I agree that 6 lines trolling may not be as effective as 1 line cast. The danger is that there are days where 6 walleye cranks will hook 6 muskies preseason. I also agree that, for muskie guys who don't use live bait, the difference is very small, however I'm with FSF more live bait = more dead muskies. G-rome, you and I have both fished many places with no line limit and, believe me; if guys are allowed, they will find a way to run as many lines as humanly possible. I personally have run up to 7 lines alone with no muss no fuss. I'm not sure one season of research would be enough to draw any real conclusion. If it was up to me I would allow you to troll two lines all fall on Vermi, I wanna see a pic of you with a fall giant this year, you deserve one! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 92
| FACT: Quick strike rigs don't kill any more fish than a bucktail, jerkbait, crankbait or bulldawg. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Jim Stroede - 3/6/2011 6:00 PM
FACT: Quick strike rigs don't kill any more fish than a bucktail, jerkbait, crankbait or bulldawg.
And your point is??? |
|
| |
|
| Jim, I would amend that statement to say: If properly used, quick strike rigs don't kill any more fish.... I've talked to and observed many live bait guys who still use single hooks or use multiple treble rigs and don't "quick set." I'm not talking about a tiny sample either. I've talked to or watched 20 to 30 guys who were, IMO, using dangerous tactics. Most in the metro including 3 boats in one day on WBL all using single hooks, one of whom watched his bobber circle the boat for 10 minutes before setting. I've also watched several boats in a specific area on Leech using similar tactics. Again, the issue isn't well educated avid anglers! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hiya,
I think it was directed to the point that you and Ben brought up about live bait use means more dead muskies....
If the quick strike is used properly, it should not mean any more lost fish as compared to fishing artificial bait.
single hooks for muskies might be another story though, given they are being used as a swallow rig. I know there are multiple ways to hook your bait up with a single hook, so much of it depends on how they are being used as well.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN | I'll admit I get a little jealous watching shows/videos of the guys that get to use multiple lines; both for muskies and walleyes. Would help with putting patterns together for sure and I'm one that actually enjoys trolling. If the DNR said they have info on it being a problem well then I'm for the resource first. We can only go so far to 'protect' muskies. There will always be accidental catches either walleye fishing or even tip-ups through the ice, which most don't use quick-strike rigs. Plus there are generations worth of varying live bait techniques, good or bad, that you just can't educate everyone on the latest techniques. I'm not sure where I stand on the additional lines. |
|
| |
|
| Targa, Last year when it was purposed, the DNR opposed it and asked T.paw to veto it along with several other items that were passed by congress. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN | I remember that being an item on that bill. It would allow an angler who bought the additional line 'stamp' to only keep half their limit. But anyways, I thought that whole bill was basically veto because proper due diligence was not done, especially with the walleye slot proposed for Fish Lake near Duluth where a Senator had is summer cabin. I never knew what the DNR's position was on the additional line. Thanks for reminding me about that bill Ben. I will be sure to read into it more so I can at least be better informed.
Edited by Targa01 3/6/2011 8:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 581
Location: deephaven mn | I agree with with Mr. Olsen as well 1 line is the rule for many reasons
Besides i have way to many rods and reels not to mention baits already |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Why does the DNR oppose using 2 lines?
Using 2 lines isn't going to change bag limits... I do agree that using single hook live bait rigs and uneducated people using them is just wrong.
KAP, What are some other reasons??
By the way, our new DFL Governor is going the raise license fees for fishing and hunting, and out of state anglers. I wonder how much of that money will go to hunting and fishing programs.
Jerome
Edited by Top H2O 3/6/2011 8:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
| As Muskie fisherman it may be a tendancy to limit the scope of this law to only how it affects Musky fishing. But there are a lot of other species that it affects as well--- Walleye, pan fish of all kinds, catfish, and so on. I'd have to think that the regulations are in place with the fishery as a whole considered?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Keep it 1 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 642
Location: Richfield, MN | I have not done any research as to what will happen if they do change it to 2 lines but we go to South Dakota in March chasing Walleyes every March it just means from time to time we might get a couple doubles meaning we are done sooner and back at the Hillside Hotel in Chamberlain enjoying coctails at the office and then on to the bar in town before we cook up some fresh walleyes in our room for dinner.
To me no harm no foul. But again no leg work done on what the overall effects it has. I do kknow it can be alot of fun. Also at times we find ourselves only having 1 line in the water at a time anyways.
My guess is this bill will never pass unless someone pass Dayton a mickey or 2 before they sow him the bill. THen they might have to have Michelle Bachman sit on his lap to distract as they sneak the bill under his pen!!!!!!!! LOL
:) :) :) :) :-) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Guest - 3/6/2011 8:47 PM
As Muskie fisherman it may be a tendancy to limit the scope of this law to only how it affects Musky fishing. But there are a lot of other species that it affects as well--- Walleye, pan fish of all kinds, catfish, and so on. I'd have to think that the regulations are in place with the fishery as a whole considered??
Ok, But how will 2 lines negatively effect the fact that you can still only take so many fish in a given day?
If your only allowed to take 4 walleye or 1 muskie per day using 1 line, and the state changes it to 2 lines,...... What the heck changes ??
Just playing you guys .....again.
Jerome
Edited by Top H2O 3/6/2011 10:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
| T. Paw did not veto the entire bill. He used a "line item veto". The DNR opposed something like 8 items on the bill and the Gov vetoed only those 8 items. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Duluth, MN | LETS........
limit the days days we can guide
limit the the days we can fish
do away with tournaments
ban live bait
ban single hooks
limit the length of your boat so we can't fish when it's to rough for a 14' foot to go out
limits limit hp
LETS educate people about the accurate amount of walleye a muskie does eat
LETS DELETE THIS POST |
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
Location: Chicago | 2 lines will negatively affect our fishing in that. More people will want to troll, which in turn they will want to spread'em out. Then 6 line spreads start taking up a lot of real estate, and I become jerk whose hands are not to cold to still cast screwing up your trolling run. We don't need to another level to 'combat fishing". |
|
| |
|
| i've softened up to the 2 line idea the last couple years. it would be a good thing for the catfishermen in MN who have been lobbying for it the last few years and would be nice to use two lines myself in the fall when trolling or be able to cast while i drag a sucker. i think it might raise mortality slightly and would probably lead to more tackle and line on the bottom of our lakes. i'm not fighting for it or opposing it, the cass lake issues are much more important in my book.
and for the guys that keep saying this has a very small chance of passing.....wrong. get involved and talk to your representatives - the emails i've received back from mine indicate fairly widespread support for lifting the spearing ban on cass lake and i'm sure there is even more support for the two line bill. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| if you can only take so many givin fish in a day in other words if we feel the bag limit is the ultimate management tool then you can make the argument why not let them drag commercial nets instead of fishing rods, after all so what you can still only keep a limit.
two lines WILL impact if Im allowed two lines on Mile Lacs Im gonna cast a muskie lure and drag a slip bobber with a leech and if I get a walleye in the slot hes getting kept,,how many people are going to do it the other way and throw out a sucker while they fish walleyes because you definitly see that logic in ice fishing one walleye jigging rod and a tip up with a big sucker
if you look at EVERYTHING the DNR has stated it all comes back to this is a TROPHY MANAGED fisherie it wasnt intended for numbers or action but quality when you do have success |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Quick strike rigs don't kill anymore fish then a bucktail...if used correctly. I've actually had people tell me how they "let her take it" after they were down to their last sucker.
The big problem with 2-line is that our limits are set with the DNR's idea that about 6% of trips would result in obtaining it (if memory serves). By adding an additional line that number goes up so the bag will have to go down. People in this state don't want to see their walleye bag go from 6-4 (or less). There would also be a larger issue of delayed mortality on all fish species which would probably drive the limit lower.
The big thing that gets me is this: is fishing that bad were we need to add another line? Seriously, how is having 2 lines going to make the fishery better? If the fishery isn't going to get better then the fishing probably won't either. I for one wouldn't want to risk what we have for the chance to catch a few more fish...in the short term anyway.
Speaking as one who has talked to the players on this one, don't go out investing in your extra quickstrike rigs or trolling setups yet. Just saying.
Edited by Muskie Treats 3/7/2011 11:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Now that's the 2nd reply that makes sense to me..... I guess I need to look at the bigger picture for a longer period of time.
But it sure would be nice to use 2 lines up north for the last week of the season, especially when there are only 2-3 other boats left out there.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Shawn, Et Al,
This is why if something like this IS to be considered in the coming years, we should be doing something for an impact study to see just what might take place. I'm good either way, but would much rather see that if two lines were to become law, the decision was made as an "informed" decision and not some knee-jerk reaction due to pressure from outside agencies (in this case...the people of the state)
Pro's and Con's on both sides, and much more to the entire situation than any of us realize.... Fun to think about and debate, though... 
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I think two lines would cause way more dead Muskies because people would then have to reel in their line before setting the hook and by that time the Muskie could swallow the sucker. Not good.
I don't use live bait and never will. I caught the fish by my login with a large plastic bait just a couple of days before iceup. Don't see the point in messing with live bait.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Steve, the DNR has done creel studies on border waters and they've found that there's an increase in harvest of around 30%. They've passed this information along and most legislators have listened (hence no Senate version of the bill). In the past there was one House member that kept bringing this one up. He's since been "fired" and Rep Hackbarth took-up the torch for him thinking this would be a slam dunk. It hasn't to put it mildly and there hasn't been a single legislator I've talked to that is for it at least without reducing bag limits. Once the walleye bag goes from 6 to 4 most of the support for the bill goes away from everything I've been hearing. |
|
| |
|
| Herb_b - 3/7/2011 12:31 PM
I think two lines would cause way more dead Muskies because people would then have to reel in their line before setting the hook and by that time the Muskie could swallow the sucker. Not good.
I don't use live bait and never will.
It doesn't happen that fast, Herb. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Shawn,
That's enough for me to be comfortable with staying to 1 line... Show the info that proves it negatively affects the body of water, and the decision should be quite easy.
Thanks Shawn for all that you do!!
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 200
Location: Minnesota | I like giving people the option of paying a fee on their license for an additional line if they so choose. As long as the limit remains the same, I don't see an issue with it.
I'm not coordinated enough to operate two lines unless they're both sitting in rod holders so it doesn't bother me one way or the other. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 74
Location: Brainerd, MN 56401 | In Minnesota we fish the way God intended.......one man, one rod. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 577
Location: WI | I would love to drag a sucker in the fall and frequently beg the wife to join me so that I can. That being said, I can't think of 1 positive thing this does for the fisheries and do feel it would it would have a negative impact in the long run. If it is done though, having to pay additional on the license seems like a dumb idea. We don't have enough CO's to enforce it and people are going to b@#^# about them invading when there stopping to check if you have it.
Edited by raftman 3/7/2011 5:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Quick-strike rigs can easily kill fish too even when used the right way. A hungry muskie can slurp up a pretty good sucker in no time if it wants too. The biggest fish in the system are more prone to swallowing a sucker since their mouths/throats are so much larger, quick-strike rig or not. This is where I feel we will lose some quality in the future of our muskie fisheries in MN. While quick-strike rigs are better than single hooks, lets not kid ourselves thinking quick-strike rigs are perfect. I see sucker fishing as being a big threat to the quality of muskie fishing on certain bodies of water in MN. More guys are doing it every year and it is attracting a whole new crowd of fishermen who do not normally fish for muskies. It seems many guys are waiting a long time before they set the hook also...I saw a guide wait easily over 10 minutes before setting. I am strongly against the usage of 2 lines in MN. Not because I don't want to catch more fish, but because I think it would have a negative impact on our limited number of muskie lakes in MN. Give me 2 lines and I guarantee you I catch a lot more fish. Just my opinion...attack away.:)
Edited by Baby Mallard 3/7/2011 6:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Guest,
I've seen Muskies swallow big plastics before one could set the hook. What makes suckers any different? Sometimes it is hard enough to set the hook with your rod in your hand. Now you're going to add ten, fifteen seconds to reel in the lure you're casting? And what if you hook a fish with the lure? Then what?
To me, two lines sounds like a disaster waiting to happen - especially when fishing by yourself. I use one line even when on waters where two are allowed. Running the increased risk of seriously injuring a Muskie just isn't worth it to me.
My opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | Heres something thats happened to me, wife and I are trolling eyes one fall total of 4 lines . We were sharing the run of about 2 miles with 3 other boats consisting of 8 guys also trolling with 16 lines in the water. We met them at the end of the day at the dock total eyes in there 3 boats was 4, we had 5, more lines dont always mean more fish.... I have also caught my limit of eyes sharing the spot with 5 other guys all of us using similar baits and all casting to the same spots, none of the 5 got so much as a bite while I caught 5 and kept my limit of 3 in about 40 minutes.... You average weekend angler won't catch much more using 2-5 rods than 1, some days 2 allows me to get my limit faster but theres other days 20 lines wouldn't help me catch anything..... Take it how you want and I understand most guys think of Iowa as worthless and if you do keep thinking that way while I keep catching fish... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| shaley - 3/7/2011 6:32 PM
Heres something thats happened to me, wife and I are trolling eyes one fall total of 4 lines . We were sharing the run of about 2 miles with 3 other boats consisting of 8 guys also trolling with 16 lines in the water. We met them at the end of the day at the dock total eyes in there 3 boats was 4, we had 5, more lines dont always mean more fish.... I have also caught my limit of eyes sharing the spot with 5 other guys all of us using similar baits and all casting to the same spots, none of the 5 got so much as a bite while I caught 5 and kept my limit of 3 in about 40 minutes.... You average weekend angler won't catch much more using 2-5 rods than 1, some days 2 allows me to get my limit faster but theres other days 20 lines wouldn't help me catch anything..... Take it how you want and I understand most guys think of Iowa as worthless and if you do keep thinking that way while I keep catching fish...
You spelled Iowans wrong Shaley...  |
|
| |
|
| you're still referring to a bait that's in the fishes mouth, Herb, not swallowed. swallowed means it's already down in the gut. smallies scarf stuff down like that, muskies don't. it's impossible to swallow something with treble hooks on it, therefore all the concern about muskies swallowing more suckers with 2 lines is based on a single hook rig. single hook anglers are going to allow a fish to swallow the bait anyway.
i am generally in the front runnign the boat, even when i'm sucker fishing out the back with one line. i've never had a problem getting the rod from the back of the boat before a fish was hooked deeply. i'm as big of a 'release zealot' as any but i think a lot of negative reaction to the two line proposal is knee-jerk. i'll also fish flatheads in the summer if water temps get too warm and there is no reason cat guys shouldn't be able to use an extra line. this is a good proposal if it comes with a reduction in bag limits as stated. i don't see how that wouldn't offset any increase in harvest.
not trying to nullify your opinion but we need to have our terms straight if we're going to discuss. i've never seen a 5/0 sucker hook do anywhere near the damage a 8/0 bucktail or pounder hook can do to the throat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'In Minnesota we fish the way God intended.......one man, one rod.'
I do believe our maker intended us to use large nets. Seems like it, from what I have read. I don't think current population ever occurred to the deity. if it had, he'd have said, 'Go forth and play baseball'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | firstsixfeet - 3/7/2011 6:42 PM
You spelled Iowans wrong Shaley... ;)
Minnesotan born and bred, just stranded in Iowegia.....
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1061
Location: Medford, WI | As a fisherman in Wisconsin, I've used multiple lines for the past 6 years, whether I'm by myself or with others. Mostly it has been in the fall, and I have never killed a musky on a quickstrike rig. I'm not saying that they couldn't inhale a sucker...just that I have never seen it in probably well over 50 sucker strikes.
I don't think you can make the "not getting to the sucker rod fast enough" argument on this one...sure, you can't wait minutes (and should quickly reel in your bait and tend to sucker rod) but I think those that fish with livebait would strongly agree with me.
I love being able to have multiple lines; however, I'm sure that is because I'm from Wisconsin and that's how I'm used to things.
As far as an opinion of adding a line/angler, I guess I wouldn't favor or oppose it. The only way I'd oppose it is for those anglers who kill fish with single-hooks; as they'd only be able to have one line out at least.
What do I know....Jake Bucki |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| shaley - 3/7/2011 7:29 PM
firstsixfeet - 3/7/2011 6:42 PM
You spelled Iowans wrong Shaley... ;)
Minnesotan born and bred, just stranded in Iowegia.....
Shirker!
Edited by firstsixfeet 3/7/2011 7:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Alexandria, MN | lhprop1 - 3/7/2011 3:34 PM
I like giving people the option of paying a fee on their license for an additional line if they so choose. As long as the limit remains the same, I don't see an issue with it.
-I agree with this so long as the funds generated by the additional fees go DIRECTLY to fisheries. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 74
Location: Brainerd, MN 56401 | sworrall - 3/7/2011 6:51 PM
'In Minnesota we fish the way God intended.......one man, one rod.'
I do believe our maker intended us to use large nets. Seems like it, from what I have read. I don't think current population ever occurred to the deity. if it had, he'd have said, 'Go forth and play baseball'.
What I meant by my post was if the good Lord wanted us to fish with two rods he would have given us four arms. If he did consider the current population here in Minnesota he'd have said, 'Go forth and play HOCKEY'! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nah. Watch the walleye guys. Two rods, one in each hand, see it all the time. Hockey? We'd be horribly overpopulated in the south, and everyone would behave badly. Not good. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 183
Location: Grand Forks ND | If Minnesota had more than 90 lakes in the entire state where you could fish musky I would soften up to more than one line, but until that happens I say keep it at one.
I was talking with Steve Heiting one time and I think he said he was able to musky fish literally hundreds of lakes within an hour of his home! Well, we don't have anything even close to that in Minnesota.
Why does everyone want to change things when they are apparently working? Minnesota musky fishing is pretty darn good right now, why mess it up? Just like people wanting to mess with North Dakota duck and pheasant hunting.....enough already!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 74
Location: Brainerd, MN 56401 | sworrall - 3/8/2011 7:57 AM
Nah. Watch the walleye guys. Two rods, one in each hand, see it all the time.
Do they reel with their feet or what? As a hockey player I resent that last remark. |
|
| |
|
| 1, if you need more than that go someplace else and catch more fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | jranderson - 3/8/2011 5:30 PM
sworrall - 3/8/2011 7:57 AM
Nah. Watch the walleye guys. Two rods, one in each hand, see it all the time.
Do they reel with their feet or what? As a hockey player I resent that last remark.
If you play hockey you know exactly what I mean.
Walleye anglers use two rods vertical jigging from the bow or stern all the time, one off of each side of the boat. Fish hits one, set the hook and set other rod into holder.
The number of lines allowed in MN should be determined by MN anglers and the MNDNR.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 74
Location: Brainerd, MN 56401 | We only behave badly on the ice. Off the ice I am a model citizen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | MuskyManiac09 - 3/8/2011 3:10 PM
Why does everyone want to change things when they are apparently working? Minnesota musky fishing is pretty darn good right now, why mess it up? Just like people wanting to mess with North Dakota duck and pheasant hunting.....enough already!!!!!!!
One word: Greed |
|
| |
|
| Muskie Treats - 3/9/2011 8:37 AM
MuskyManiac09 - 3/8/2011 3:10 PM
Why does everyone want to change things when they are apparently working? Minnesota musky fishing is pretty darn good right now, why mess it up? Just like people wanting to mess with North Dakota duck and pheasant hunting.....enough already!!!!!!!
One word: Greed
I guess if everything is great and there is no need to change things, supporting new lakes to be stocked with muskie would be a poor decision. Change is bad, correct? |
|
| |
|
| Change is bad?? If you got that out of what Treats said than you're really not paying attention.
Change can't be inherently good or bad.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | MuskyManiac09 - 3/8/2011 5:10 PM
If Minnesota had more than 90 lakes in the entire state where you could fish musky I would soften up to more than one line, but until that happens I say keep it at one.
I was talking with Steve Heiting one time and I think he said he was able to musky fish literally hundreds of lakes within an hour of his home! Well, we don't have anything even close to that in Minnesota.
Why does everyone want to change things when they are apparently working? Minnesota musky fishing is pretty darn good right now, why mess it up? Just like people wanting to mess with North Dakota duck and pheasant hunting.....enough already!!!!!!!
Guys, this 2 line issue isn't driven by "muskie fishermen" It's driven by other fishermen and politicians......and my other comment is for Muskiefool,..... Isn't the point of going fishing to catch MORE FISH?? I mean really , who goes fishing to just catch 1 or 2 fish ? If you catch a fish at 7:00am do you quit for the day?
We fish to catch fish, and yes using 2 lines will enable you to catch more fish. and I agree that more fish (of all species) will probably die., but I really don't think that it will decimate a body of water like some of the "Chicken Little" theorists out there.
Ok,.... Now I feel better.
Jerome
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | stocking - 3/9/2011 9:39 AM
Muskie Treats - 3/9/2011 8:37 AM
MuskyManiac09 - 3/8/2011 3:10 PM
Why does everyone want to change things when they are apparently working? Minnesota musky fishing is pretty darn good right now, why mess it up? Just like people wanting to mess with North Dakota duck and pheasant hunting.....enough already!!!!!!!
One word: Greed
I guess if everything is great and there is no need to change things, supporting new lakes to be stocked with muskie would be a poor decision. Change is bad, correct?
Things are good, but it takes constant improvement to keep them that way. I have yet to hear how 2 line will maintain or improve our fishery. I'm all ears if you know how it will. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Better fishing does not necessarily equal a better fishery. Simply put, the more difficult you make it to catch fish, the better life is for the fish. |
|
| |
|
|
I haven't heard anyone say it will decimate the fishery.
I have heard a lot of people say it won't benefit it.
Painting them as "the sky is falling" crowd is a stretch.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Well, John... allowing people to catch more fish by using more lines can't possibly benefit the fishery, now can it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Muskie Treats - 3/9/2011 1:30 PM
stocking - 3/9/2011 9:39 AM
Muskie Treats - 3/9/2011 8:37 AM
MuskyManiac09 - 3/8/2011 3:10 PM
Why does everyone want to change things when they are apparently working? Minnesota musky fishing is pretty darn good right now, why mess it up? Just like people wanting to mess with North Dakota duck and pheasant hunting.....enough already!!!!!!!
One word: Greed
I guess if everything is great and there is no need to change things, supporting new lakes to be stocked with muskie would be a poor decision. Change is bad, correct?
Things are good, but it takes constant improvement to keep them that way. I have yet to hear how 2 line will maintain or improve our fishery. I'm all ears if you know how it will.
Shawn, again I agree..... But Us muskie fishermen are only a small part of the fishing masses in this state . Non musky fishermen are the ones that want the 2 lines. I agree that 2 lines will not improve our fishing, But I don't think using 2 lines will hurt it as much as some people think.
Ok, look at Mi lacs This lake's bait fish population exploded ,....perch,cisco, walleye, gills..... and it put a hurting on the muskie fishing... why? because the muskies had way to much food to eat.... would 2 lines have made a big difference in the fish population (all species) ?
Sooner or later this might pass, Then what are we going to do?
I guess we will still have good fishing , like the other states that have such laws. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 581
| Muskie Treats - 3/9/2011 1:30 PM
I have yet to hear how 2 line will maintain or improve our fishery. I'm all ears if you know how it will.
I could be all hot air on this, but I'll throw it out there for consideration. Sorry if I am a bit long-winded.
"Big Picture" Concept:
Increased opportunity, access and use of fisheries will make it more likely that appropriate public resources are committed to management of and improvement of the same.
Extreme example of the opposite:
The State of Maine. Muskie are not revered as a sportfish and do not receive appropriate protection from their DNR. To my knowledge, nothing is being done in Maine to expand or enhance the muskie fishery and in fact, to the contrary, a greater effort is underway to limit or even eradicate the muskie population. There are many factors causing this, but most important is the extremely limited interest and use of the muskie fishery.
In other words, there is a direct relationship between increased interest and usage of a resource and the level of management that said resource will then receive.
So, if allowing 2 lines per angler in MN creates more opportunity, interest and use of the overall muskie fishery, while not harming the fishery, then it would seem that the expansion of muskie lakes, new stockings, better management, etc., would be more likely.
If you can't tell, my general philosophy as an angler, hunter, etc. is that I am in favor of the least amount of governmental restriction as necessary, e.g., regs that limit angling or hunting rights should be enacted only as necessary to adequately protect, preserve and maintain the resource.
Bottom line. If demonstrated that 2 lines per angler will ultimately cause harm to the fishery, then I'd be in favor of keeping it as is. If there is no harm, then I'd prefer 2 lines per angler in an effort to increase angling opportunity and interest.
Disclaimer: I don't fish in MN and I don't really care one way or another. Just throwing food for thought. |
|
| |
|
| Things are good, but it takes constant improvement to keep them that way. I have yet to hear how 2 line will maintain or improve our fishery. I'm all ears if you know how it will.
we manage (and sometimes even create) fisheries for our own benefit. the rules and regulations are intended to protect the fishery while also providing for the maximum possible enjoyment of that resource by people. a reasonable case can be made that allowing 2 lines will have no negative impact on the fish while actually increasing people's ability to enjoy the fishery. this is especially true for non-muskie species, and it's important for us to remember that there are a lot of people out there fishing for walleyes, panfish, etc. |
|
| |
|
|
Live bait fishing for panfish, walleye etc. is what concerns me most about 2 lines.
Anybody who fishes a little can't deny that more fish will swallow bait if people use 2 lines. You can't reel 'em both in at the same time.
Delayed mortality will go up. Whether that is detrimental is a personal opinion.
I just don't see the logic in creating new regs that will result in more fish swallowing hooks.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| Muskie Treats - 3/9/2011 1:30 PM
stocking - 3/9/2011 9:39 AM
Muskie Treats - 3/9/2011 8:37 AM
MuskyManiac09 - 3/8/2011 3:10 PM
Why does everyone want to change things when they are apparently working? Minnesota musky fishing is pretty darn good right now, why mess it up? Just like people wanting to mess with North Dakota duck and pheasant hunting.....enough already!!!!!!!
One word: Greed
I guess if everything is great and there is no need to change things, supporting new lakes to be stocked with muskie would be a poor decision. Change is bad, correct?
Things are good, but it takes constant improvement to keep them that way. I have yet to hear how 2 line will maintain or improve our fishery. I'm all ears if you know how it will.
Does saltwater reel/rods help and improve the fishery? High tech electronics? Two rods is no different, the same 10% will still catch 90% it is a non-issue. Just choosing when to accept change based on your agenda is sloppy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 667
Location: Roscoe IL | esoxaddict - 3/9/2011 2:58 PM
Well, John... allowing people to catch more fish by using more lines can't possibly benefit the fishery, now can it?
Why fish with hooks at all? It hurts the fish and that's not good for the fishery right? We can just sit at home and watch TV holding our di&#s, which will protect the poor fish….
Everyone who fishes wants to catch more fish, that why they spend money on better equipment every single year. An added line would generate more sales; I see that as a very good thing for local businesses. Education is the key to better fisheries, spend more money on education and continuous improvements will be made.
Buy American!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 233
Location: Iowa | Keep it at one. I don 't see any benefit or any more enjoyment fishing two lines instead of one.
Two hands, one to hold the rod and the other to turn the reel.
Jeremy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 233
Location: Iowa | "Does saltwater reel/rods help and improve the fishery? High tech electronics? Two rods is no different, the same 10% will still catch 90% it is a non-issue. Just choosing when to accept change based on your agenda is sloppy."
How can you argue that having two lines in the water is the same as using saltwater rods/reels and electronics? They are completely different things. I don't think electronics and saltwater reels are going to catch fish themselves. Don't confuse tools vs techniques.
Jeremy
Edited by jwelch 3/9/2011 5:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | Is it safe to guess all you MN guys that ice fish use 2 lines??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | I don't support the two line change especially for gamefish other than muskies. While this is a muskie site, the harvest of panfish and walleyes, even fish like catfish will go up unless limits are reduced. There are FAR too many people in this state who care nothing what the limits are and are never being caught breaking the rules as it is. Too many people who are toting kids along for nothing more than additional lines. Abuses like this only get twice as bad. Poor fisherman/women who might catch nothing with 1 line out WILL catch more with two. Maybe not every day, every time out, but they will catch more.
As for muskie fishing I still don't support 2 lines. If it passes will I use 2 lines when out trolling by myself - yes. If a person is with me maybe we troll 3 total, unlikely to do 4. I don't and probably won't ever fish muskies with live bait so that aspect of 2 lines doesn't interest me at all on a personal level. Responsible people can do it without much harm to fish. Irresponsible/improperly educated anglers will kill more muskies with 2 lines. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I would expect the panfish mortality would be much greater than the musky mortality with two lines. They can't grow if somebody guthooked them when they weren't of legal size. Harvest will go up, the math is simple. It will not be double, but it will be increased. Guides will like it, because now it will be much easier to get an idiot a musky. More money. More guides. More pressure on the resource more mortality. I don't think you can assume it will cause more lakes to be stocked or more stocking density to be done. That is not something I would expect.
WI has decreased the stocking densities, rather than increasing them and there has always been a high high musky interest historically in the state. MN can't even get the population to agree on possible musky expansion. When you guys start to see trolling spreads and 2-3 trailing sausages you are going to understand the two line animal a little better. And those sausages also work extremely well on the trophy pike population. As well as the non trophy, nice pike populations. |
|
| |
|
| Guides will like it, because now it will be much easier to get an idiot a musky. More money. More guides. More pressure on the resource more mortality.
That right there is the kind of reasonable rhetoric that really helps the conversation progress. Good job. I'm not sure if you're being more rude to guides or to their clients.
And it's a pretty giant leap to equate 2 lines to more pressure. It'll mean more guides because it's suddenly so easy to get their "idiot" clients a fish? What?
When you guys start to see trolling spreads and 2-3 trailing sausages you are going to understand the two line animal a little better.
I wonder how the fishing is in places like KY and IL and NY and OH and MI and even Southern WI where trolling spreads and trailing live bait is common practice? Oh yeah, it's better than it has EVER been before. Weird, that.
There's actually less conflict between anglers who are trolling 6-line spreads than there is between casters competing for turns at the same weed points or humps.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN | Who knows, maybe with more lines people will be more attentive and there could be less deep hooks in panfish and 'eyes. I know when I'm 'toting' around my 3 kids I have to pay close attention to their lines and not just mine. Its actually that much more work I rarely get to fish myself. Plus I feel better since I'm not abusing our resources when I set down my rod. In all seriousness, I do agree with you Brian that it won't make much of a difference most of the time. |
|
| |
|
| All due respect fsf, I felt the same as "Just an Idiot" when I read that. I'm a guide and I've opposed this from the start. If you polled the guides I know I'd bet you'd be surprised. Obviously some guides would support it , but many of us are protective of the resource and support the MMA and Muskies Inc and would be opposed. I'm also not seeing the connection to more lines equating to more clients. Lastly, people hire guides for many different reasons. At least half of my clients just wanna learn something; catching fish is a bonus. I had a client last year tell me he hoped he wouldn't catch a 50 incher on our outing because he wanted to get his first 50 on his own. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Just An Idiot - 3/9/2011 8:57 PM
Guides will like it, because now it will be much easier to get an idiot a musky. More money. More guides. More pressure on the resource more mortality.
That right there is the kind of reasonable rhetoric that really helps the conversation progress. Good job. I'm not sure if you're being more rude to guides or to their clients.
And it's a pretty giant leap to equate 2 lines to more pressure. It'll mean more guides because it's suddenly so easy to get their "idiot" clients a fish? What?
When you guys start to see trolling spreads and 2-3 trailing sausages you are going to understand the two line animal a little better.
I wonder how the fishing is in places like KY and IL and NY and OH and MI and even Southern WI where trolling spreads and trailing live bait is common practice? Oh yeah, it's better than it has EVER been before. Weird, that.
There's actually less conflict between anglers who are trolling 6-line spreads than there is between casters competing for turns at the same weed points or humps.
I'm going to accept your anon name as accurate. And no, the fishing in KY is not as good as it was before, and in fact it appears that the trolling has affected it. I don't know where you fish, but I've seen the 6 line spreads and they compete for the turns and humps too. And if you have never had a six line spread come between you and the area you are trying to work, you've had a pleasant uncrowded experience fishing.....thus far. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Ben Olsen - 3/9/2011 9:16 PM
All due respect fsf, I felt the same as "Just an Idiot" when I read that. I'm a guide and I've opposed this from the start. If you polled the guides I know I'd bet you'd be surprised. Obviously some guides would support it , but many of us are protective of the resource and support the MMA and Muskies Inc and would be opposed. I'm also not seeing the connection to more lines equating to more clients. Lastly, people hire guides for many different reasons. At least half of my clients just wanna learn something; catching fish is a bonus. I had a client last year tell me he hoped he wouldn't catch a 50 incher on our outing because he wanted to get his first 50 on his own.
With all due respect, I'm standing on my post. However, I hope you are right rather than I, on guides supporting multiple lines. In my experience, they are in favor of multiple lines and multiple line trolling, particularly if they have learned the method.
Maybe you should poll the guides and find out what their feelings are about it, one of us will probably be surprised. |
|
| |
|
| To think a bad fisherperson with two rods will out fish a good one with one rod is silly...Good fisherpeople put far more stress on the fishery than a two rod rule would. Things are good, we stock them to catch them, just keeping education on C&R and things will be fine. You might also gain new anglers to support further stocking of new lakes, gain support in fights against groups such as no more muskies and the spearing agendas. Seems pretty simple in regards to muskies. BR |
|
| |
|
| We are talking MN guides here; aren't we? I never claimed all guides are against it, not even a majority. My point was that assuming all guides would support the change is just not true! On this thread alone myself and Jsondag oppose the issue and no guide has posted in support of a change. I personally know most of the prominent guides in the state and can confidently say: opinions vary widely! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Guest - 3/9/2011 4:07 PM
Live bait fishing for panfish, walleye etc. is what concerns me most about 2 lines.
Anybody who fishes a little can't deny that more fish will swallow bait if people use 2 lines. You can't reel 'em both in at the same time.
Delayed mortality will go up. Whether that is detrimental is a personal opinion.
I just don't see the logic in creating new regs that will result in more fish swallowing hooks.
JS
I don't know, John. Aren't most of the people out there fishing for panfish (and walleyes to some degree) just looking to limit out and go home? I'd think that anything that swallowed the bait in that situation was destined for the frying pan to begin with. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| ToothyCritter - 3/9/2011 4:57 PM
esoxaddict - 3/9/2011 2:58 PM
Well, John... allowing people to catch more fish by using more lines can't possibly benefit the fishery, now can it?
Why fish with hooks at all? It hurts the fish and that's not good for the fishery right? We can just sit at home and watch TV holding our di&#s, which will protect the poor fish….
Mike, that may be true. But I look at it this way:
FISHING is bad for the fishery. But the money I donate to our club every year buys more stocked muskies than I would kill if I was eating the #*^@ things. So when I catch one, and turn it loose? Well... I bought the ****in thing, and a bunch of its friends, too. Building great fisheries is a great thing. But if you can't fish for the fish and catch the fish and enjoy catching the fish?? What the **** good are they? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Kinda funny how when the trolling in Wisconsin question was up there was lots of guys from MN who argued "trolling won't affect the fishery, but expand opportunities to catch fish" now the two line question comes up and apparently trolling won't affect the fishery but two lines will?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| Well from somebody whos been around Minnesota Muskie fishing since 74
heres a recap
From a well known angler in a magazine- "Minnesotas policy of stocking its limited amount of lakes at one per acre assures this will NEVER be a destination for the serious muskie angler"
A June opening date is simply not needed
Minnesotas 40 inch minimum is overkill
but all these over regulated Minnesota trends sure havent detered people from now wanting to come here for their Muskie Vacation. |
|
| |
|
|
More and more MN lakes now have slots, special size limits etc. for walleyes, crappie,northern etc. You can't just keep everything you hook in a lot of situations.
It's our responsibility as ethical fishermen to release fish as healthy as possible.
Allowing people to fish with 2 lines will result in more fish being let go with swallowed hooks, period.
As I stated before, whether that matters to you is a personal opinion.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 667
Location: Roscoe IL | esoxaddict - 3/10/2011 1:35 AM
ToothyCritter - 3/9/2011 4:57 PM
esoxaddict - 3/9/2011 2:58 PM
Well, John... allowing people to catch more fish by using more lines can't possibly benefit the fishery, now can it?
Why fish with hooks at all? It hurts the fish and that's not good for the fishery right? We can just sit at home and watch TV holding our di&#s, which will protect the poor fish….
Mike, that may be true. But I look at it this way:
FISHING is bad for the fishery. But the money I donate to our club every year buys more stocked muskies than I would kill if I was eating the #*^@ things. So when I catch one, and turn it loose? Well... I bought the ****in thing, and a bunch of its friends, too. Building great fisheries is a great thing. But if you can't fish for the fish and catch the fish and enjoy catching the fish?? What the **** good are they?
That's right; it seems like some take fishing so seriously that it takes the fun out of it. Ever spend a day on the boat with a guy who was not happy whatsoever even after they got a fish, nothing but complaining and hard work to catch a fish so they could turn it in for points. Boy, that how I want to fish, under the gun with pressure to impress members of a club, woo hooo! Its bullsh#t and certainly not enjoyable...
Yeah, we want to be cognizant of fish mortality, but to what extreme? Having the legal right with a second rod to drag live bait while you cast, improves your chances at a strike. So what’s wrong with that? Most anglers with the knowledge and means to do this are going to release the fish anyway. There are bag limits and having a second rod does not change that. If you break the law and keep more than allowed with two rods, you can do that with one rod, a spear or dynamite. It’s still against the law.
My point is, if you fish you put the fish at risk. If some are so worried about possible mortality, that they refuse change and new ideas, then why fish at all?
|
|
| |
|
|
I think the better question is why do some people spend countless hours to improve our fisheries only to be scoffed at by those who reap the benefits.
Some of you need to pull you head out of the sand.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 667
Location: Roscoe IL | Guest - 3/10/2011 10:21 AM
I think the better question is why do some people spend countless hours to improve our fisheries only to be scoffed at by those who reap the benefits.
Some of you need to pull you head out of the sand.
JS
Spent all weekend cleaning the bathrooms, kids playrooms, bedrooms, sheets, laundry, and the kitchen was spotless when I done. I asked the kids to help out, and I got scoffed at too. You wouldn't know I did a thing after 3 day's, but I still felt good about what I did. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| ToothyCritter - 3/10/2011 9:56 AM
[...]
That's right; it seems like some take fishing so seriously that it takes the fun out of it. Ever spend a day on the boat with a guy who was not happy whatsoever even after they got a fish, nothing but complaining and hard work to catch a fish so they could turn it in for points. Boy, that how I want to fish, under the gun with pressure to impress members of a club, woo hooo! Its bullsh#t and certainly not enjoyable...
[...]
Once. Guy actually got mad and started throwing things around in the boat because I caught two fish and he didn't catch any. It was the first and only time I was ever glad when the day was over. On the ride home I started thinking "what a waste. That wasn't even fun!"
And that's what we build the fisheries for, isn't it? So people can go out and have fun catching fish. Hats off to the people out there making that possible, nobody is scoffing at their efforts. But the "protect the fish at all costs" mentality? Again, what good are they if you can't enjoy fishing for them? Something like this? This will allow more people to have more fun catching more fish. That's a good thing. Do what you can in terms of size limits, closed seasons, size/slot/creel limits, stocking, etc. That's great. But let's not forget why we build fisheries to begin with. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | I can appreciate all sides of the issue. but to me we are attempting to again FIX something that is NOT broken. Minnesota enjoys a Muskie fishery like no other state has. The studies have led to success. The hard work of just a few have brought amazing fishing opportunities to the whole state, North to South. If the studies show the change enhances the resource I'm all for it. If it just enhances the catch rate...I'll pass. Falls along the same line as being able to have up to 23 treble hooks on a bait. There's my two cents |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| If you went to most peoples medicine cabinets you would probably find 90% of them have an aspirin bottle in them
in comparison if you went into most Minnesota Walleye fishermans tackle boxes you would find Lindy tackle, Jigs,Rigs,etc
Yet when we had Ted Takasaki has a speaker a couple years back who then owned lindy we asked him what he thought of the two line proposal and he replied "i would do well biz wise but long term I think it would hurt"
He was against it and this was someone who would have reaped much financially |
|
| |
|
|
Toothy;
I'd expect that from kids, just like mine.
Unfortunately in this situation it's adults that seem to think the guys who oppose 2 lines are "the sky is falling" doomsayers that are overprotective and take the fun out of fishing.
Well I would ask you who is it that helped get our fishery to where it is and who is it that seems to think that it will stay that way when you loosen regs.
JS |
|
| |
|
| I think whether you want 1 or 2 line boils down to what you want for an outdoor experience. Some people equate success/enjoyment with how many fish they caught while others equate success/enjoyment with simply wetting a line (any fish is a bonus) or a walk in the woods (not necessarily having to shoot something).
It's safe to say that there is a good reason there are limits on how many lines an angler may use (and why it's at 1 line now), if it didn't make a difference there would be no limit. My vote is to stay with one line and just try to enjoy a little more of the fishing rather than the catching.
Tongue in cheek...if I were a guide I would not want the increase to 2 lines either because more people would want to troll then, I would wind in less fish as a result then and gas is going to be $4 a gallon soon. LOL! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | You should ask yourself, "Is this good for the fishery?" Catches in MN are the best they have ever been. Why would anyone want to jeopardize it? This will not improve the fishery. The catch rates will go up and so will the delayed mortality, swallowed rigs, and trolled fish being dragged further distances. I have heard stories of musky anglers reviving fish that they found floating after being caught/snagged by a pontoon troller. Obviously, if they were allowed more lines they would run 16 lines instead of 8. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
| Raising the limit will do 2 things in my opinion... For Muskies that is.
Quadruple or more the amount of live bait used... Almost everyone I know doesnt use live bait in MN because you cant cast with a sucker out...
Then the trolling #s will go up will double the lines, and more of a willingness to try different baits with more than 1 in the water..
Basicly, catches increase for a few years............. Then we start blaming the muskies not being there / or being hard to catch on baitfish populations....
Edited by Jason Bomber 3/10/2011 3:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| kevin cochran - 3/10/2011 2:50 PM
You should ask yourself, "Is this good for the fishery?" Catches in MN are the best they have ever been. Why would anyone want to jeopardize it? This will not improve the fishery. The catch rates will go up and so will the delayed mortality, swallowed rigs, and trolled fish being dragged further distances. I have heard stories of musky anglers reviving fish that they found floating after being caught/snagged by a pontoon troller. Obviously, if they were allowed more lines they would run 16 lines instead of 8.
Not disagreeing with you Kevin, but let me play devil's advocate here for a minute...
You say catches in MN are better than they've ever been. Why is that? One can point in many directions other than the 1 line per angler rule. I'd venture to say that catches are better EVERYWHERE, even here in IL when you can run 3 lines per person.
I see your point about the pontoon trollers, but... Do they really know what they are doing out there, or do they just toss a bunch of baits out and drive around? That method would surely cause you to luck your way into the occasional fish, but are those types really catching significant #'s of fish?
On the surface, I can see why people are quick to say more lines=bad, but... How much harm is it really going to do?
Granted, I do most of my fishing where you aren't allowed to motor troll, so I don't see what you see out there. We run into more cases where fish are killed because of incidental catch, no net, no pliers, no idea what to do with a fish of that size. But another line in the hands of the people who are most likely to kill fish to me is another line in the hands of someone who probably doesn't catch that many fish to begin with. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | esoxaddict - 3/10/2011 3:40 PM
You say catches in MN are better than they've ever been. Why is that? One can point in many directions other than the 1 line per angler rule. I'd venture to say that catches are better EVERYWHERE, even here in IL when you can run 3 lines per person.
I see your point about the pontoon trollers, but... Do they really know what they are doing out there, or do they just toss a bunch of baits out and drive around? That method would surely cause you to luck your way into the occasional fish, but are those types really catching significant #'s of fish?
On the surface, I can see why people are quick to say more lines=bad, but... How much harm is it really going to do?
Granted, I do most of my fishing where you aren't allowed to motor troll, so I don't see what you see out there. We run into more cases where fish are killed because of incidental catch, no net, no pliers, no idea what to do with a fish of that size. But another line in the hands of the people who are most likely to kill fish to me is another line in the hands of someone who probably doesn't catch that many fish to begin with.
So you admit that it will cause harm to the fishery? I dont think anyone has the numbers or estimates of the harm that will be done. I saw Shawn state that there are studies that show an increase in mortality (MN/WI border waters?). Maybe he can post them on here.
So IL is a destination for trophy muskie fishermen? I am not disagreeing that size has increased there but MN is pretty tough to beat for catching giants. Catches in MN are the best they have ever been due to stocking efforts, catch and release ethics, and strict regulations. One of those regulations is using a single line per person. I dont think you can have one or two and not the third and still have an incredible fishery. To say that we can give a little in one of these areas so we can catch more fish is greedy.
The pontoon trollers do catch fish. They use a mast system and can stack lines on both sides. They arent afraid to keep the fish they catch either. Just saying they will be 2 times more likely to catch/snag a fish if this gets passed. I am not against trolling. In fact, I have and use my mast system with four guys/four lines. Stacking twice as many trolled lines is a disaster waiting to happen if the people in your boat are unexperienced. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | A few things:
The DNR estimates that harvest goes up around 30% with the additional lines (they did creels on boarder waters) for people that use multi vs. single lines. Now extrapolate a 30% increase in harvest multiplied by every outing you have. In a state that is facing more slots on walleyes and having HUGE issues on the panfish and pike fronts this only makes the job harder. As far as the "limit is the limit" debate goes, the limit is currently set for 1 line fishing. If 2 lines were to go through the bag limits would be cut and the support for the bill drops out when people find out their walleye bag limit is going from 6-4.
In how it concerns muskies: I'm not concerned with the vast majority of people on this board when it comes to fishing ethics. The problem is that we represent a small fraction of the fishing public. We may know how to properly use a quickstrike rig (still illegal in MN if I'm correct), but that doesn't mean the vast majority of other anglers do.
EDUCATION some will say. I say great, come with me and start doing it. That's when support for this sort of thing starts to drop out. Also, HOW do you get to the "rest of the people?" I don't know how and I've spent more time trying to figure it out then probably anybody here. I doubt anyone else who loves the EDUCATION chant does either. So if "educating" 1.4 million anglers isn't really going to happen in any organized/timely fashion why make the change? We have it so good in this state with our fishery (all species) that I think we've gotten spoiled. People want more and more the easy way (better tech, more lines, longer seasons) instead of the sustainable way: creating a system that has more/better fish. The only way to keep the ride as great as it is in MN is to keep building.
Also, why stop at 2 lines? Why not make it unlimited? How about trot-lines, gill nets, bow fishing/spearing game fish? Why not open all the closed seasons? How about lifting all the bag limits? Remember, all we need to do is EDUCATE people and everything will be duckies and bunnies right?
Here's a concept to think about that should really be another thread: Fair Chase |
|
| |
|
Posts: 667
Location: Roscoe IL | Guest - 3/10/2011 2:05 PM
Toothy;
I'd expect that from kids, just like mine.
Unfortunately in this situation it's adults that seem to think the guys who oppose 2 lines are "the sky is falling" doomsayers that are overprotective and take the fun out of fishing.
Well I would ask you who is it that helped get our fishery to where it is and who is it that seems to think that it will stay that way when you loosen regs.
(quote)
I see your point. I know the efforts that some have put into it. Hell, if Treats would spend as much time selling screws as he does helping the MN fisheries, he would own a crib on Tonka..
If it aint broke, dont break it approach. But like Treats said, you have to work hard to maintain what you have. I love the having the privlage of using 2 lines when I choose to, I would imagine there are others that would enjoy it as well. If you can make anything more enjoyable, I figure your heading in the right direction.
Edited by ToothyCritter 3/10/2011 4:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| it wont be all duckies and bunnies,,were raising the limit on them too |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I don't think there's a single Canadian province that allows more than one line for open water angling (could be wrong on some of the great lakes) That tells me that they think it's something that will increase harvest. My personal opinion is something like this. Two lines well help you catch your limit for the pan or freezer, or add a muskie or two to your yearly totals. But it will also increase total harvest which I'm not in favor of. As fishing pressure increases for most species more harvest will slowly make the fishery less viable. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I can use three lines during soft water, and rarely use more than one. In the Fall casting and using a sucker, which I don't do alot of, I use two.
I don't troll at all. |
|
| |
|
| I am not sure how much of difference it really makes. Our technology is so good, people use some serious equipment to catch fish at this point. How would two lines do better than burning double ten's at this point. The use of extreme equipment and larger presentations has really increased catch rates. We will develop new fisheries and stock more fish to keep up with our electronics, boats, equipment..etc. Using two rods is specific to trolling or adding a live bait rig for the most part, none of which produce the fish large plastics and double 10's have done. Just enjoy time on the water. BR |
|
| |
|
|
And the money to keep stocking and creating these fisheries will come from???
Get a clue. The fact we have all this new tech that makes fishing easier is a reason to go to more lines??
JS |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 3/10/2011 7:52 PM
And the money to keep stocking and creating these fisheries will come from???
Get a clue. The fact we have all this new tech that makes fishing easier is a reason to go to more lines??
JS
You always are combative and less than pleasant. I simple made a point that current techniques in casting out perform trolling with two rods. Look at the increase in fish in the last few years, new equipment is the reason. You will need to find the money to keep up with the new techniques regardless of two rods. People are already catching the fish. No doubt creating fish and waters to support the current arsenal is not easy, enjoy the challenge. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | BenR - 3/10/2011 7:25 PM
Using two rods is specific to trolling or adding a live bait rig for the most part, none of which produce the fish large plastics and double 10's have done. Just enjoy time on the water. BR
Some of the biggest fish that I hear about every year are caught using suckers and trolling. Have you ever seen the sucker bobber trains on some of the MN lakes? |
|
| |
|
| I tend to disagree BenR. You can troll Dawgs and Double #!0's with great results!!
More lines=more fish caught= more mortality.
I would probably fish with more than one line if this were to pass...make patterning fish much simpler and would allow me to cast and run live bait in the fall. If it passes...I will more than likely take advantage of it. To say otherwise would make me a hypocrite.
I am not for this passing however. It costs alot of money to stock fish and manage a successful fishery. If you build it...they will come. There has to be some ways to manage pressure. With technology now days I think the fish need any advantage there is so they can survive.
My .02.
B Waldera |
|
| |
|
| As a person who was able to spend a good amount of time out east and fish the larger fish on world class waters, both in CA and USA waters, I think you are all speculating. I don't think adding an extra line is a huge ordeal, having fished both based on what side you of the river you are on to an extent. I do find the passion endearing, but why does catching more fish equal more mortality, or at least a measurable amount. Are you all challenged at C&R? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | No matter if the 2 line bill passes or not we still need more bodies of water to put muskies in because of the explosion in muskie fishing state wide.
Once a lake can sustain it's muskie population, like V, Mille lacs, leech.(natural reproduction) than I would think that other lakes could be stalked...... I still think that 2 lines aren't going to make a big difference..... But those big Party barges with 14-18 lines out do scare me.
A good debate, with some good info guys.
Jerome
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN | I think I'm catching onto the logic here. For example:
High unemployment rate = more time to fish = more fish caught = higher fish mortality.. Dang, even the fish are hit hard by this recession.
But gas prices will put this back in check soon enough.
Couldn't resist....
Edited by Targa01 3/10/2011 9:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| kevin cochran - 3/10/2011 4:34 PM
[..]
So you admit that it will cause harm to the fishery? I dont think anyone has the numbers or estimates of the harm that will be done. I saw Shawn state that there are studies that show an increase in mortality (MN/WI border waters?). Maybe he can post them on here.
So IL is a destination for trophy muskie fishermen? I am not disagreeing that size has increased there but MN is pretty tough to beat for catching giants. Catches in MN are the best they have ever been due to stocking efforts, catch and release ethics, and strict regulations. One of those regulations is using a single line per person. I dont think you can have one or two and not the third and still have an incredible fishery. To say that we can give a little in one of these areas so we can catch more fish is greedy.
The pontoon trollers do catch fish. They use a mast system and can stack lines on both sides. They arent afraid to keep the fish they catch either. Just saying they will be 2 times more likely to catch/snag a fish if this gets passed. I am not against trolling. In fact, I have and use my mast system with four guys/four lines. Stacking twice as many trolled lines is a disaster waiting to happen if the people in your boat are unexperienced.
IL is certainly not a muskie destination. And it never will be, no matter WHAT sort of regulations are passed. Muskies don't reproduce here. The forage base typically is not suitable for trophy populations of muskies. Water chemistry is different, summers are hotter, the biomass is competely different. You could outlaw fishing for them completely down here, and you'd never see the size, numbers, or quality of fish that you see in other places. It's not even worth comparing the two states, because down here we're putting muskies in an environment outside of their native range, where they frankly don't belong to begin with.
The point I am trying to make is that you have to look at WHY the fishing is what it is in MN. Personally, I don't believe that the one line per angler rule has much (if anything at all) to do with it. There are big muskies in MN, and lots of them, because the lakes are capable of growing and supporting populations of big fish. There are lakes where I fish in Northern WI where it's rare to se another boat. If there's more than one trailer at the landing it's a busy day. Those muskies? Unfished. Undisturbed. And you know what? You could fish those lakes your whole life and never see a 30# fish, because they aren't CAPABLE of growing one that big.
So anyway... back to the 2 line proposal... Will it cause "harm to the fishery"? Every single time we throw a lure, we're potentially causing harm to the fisheries. The question is whether allowing 2 lines per angler will cause enough harm to be a detriment to the quality of fishing we are seeing today. I say probably not. IF anything is harming the fisheries in MN? It's the fact that everyone who picks up a book or a magazine or watches a TV show has now gone to MN in search of the holy grail.
The "pontoon trollers"? Well, that's a phenomenon I haven't seen where I fish. But are there really that many of them? Seriously, is it as bad as you MN guys make it sound? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Guest - 3/10/2011 7:52 PM
And the money to keep stocking and creating these fisheries will come from???
Get a clue. The fact we have all this new tech that makes fishing easier is a reason to go to more lines??
JS
No, the reason to go with more lines is to make the fishing better, so more people buy licenses, (generating revenue for stocking and creating more fisheries) gas, food, lodging, and everything else that anglers pour money into. You've heard the phrase "if you build it they will come", right? Well, build it you did, and come they have, by the thousands.
Now that I think about it, you MN guys ought to put your efforts into improving the fisheries in neighboring states. If everyone else just stayed the heck home, it wouldn't matter if you ran 6 lines per person. The pontoon trollers boats could look like a porcupine, and you'd STILL be better off |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | esoxaddict - 3/10/2011 11:04 PM
The point I am trying to make is that you have to look at WHY the fishing is what it is in MN. Personally, I don't believe that the one line per angler rule has much (if anything at all) to do with it. There are big muskies in MN, and lots of them, because the lakes are capable of growing and supporting populations of big fish. There are lakes where I fish in Northern WI where it's rare to se another boat. If there's more than one trailer at the landing it's a busy day. Those muskies? Unfished. Undisturbed. And you know what? You could fish those lakes your whole life and never see a 30# fish, because they aren't CAPABLE of growing one that big.
Sorry, but you can't tell me that some of those small lakes that have ciscos in them can't grow big fish. We have pot-holes here in MN with nothing to eat but crappies and bullheads and we're getting 50's out of them. Genetics can be a determining factor I know.
I personally think it has to do with the fact there are still a lot of people that use single hook sucker rigs and bonk muskies. to add to this the state min is still 36". There's a LOT more going on in WI then forage.
If we make 2 line a reality in MN you're going to see more people using single hook rigs, mainly because they don't know better as well as traditional quick strike rigs are still illegal (better pass this year!). If this happens fish will die and opportunity of all will go down plane and simple. If you don't believe it go to Harriet. It's one of the only lakes in the state that you don't have a good chance at a 50". What's different about Harriet? All the sucker fishing, a lot of it from people that aren't your typical "muskie fishermen". Like suckers or hate them, if you rig them wrong or don't know how to fish them (like the majority of the 1.4 million anglers) you're going to have increased mortality.
Edited by Muskie Treats 3/11/2011 8:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | I'm glad I'm not bitter and cranky..... or old..... well maybe.... a little.
What you wrote Jeff makes a lot of sense to me.
I think some Minnesotsn's need to get out more and experience other states fishing cultures...... We are definitely spoiled here.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Are you saying I'm bitter and cranky????
My wife would agree with you if you are. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | esoxaddict - 3/11/2011 1:20 AM
No, the reason to go with more lines is to make the fishing better, so more people buy licenses, (generating revenue for stocking and creating more fisheries) gas, food, lodging, and everything else that anglers pour money into. You've heard the phrase "if you build it they will come", right? Well, build it you did, and come they have, by the thousands.
Huh? More lines=better fishing. Catch rates will go up but so will all the negative things that are associated with catching/releasing fish. Do you define "better fishing" as catching more? I would think that many muskie anglers are looking to catch bigger. If there is any revenue created by having an extra line then that will have to go directly back into the fisheries to repair the damage that was done by that extra line. Having an extra line will not help grow bigger fish. If anyone thinks it will help please explain it to me.
I really dont see more people coming to MN now if this two line passes. Specifically regarding muskies. If the fisheries suffer then anglers will go elsewhere.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Muskie Treats - 3/11/2011 9:05 AM
Are you saying I'm bitter and cranky????
My wife would agree with you if you are. ;)
No Shawn, It was directed at a post that was pulled...... You've never been cranky, have you? |
|
| |
|
| Let me clarify a couple of issues that keep coming up. The whole "every time we hook a fish we harm the fishery" argument is completely off base, the fishery is currently improving and is better than at any point in history! With all the pressure and other factors, there is still an upward trend. This means that all the guides, pontoon trollers, tv shows, out of staters, ect, are NOT harming the fishery, YET! Management allows for stresses put on the resource by fishing. Due to the hard work of folks like "treats" and many others, management has managed to stay ahead of the curve. We're not talking about harming a fish, we're talking about harming a fishery! Obviously, if we keep adding pressures to the fishery (everyone agrees adding a second line increases pressure to some extent) at some point management resources and support will no longer be able to keep up; the trend will reverse and start the decline. Of course we build the fisheries to catch the fish and we account for that when setting limits and making regulations. My point is simple: I'm not saying that adding a line will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but I think we can all agree that it will add some weight to the camel's load, moving us ever closer to the point of breaking. The question that is worth asking is: Are the benefits of adding a line going to outweigh the costs to the fishery. I fish 200 days a year all over the country, including states that allow multiple lines and, my $.02: I'm not missing anything (both personally and professionally) by not adding a line. Say what you want about me but, that's an expert, professional opinion.
Secondly, almost everyone who is opposed on this thread has said over and over that increased catches by responsible muskie fisherman are NOT a cause for our concern!(yes, even those who responsibly use live bait) We like to overlook the fact that we comprise only a fraction of overall pressure on the muskie fishery. Literally thousands of muskies are caught each year by anglers not specifically targeting muskies. Increase those numbers by even a small percent and the impact could be substantial.
Lastly, muskies, as a species, are vastly differently from every other popular fishery in our waters. They are slower growing, harder and more expensive to propagate, less successful at natural reproduction, more difficult to release successfully, and more "managed" than every other species. Therefore they will be more effected by a change than other species. Will more panfish be killed by swallowed hooks? Maybe, but the impact to the overall population is certainly not comparable to muskies.
Edited by Ben Olsen 3/11/2011 2:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 216
Location: Belleville, WI | kevin cochran - 3/11/2011 9:55 AM I really dont see more people coming to MN now if this two line passes. Specifically regarding muskies. If the fisheries suffer then anglers will go elsewhere. I actually would be more likely to musky fish in the fall in Minnesota if I could use two lines. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | You can bet we'll miss you... |
|
| |
|
|
Actually most DNR peeps I've talked to that are against the 2 line deal are much more concerned about panfish and walleyes being affected by a change to 2 lines than muskies.
Many more people fish for other things than skies. The impact will be seen where large numbers of fishermen are on "hot" lakes. It isn't hard to put the hurt on a panfish population that is getting a lot of pressure. People taking limits of big fish can set back crappies and gills for years.
|
|
| |
|
| Muskie Treats - 3/11/2011 6:53 PM You can bet we'll miss you... Is it absolutely necessary to be a jerk in every answer, Shawn? Mike's just pointing out a fact, like it or not, and wasn't the least bit rude about it.
You might not "miss" Mike this fall, but the hotel he'd stay at will miss him and the cafe he'd eat breakfast at will miss him, and the small bait store will miss him, and the sporting goods store will miss him... I know that's not a "good of the fishery" point, nor am I saying it's a good enough reason to make the change. (and it's the same one used by those who want to open Cass to spearing!) But when thinking about what the DNR is likely to do, you have to consider it. The government manages the fishery as a resource both for it's own sake, the enjoyment of the residents, and also as a tourism draw. You can disagree with that goal, but it's still undeniably true. I'm there every fall anyway, and I'd like to be able to make a few casts while dragging a sucker. (gasp! yes, i use livebait in MN.) I doubt it would mean more fish caught, but it'd help keep me warm in early November those couple days before deer season opens. I'd love it for trolling in June, and that actually would mean more fish in the boat...or at least that my wife and mother-in-law could stay home instead of giving us "extra" lines in the boat. |
|
| |
|
|
Managing the fisheries as a tourism draw is exactly why MN regs are getting more progressive and restrictive, much like Cananda over the past decade.
People will come here to catch big fish, and numbers of fish.
They won't come here just to use 2 lines.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 294
Location: Bloomer, Wi | People will come here to catch big fish, and numbers of fish.
They won't come here just to use 2 lines.
-thats not nessasarly true a couple friends of mine didnt want to go to MN last fall cuz they couldnt drag suckers while casting, they just wanted to increase there odds of catching a fish.
|
|
| |
|
|
It may be true in a few cases, but I know plenty of guys coming here from WI and other places that have no problems fishing with one line.
To say that there will be a significant increase in tourism 'cause we go to two lines is an opinion that can't be proven.
To say that people are drawn to MN because of the opportunity to catch big fish is a statement that I think we can all agree on.
I feel more comfortable with the long term picture of keeping the MN fishery top notch by keeping things the way they are.
JS |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | what are the chances this even happens anytime soon? imo, selfishly I'd like to be able to use 2 lines but I'd have to agree with others that in the long run 2 lines will hurt the fishery, not help it and won't bring any more substantial dollars to the state that would offset the harm it would cause...too many clue babies out there dragging meat around right now with 1 line, give them another bobber to drag around or line to troll and that only means more fish hurt/killed ....not a good thing...MN fishery is 2nd to none...why mess with a good thing ?
Edited by BNelson 3/12/2011 9:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | We left the two lines per person behind a couple years ago. Michigan now allows three lines per person on all lakes. Has anything changed? The answer is no. Did we improve our catch rates? On one occasion my wife and I did but most of the time we just run 2 to 4 rods even though we can run 6. Just because you can run more rods doesnt mean you actually can managed to do it. On small lakes trying to run 6 rods with two people is a circus .
For Minnesota to consider two rods per person is no big deal. Michigan was two rods for as long as I can remember. W e went to three with no big deal at all. The only place where it even is applicable is big water trolling.
My wife and I bluegill fish every spring and we are allowed three rods each. W e can only handle one rod each. Pan fishing with multiple rods is impossible where we fish. The multiple rod legality issues are for the most part moot. Where they apply is Planer board trolling and down rigger trolling. Big boats , big water etc.
On Lake st. clair going to three rods has allowed us to remove the sliders and just fish one lure per rod. I am really glad this new rule is in effect over here. Most of the arguments here are the same arguments we heard years ago and they simply have not proven to be true. Pontoon trollers????????? ha ha ha ha . Those guys sound real dangerous to the fishery.
Attachments
----------------
 Jesus_facepalm.jpg (20KB - 174 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| I luv it when guys who don't even fish in Minnesota comment. Kingfisher you have no idea what goes on in Minnesota on some lakes in the fall with livebait. None. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | BNelson - 3/12/2011 9:47 AM
what are the chances this even happens anytime soon? imo, selfishly I'd like to be able to use 2 lines but I'd have to agree with others that in the long run 2 lines will hurt the fishery, not help it and won't bring any more substantial dollars to the state that would offset the harm it would cause...too many clue babies out there dragging meat around right now with 1 line, give them another bobber to drag around or line to troll and that only means more fish hurt/killed ....not a good thing...MN fishery is 2nd to none...why mess with a good thing ?[/QUOTE
Brad, this bill to add an other fishing line is not being pushed by anyone in the "muskie community" as far as I know,... but by the pan fishing,/walleye guys and politicians. I don't think the people in the State are even thinking about how this will effect the muskie population.
If this passes, I would only take advantage of using 2 lines mainly in the fall, and of course Walleye opener.
if they drop the daily bag limits from 6 Walleye's to 4,... so what....One person doesn't need more than 4 fish per day anyway, do they ?
Heck, if I take just 2-3 of my kids fishing for walleye and we get our limit(which we do quite often) that's plenty for a whole family of 9.
Will it be a good thing for the fishery ? no.
But I don't feel it will be as bad as some guys think.
Jerome
Edited by Top H2O 3/12/2011 10:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Since we started talking about species other than muskies...Walleye limit is no big deal if it goes from 6 to 4? What about all the lakes that are already at 4? Like Mille Lacs for example. With more fish being caught while using 2 lines, those limits will more than likely have to go down as well to compensate for the delayed mortality rate. For anyone that has any experience walleye fishing on Mille Lacs, can you imagine the line spread from the open water trollers in June and July? Not to mention they are pulling fish from deep water in the heat of the summer where there is a very high mortality rate...one can see this by all the big floating walleyes. Can you imagine all the bobbers on the reefs the first month of the season, or how about all the crankbait trollers in the fall? Also, the Indians are taking more fish every year by gill net/spear, and now you want 2 lines? Everyone seems to think that because of catch and release everything will be fine and dandy. Many people often feel strongly about the use of 2 lines when they state that a limit is a limit. Well, that's true to a degree, but what about all the fish that you caught and released? The fact of the matter is that there will always be a certain percentage of fish that will die even when the best catch and release practices are used. More fish being caught= more dead fish. For muskies, if 2 lines are allowed, I think there will be less impact to the fishery on the big lakes such as Mille Lacs, Vermilion, Leech, versus the smaller lakes. However, I feel the walleye populations on these lakes will be hurt by the usage of 2 lines. On the smaller MN muskie lakes that are 6,000 acres or less, I think the 2 lines will have a negative impact on the fishery. Not to mention specific names, but a few lakes that are around 3000 acres or less will really be vulnerable. A few of these lakes are already so heavily pressured that I couldn't imagine everyone who is out there with an extra line. Just my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN | Well stated Ben O. Really highlights the overall picture of what drives MN management. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Sure I do. Im giving you all an honest evaluation from a state that has had two rods per person for the last 50 years. The only thing that effects mortality is bag limits. You know full well that most Musky anglers use good catch and release ethics and a few do not. Those few have so little effect on your fishery its not even worth mentioning on a sate wide basis. Two rods per person is not going to change your fishery in any measurable amount. It might effect a few lakes where die hard musky and pike killers will take every legal fish they can but on a state wide basis the impact will be unmeasurable. So with two rods you will be able to drag a sucker and cast at the same time. COOL. Thats what we have been doing for 50 years.
The truth is we know what really kills fish here. Spears, and the fact that we have a one fish per day limit. No closed winter season(on all inland lakes except fr brood stock producers), and no real enforcement of existing laws. But hey you guys do what you want. We have a three rod per person limit here and it has not affected us at all.
Where three" lines" does affect us is with tip ups on pike waters where so many tip ups are unattended. Treble hook swallow rigs KILL HUNDREDS OF SUBLEGAL PIKE and have for decades here. Unattended lines are fish killers period. Controlled lines in a boat are completely different. My wife and I fish 4 rods most of the time even though 6 is legal. It is my contention that Tip ups should not be allowed on Musky waters at all. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| People are just plain ignorant if you dont think two lines will impact METRO muskie fishing!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we have a huge population of imigrants that were raised on fish are food culture, go to the public docks on Harriet,Calhoun,isles,nokomis the narrows on tonka these people keep everything including muskies,,,'yeah but you can still only keep one' yes but two lines will now allow imigrants to still fish their crappie minnow and throw out a sucker ,,size limit in effect??? so what these people dont bother to educate and the 42 incher going back------after ten minutes getting the single hook out is good has dead
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 138
Location: Utah | FWIW here's another 'outta-state' comment. We're allowed a two pole license and yes we pay for the 2nd license. We'll troll 4 lines as there's 2 of us. For us it hasn't led to any 'multiple' hook-ups at least yet. More Muskies including Tiger Muskies die from improper handling or doing everything right...well the fish dies.
Additionally, we'll only potentially clear 2 other lines and take our chances on the one line left in the water...haven't lost a fish yet. Including if on the prop wash troll we don't clear any of the other lines...still haven't lost a fish.
If the conditions are 'nasty' rec boaters and/or very windy we don't troll the additional lines. Our primary water may at full pool for potentially a 40" plus fish is only 2900 acres. We don't have 10,000 lakes to fish. So we're glad we can use 2 rods to troll as conditions permit.
Again FWIW from another outta-stater...you have a bigger issue with the 'uneducated' angler' not fishing for Muskies were impact may come from. An outta-stater .02...
Again FWIW from another outta-stater...you have a bigger issue with the 'uneducated' angler 'not fishing for Muskies' were impact may come from.
|
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher, comparing MN and MI fisheries is comparing apples to onions. It's not even worth mentioning. Secondly, "The only thing that effects mortality is bag limits," really? So hook mortality is a myth? So mishandling fish by unprepared, inexperienced, non-musky fishermen doesn't effect mortality? Nobody, on either side of this issue, believes the impact will be "unmeasurable". The difference of opinion relates to the extent of that obvious, inevitable and very measurable impact on the fishery. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Sorry Mike.
Don't drink beer and post.
Peace out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Kingfisher - 3/12/2011 1:09 PM
Sure I do. Im giving you all an honest evaluation from a state that has had two rods per person for the last 50 years. The only thing that effects mortality is bag limits. You know full well that most Musky anglers use good catch and release ethics and a few do not. Those few have so little effect on your fishery its not even worth mentioning on a sate wide basis. Two rods per person is not going to change your fishery in any measurable amount. It might effect a few lakes where die hard musky and pike killers will take every legal fish they can but on a state wide basis the impact will be unmeasurable. So with two rods you will be able to drag a sucker and cast at the same time. COOL. Thats what we have been doing for 50 years.
The truth is we know what really kills fish here. Spears, and the fact that we have a one fish per day limit. No closed winter season(on all inland lakes except fr brood stock producers), and no real enforcement of existing laws. But hey you guys do what you want. We have a three rod per person limit here and it has not affected us at all.
Where three" lines" does affect us is with tip ups on pike waters where so many tip ups are unattended. Treble hook swallow rigs KILL HUNDREDS OF SUBLEGAL PIKE and have for decades here. Unattended lines are fish killers period. Controlled lines in a boat are completely different. My wife and I fish 4 rods most of the time even though 6 is legal. It is my contention that Tip ups should not be allowed on Musky waters at all. Kingfisher
No disrespect but where does this honest evaluation come from? Stating the effect from an extra line would be unmeasurable is not true. MN DNR has conducted studies on border water (WI/MN) that showed it would increase up to 30%. An extra line in the water will create more accidental catches, increase delayed mortality, increase poor handling, and increase intentional harvest.
In Minnesota we use one line per person (not three), have a closed season for muskies, are not allowed to spear muskies, and have higher size limits in comparison to Michigan. MN muskie management program cannot be compared to Michigan's. |
|
| |
|
| Seriously, clearly nobody but a person in MN understands their fishery, so I would suggest when calls to email representatives due to spearing and other issues you refrain from sending an email in support. Seeing as though we are all so out of touch with what MN needs, it would be seriously irresponsible to voice an opinion. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | I can't seem to find that WI/MN. border study anywhere,.... can some one help me?
Oh,.. how many of you guys from Mn. fish the St. Croix and St. Louis River/Superior areas ? Do you use more than 1 line? ..
Just curious.
Jerome
Edited by Top H2O 3/12/2011 10:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Jerome,
The DNR study wasn't published but they testified to the data in the House last year.
I fish both and use 1 line. Like I've said before, 2 line is a much larger concern with walleye and panfish though.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Trap - 3/12/2011 10:39 AM
I luv it when guys who don't even fish in Minnesota comment. Kingfisher you have no idea what goes on in Minnesota on some lakes in the fall with livebait. None.
Instead of telling someone they have no idea what goes on, why don't you try telling him what actually DOES go on so they can make a more educated decision on the matter? Just a thought... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Muskie Treats - 3/12/2011 10:31 PM
Jerome,
The DNR study wasn't published but they testified to the data in the House last year.
I fish both and use 1 line. Like I've said before, 2 line is a much larger concern with walleye and panfish though.
Shawn, I get the mortality concerns, but aren't most of the people fishing for walleyes and panfish just looking to catch their limit and go home? What's the difference if someone catches their crappie limit using two lines and limits out in 3 hours, or only uses one line and it takes them 6 hours?
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 3/13/2011 2:04 PM
Muskie Treats - 3/12/2011 10:31 PM
Jerome,
The DNR study wasn't published but they testified to the data in the House last year.
I fish both and use 1 line. Like I've said before, 2 line is a much larger concern with walleye and panfish though.
Shawn, I get the mortality concerns, but aren't most of the people fishing for walleyes and panfish just looking to catch their limit and go home? What's the difference if someone catches their crappie limit using two lines and limits out in 3 hours, or only uses one line and it takes them 6 hours?
Since I KNOW that you love the Guest posts, EA...I'm glad to help!
First, you're off base assuming that people who fish for Walleye and Panfish just want to catch thier limit and go home. They may just as easily catch and release after or before they catch a bag limit. It happens alll the time. So the same mortality risks apply to any and all fish that are caught and released, and to line WILL catch more fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
|
[...]
Since I KNOW that you love the Guest posts, EA...I'm glad to help!
First, you're off base assuming that people who fish for Walleye and Panfish just want to catch thier limit and go home. They may just as easily catch and release after or before they catch a bag limit. It happens alll the time. So the same mortality risks apply to any and all fish that are caught and released, and to line WILL catch more fish.
I'm sure that happens, but... Think about it. If you're out fishing, and you hook a fish in the gills/throat... What do you do with it? Maybe I have a more optimistic view of this than some, but if it's going to die anyway, I'm eating it. As for fishing after you've got your limit? Is that legal in MN? It's sure not legal in WI.
I think what's really going on here is something nobody wants to admit: There's just too many people fishing, too many people fishing in violation of the law, and too many fish winding up in the freezer.
This is all speculation, but the people who are doing the damage probably don't CARE what the laws are unless someone writes them a ticket. Why should the people who would fish 2 lines responsibly have to suffer because of the segment of the population that has no regard for the fisheries?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 294
Location: Bloomer, Wi | im not saying im for or against 2 lines but i agree with EA, if the majority of you are concerned with the walleye/panfish guys using more poles i dont see the problem with them getting there limit faster and getting home sooner. of course if your woried about them continueing to fish after they have reached thier limit well thats kind of crazy since they are fishing illegally already, those types of people are probably going to continue to over bag regaurdless of the number of lines being used. it shouldnt be about the "bad apples of the bunch" who do things outside the law. 2 rods in the hand of a responsible angler doesnt seem to be a problem with me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Maybe I talk to the wrong crowd. But the typical anglers that I know don't go out for whatever length of time it takes them to catch a limit. They're going to go out for a certain amount of time, and whatever they catch, they catch. Most don't go home with a limit.
Two lines could very well mean that on a particular day that they get their limit sooner and are off the water quicker like is being suggested. For these instances, one line or two lines won't have a measurable impact on the fishery. But the big picture beyond that would be more people getting their limit that otherwise wouldn't have. Or maybe getting one or two fish closer to their limit. The question that has to be asked is if it will have a measurable impact on our fisheries when also considering an increase in delayed mortality as has been discussed here. And as we can see here, opinions are all over the board.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | Most anglers don't catch their limit of any species every time out regardless where they fish (there are statistics on this). Two lines will mean more fish are caught increasing harvest. Increased harvest would negatively effect fishery populations and ultimately make for poorer fishing. Doug Johnson
Edited by dougj 3/13/2011 5:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
It isn't about people taking more than thier limit 'cause they can use 2 rods.
It's about how many more fish are going to swallow hooks 'cause they use 2 rods and you can only catch one at a time... you can't keep fish that are outside a slot or not of a minimum length etc., so they just go back in to die.
Throwing fish back that have swallowed hooks will be more of a problem with a 2 line rule.
....how can you argue that?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | The St Croix and Mississippi border waters are 2 line fisheries, with some areas open year round. Have been since I can remember. Sometimes I stand on the banks of the Croix with a tears streaming down my cheeks wondering where all the muskies and walleyes went out there. Sure, they're at all-time highs, but I still think of that 14 inch eye that ate a crawler while I was taking a leak 2 years ago. He released okay, but there was some gill blood. We'll never know...but I'm still haunted by the thought that he might not have made it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | WOW.... I'm speechless.
Edited by Top H2O 3/13/2011 9:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
I'm curious as to how many of you fishermen that have the attitude that delayed mortality isn't a big deal, or that having regs that will actually increase the amount of fish that die from swallowing hooks feel about hunting?
I look at people who don't try their best to release fish so that they will actually survive the same was as say a bow-hunter who takes careless shots and wounds deer that he never will find.
Isn't treating fish with a little respect and care along the same lines as being an ethical hunter?
If it isn't, shouldn't it be?
JS
P.S.; Something some of you may want to consider, the DNR uses the number of people that will actually catch and keep limits of fish in deciding what those limits will be. As Doug J stated, there are statistics on this. If the number of people that can catch limits goes up due to using 2 lines, the limits in MN will go down. That's from our local fisheries manager.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | OK,
If using 2 lines adds to more fish being killed, than why are some guys pushing to stock muskies in the Mississippi River Border Waters, knowing that you can fish with more than 1 line and KNOWING that using that 2ND line will kill more fish..........??
John, I'm all for lower bag limits in MN. even if we stay with 1 line per person.
Hasn't the FDA, or EPA, Posted warnings about not eating to much fish because of Mercury and other chemicals found in our fisherys..........Hummmm....Interesting.....
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| FYI, continuing to fish after you catch and possess your limit in MN is perfectly legal. You have to practice strict catch and release, but it is legal.
From page 9 of the MN 2011 regs:
"Once a daily or possession limit of fish has been reached, no culling or live
well sorting is allowed. No culling is allowed on Mille Lacs or Wisconsin
border waters (see pages 25 and 58)."
|
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Top H2O - 3/13/2011 9:46 PM
WOW.... I'm speechless.
Thanks for the laugh
Wisconsin allows for three lines and we seem to do okay. . . You'd think with all opposing two lines in MN waters, we'd have picketers at our launches here in Wisconsin. . . I suppose if someone is having such consistent action where they can't control their two lines without guthooking fish, the majority would take it down to a single rod for ease of their own stress. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | In the fall in Wisconsin, I always have a sucker going while I cast off the front deck. Sure, I catch a lot more fish, but sometimes I hear the whisper from God above. "Murderer...murderer..."
Seriously, lighten up. First it's out-of-state guides ruining the fishing. Then it's out of staters period. Then it's pontoons. Now it's two lines that will cripple the state of Minnesota. I used to fish two jigging rods on the Mississippi and the Croix, and then I lost two big bites in a tournament that I didn't get a good hook set on. I'm like Jerry Seinfeld, can't go left. So, I run one for walleyes, as most do. Better to fish one effectively than two half-assed.
Concern for the resource is important, yes, but come on. You know what can be harmful to fisheries, if abused? FISHING! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Guest - 3/14/2011 10:58 AM
I'm curious as to how many of you fishermen that have the attitude that delayed mortality isn't a big deal, or that having regs that will actually increase the amount of fish that die from swallowing hooks feel about hunting?
I look at people who don't try their best to release fish so that they will actually survive the same was as say a bow-hunter who takes careless shots and wounds deer that he never will find.
Isn't treating fish with a little respect and care along the same lines as being an ethical hunter?
If it isn't, shouldn't it be?
JS
P.S.; Something some of you may want to consider, the DNR uses the number of people that will actually catch and keep limits of fish in deciding what those limits will be. As Doug J stated, there are statistics on this. If the number of people that can catch limits goes up due to using 2 lines, the limits in MN will go down. That's from our local fisheries manager.
How many people who think delayed mortality isn't a big deal? Around here I'd say that's probably close to zero. Hunting? If was to hunt, it would be for the purpose of putting food on the table. Killing an animal is just a means to that end. You're questioning the ethcs of people around here? Seriously?
I'm not sure what you think is going to happen if this 2 line proposal passes, but We fish with 2 lines in IL and WI, and there's not a sea of floating dead fish everywhere you go. You can't catch two at once, you say... On the rare occasions that you have a fish on two rods at the same time? Set the hook, had the second rod to your buddy, reel in one fish and then reel in the other... If the fish are really going? It's not even worth trying to keep up with two rods.
And if, as you said, bag limits would be lowered along with this? Then there you have it - fewer fish killed for the table would probably offset any additional mortality caused my the rare occasion where someone fishing alone with two rods catches two fish at one time and one swallows the hook, and they decide to release it, knowing it will die, instead of taking it home and eating it.
Trying to make this an ethical issue? If it was unethical, you wouldn't be allowed to do it anywhere. Making comparisions to poor hunting practices? There's no such thing as shoot and release, so you can't really compare recreational angling to hunting, can you? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | "P.S.; Something some of you may want to consider, the DNR uses the number of people that will actually catch and keep limits of fish in deciding what those limits will be. As Doug J stated, there are statistics on this. If the number of people that can catch limits goes up due to using 2 lines, the limits in MN will go down. That's from our local fisheries manager."
I would not trust that the DNR would be able to change any fishing regulation in response to what they see as "more harvesting" A good number of our fisheries are at put & take status now already.
Also: I'm sure most MN anglers and visitor anglers are not intersted in a numbers game. We are after that fish dreams are made of. That monster that haunts us just because we saw her on a drive by finning!! "OK" is not good enough, no way, no how, in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | jusk ok..
Pretty sure Minnesota kicks out more 50's than Wisconsin due to stocking practices, forage base, general lake make-up and possibly genetics. Not two-line fishermen. You were just saying that for fun though, right? Because you can't possibly be serious. |
|
| |
|
|
EA;
How one fishes or hunts is an ethical issue. We all decide how we hunt and fish based on our own personal ethics.
How you can you not compare the two?
What I am asking is why some people would frown upon a hunter that takes "unethical" shots and loses deer, but then would not really care about fish they throw back that swallow hooks.
I'm talking about anyone in particular in this discussion obviously, I'm just trying to make sense of what seems to be a hypcocritical thought process.
I know a couple of guys that fish for big brown trout on the Straight river with worms. They end gut-hooking lots of fish that they just throw back because they are to small or to big to eat.
Yet these guys are avid bow-hunters that only take good shots etc. When they grouse hunt they only shoot birds on the fly etc.
They have a very high code of ethics for hunting, but when it comes to fishing not so much. To me that just doesn't make sense.
As a fishermen, I feel it's important to make sure any fish you catch that you aren't going to keep is released with the best chance possible to survive. Those are my ethics.
So when I think about MN going to 2 lines I see a problem with more fish being caught with less of a chance to survive. That's all.
JS |
|
| |
|
| EA;
How one fishes or hunts is an ethical issue. We all decide how we hunt and fish based on our own personal ethics.
How you can you not compare the two?
What I am asking is why some people would frown upon a hunter that takes "unethical" shots and loses deer, but then would not really care about fish they throw back that swallow hooks.
I'm talking about anyone in particular in this discussion obviously, I'm just trying to make sense of what seems to be a hypcocritical thought process.
I know a couple of guys that fish for big brown trout on the Straight river with worms. They end gut-hooking lots of fish that they just throw back because they are to small or to big to eat.
Yet these guys are avid bow-hunters that only take good shots etc. When they grouse hunt they only shoot birds on the fly etc.
They have a very high code of ethics for hunting, but when it comes to fishing not so much. To me that just doesn't make sense.
As a fishermen, I feel it's important to make sure any fish you catch that you aren't going to keep is released with the best chance possible to survive. Those are my ethics.
So when I think about MN going to 2 lines I see a problem with more fish being caught with less of a chance to survive. That's all.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Guest - 3/14/2011 1:29 PM
EA;
How one fishes or hunts is an ethical issue. We all decide how we hunt and fish based on our own personal ethics.
How you can you not compare the two?
What I am asking is why some people would frown upon a hunter that takes "unethical" shots and loses deer, but then would not really care about fish they throw back that swallow hooks.
I'm talking about anyone in particular in this discussion obviously, I'm just trying to make sense of what seems to be a hypcocritical thought process.
I know a couple of guys that fish for big brown trout on the Straight river with worms. They end gut-hooking lots of fish that they just throw back because they are to small or to big to eat.
Yet these guys are avid bow-hunters that only take good shots etc. When they grouse hunt they only shoot birds on the fly etc.
They have a very high code of ethics for hunting, but when it comes to fishing not so much. To me that just doesn't make sense.
As a fishermen, I feel it's important to make sure any fish you catch that you aren't going to keep is released with the best chance possible to survive. Those are my ethics.
So when I think about MN going to 2 lines I see a problem with more fish being caught with less of a chance to survive. That's all.
JS
I think you're drawing conclusions based on an assumption that I don't think holds much water. Caring about the fish, and the fishery, and wanting to be able to fish two lines are two things that I believe can co-exist peacefully. We can all cite plenty of examples of blatent abuse of resources. You'd be sick at some of what goes on down here. Without going into detail, it's largely folks who don't obey the laws, and don't even buy fishing licenses.
WHat I'm trying to get at here is pretty simple - allowing two lines: How significant is the impact really going to be?? People who care about the resource aren't going to fish in a way that harms the fishery no matter what the law says. People who don't care are going to do whatever they want anyway.
So the benefit to anglers like us, who might want to cast and drag a sucker in the fall, would be adding a lot of enjoyment to our fishing. And, probably little negative impact to speak of.
I see your point about more fish being caught. That's the whole idea of adding an extra line. What I am not sure of is the scope of the potential damage it would cause. Again, are the abuses that bad that we have to worry about someone possibly hooking two fish at once, allowing one of those fish to swallow the hook and therefore killing it, and that fish being released to die instead of being kept??
How often is that actually going to happen? And if there are reduced creel limits that go along with that, wouldn't that ultimately be BETTER? Fewer fish on the table = more fish in the lake any way you look at it. The decline in fisheries we see all over is most likely a result of the Friday night fish fry in my opinion, and not so much because of delayed mortality.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | kevin cochran - 3/12/2011 8:40 PM
Kingfisher - 3/12/2011 1:09 PM
Sure I do. Im giving you all an honest evaluation from a state that has had two rods per person for the last 50 years. The only thing that effects mortality is bag limits. You know full well that most Musky anglers use good catch and release ethics and a few do not. Those few have so little effect on your fishery its not even worth mentioning on a sate wide basis. Two rods per person is not going to change your fishery in any measurable amount. It might effect a few lakes where die hard musky and pike killers will take every legal fish they can but on a state wide basis the impact will be unmeasurable. So with two rods you will be able to drag a sucker and cast at the same time. COOL. Thats what we have been doing for 50 years.
The truth is we know what really kills fish here. Spears, and the fact that we have a one fish per day limit. No closed winter season(on all inland lakes except fr brood stock producers), and no real enforcement of existing laws. But hey you guys do what you want. We have a three rod per person limit here and it has not affected us at all.
Where three" lines" does affect us is with tip ups on pike waters where so many tip ups are unattended. Treble hook swallow rigs KILL HUNDREDS OF SUBLEGAL PIKE and have for decades here. Unattended lines are fish killers period. Controlled lines in a boat are completely different. My wife and I fish 4 rods most of the time even though 6 is legal. It is my contention that Tip ups should not be allowed on Musky waters at all. Kingfisher
No disrespect but where does this honest evaluation come from? Stating the effect from an extra line would be unmeasurable is not true. MN DNR has conducted studies on border water (WI/MN ) that showed it would increase up to 30%. An extra line in the water will create more accidental catches, increase delayed mortality, increase poor handling, and increase intentional harvest.
In Minnesota we use one line per person (not three ), have a closed season for muskies, are not allowed to spear muskies, and have higher size limits in comparison to Michigan. MN muskie management program cannot be compared to Michigan's.
I never compared the two fisheries. I started fishing muskies in 1996 and the fishery was small and we had very few fish. At the time we had a two rod limit. Muskies inc got on board, we formed chapter 47 we taught ,we lobbied and the fishery grew and improved. It has improved significantly over the last 12 years. Two years ago we went to three rods. I have not seen any decline in (OUR) fishery from this change. In fact we had one of our best years ever both in size and numbers. Kevin, what I was trying to say is that our fishery has continued to grow and get better regardless of the number of rods we can legally use.
Your state is way ahead of us on two other far more important laws. You have a closed winter season. We have proof (real numbers) that show more muskies are killed during the winter then during spring, summer and fall combined. In fact spearing has decimated Austin Lake in kALAMAZOO Michigan over the last two years. You also do not allow spearing . Those two laws alone are saving your fishery as Minnesota is a big time ice fishing state. All I am saying is that despite three rod limits, spearing and tip up harvest our fishery is growing.
So to me how can you be worried about anglers using two poles? But guys its your state and that is the beauty of America. Sovereign states where we can each do what we see is right for our state. You guys will vote and pass what the majority of your anglers want.
I think in many ways we over regulate things out of paranoia and not facts. In other instances we allow to liberal harvests and go the other way. Michigans Pike laws for instance are a Joke. The number of rods dont impact the numbers but the size limits and bag limits do. We have solid proof of this on several specially managed lakes . We increased the average size on Muskegon county Big Blue lake by get this, Removing the size limt completely and allowing 5 per day. This tactic improved the quality of the pike fishing in 5 years. 15 miles from that lake is another lake where the limit should one fish over 40 inches period. Low numbers and much larger sizes. Different rules for different lakes? Maybe.
As for pan fishing we are allowed 3 rods each and as I stated we can barely handle the actoin on one. Still 25 Bluegills is the limit. I know of one guy who we busted on my lake who caught 75 in one day on one rod. 25 at a time. Some guys just dont learn until they get popped at 50 bucks a pound.
Kevin, you guys are lucky to have a close season during the winter and zero spearing. THAT my friend is your greatest achievement as far as laws go. Keep that intact and keep stocking and yur fishery will always be one of the best in the world no matter how many rods you allow. Tight lines Kevin, have a good season. Mike |
|
| |
|
| All regulations including experimental are based on one line, as well all research and creels for the past 100 years are based on 1 line.
At a 30% increase in harvest (low end of the estimate), it’s unsustainable; and will bankrupt our fisheries.
2.1 million Anglers who fish Minnesota each year, so it’s like adding 630,000 more licenses of pressure to the lake.
Each year Minnesota anglers harvest an average of 3.5 million walleye, compared to 3.2 million northern pike and 65 million pan-fish.
960,000 more Northern Pike removed
1,050,000 more Walleyes removed, 1,200,000 pounds of additional Walleye harvested
19,500,000 more pan-fish removed
16, 800 additional hours added to the current 56,000 to produce Walleyes
And then where do we produce them and with what facility or equipment
$1,012,800 dollars added to the current $3,376,000 to stock walleye to maintain the current fishery
Gimmicks at the cost of our now sustainable levels of fishing..
Why not bring back spring hunts
Jugging
Kick the limits back to 1920’s levels so we can get the pony show on the road.
Roll back to all the indiscretions of our forefathers lets go all the way.
Throw away all of the wildlife protections that were fought for during the great depression so we could have (enhanced) outdoor experiences today
Remove all the restrictions that protect all our resources; fish wildlife environment, water; lets let anyone do what they please
Then we further damage the Walleye fishery by over harvest of Pike because you feel that Pike are garbage rough fish. Panfish can be further pounded to the insect world and we can see 30% more giant Muskies suffer from sudden big fish death syndrome.
Trade it all in for $200,000.00 more or less who cares right.
Let’s leave nothing for tomorrow at any cost.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| what skill is used in dragging a sucker behind the boat when your 14-16ft up in the front slinging baits????
Im sure I'll ruffle some feathers but Im just not seeing it in a trophy managed species
your going down a shoreline slinging bucktails topwaters bulldawgs and 12 plus feet behind you hear the clicker go off run to the bac kset the hook reel em in???? to me this is the muskie world equiz of "BUY ONE GET ONE FREE" it took skill to fight and land the fish but what skill was used in triggering it when your not even close to the rod.
I can see If you fish two suckers and your making an effort to constantly monitor the lines and depths,,and it is NOT the same has trolling where you are adjusting your baits,watching the graph,
if two lines does pass my second will be a slip bobber and leech with the intention of getting a walleye and KEEPING it so two line will increase harvest in my case and if I hang a bulldawg over the side letting the tail wiggle while casting something else Im sure eventually a muskie will hit it after doing this time after time but I know for a fact that even if it is my personel best I wont have it repoed because it will not feel like skill was used
Two line proposal is aimed at all general fishing but not what I want to see in a 'trophy managed species"
Edited by happy hooker 3/14/2011 6:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | happy hooker - 3/14/2011 6:05 PM
what skill is used in dragging a sucker behind the boat when your 14-16ft up in the front slinging baits????
Im sure I'll ruffle some feathers but Im just not seeing it in a trophy managed species
your going down a shoreline slinging bucktails topwaters bulldawgs and 12 plus feet behind you hear the clicker go off run to the bac kset the hook reel em in???? to me this is the muskie world equiz of "BUY ONE GET ONE FREE" it took skill to fight and land the fish but what skill was used in triggering it when your not even close to the rod.
I can see If you fish two suckers and your making an effort to constantly monitor the lines and depths,,and it is NOT the same has trolling where you are adjusting your baits,watching the graph,
if two lines does pass my second will be a slip bobber and leech with the intention of getting a walleye and KEEPING it so two line will increase harvest in my case and if I hang a bulldawg over the side letting the tail wiggle while casting something else Im sure eventually a muskie will hit it after doing this time after time but I know for a fact that even if it is my personel best I wont have it repoed because it will not feel like skill was used
Two line proposal is aimed at all general fishing but not what I want to see in a 'trophy managed species"
I actually find running a sucker behind the boat far more difficult than simply casting. It's a balancing act, especially when fish are in tight. Suckers don't stay in one spot if rigged correctly, so they get tangled in weeds and hung up quite a bit. Several articles and TV shows have discussed the proper usage of suckers and where they are most effective. Folks like Larry Dahlberg, Pete Maina, Spencer Berman and other prominent guides and industry pros have all chimed in on the fact that it is not simply the act of dragging a fish around. In fact, when fish are in the slop, like on wind blown early fall days, it becomes far more work than to just chuck a topwater or blade over the top.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Muskiefool...have a beer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | esoxaddict - 3/14/2011 12:31 PM
WHat I'm trying to get at here is pretty simple - allowing two lines: How significant is the impact really going to be?? People who care about the resource aren't going to fish in a way that harms the fishery no matter what the law says. People who don't care are going to do whatever they want anyway.
Sorry dude, but we're all dumber now for reading this. "How significant is the impact going to be?" In a state where the number of people fishing muskies is growing exponentially and the number of new waters is few and far between I'll argue that ANY additional negative impact to the fishery is unacceptable. The number of muskie anglers in this state grew from about 20k in 1990 to over 225k now. We've added all of 3 new lakes during that time. If we're going to maintain the fishery we have (not even going to talk about improving it) we need MORE protections!
What really drives me crazy is that we in this state do all we can to improve and protect the fishery while fighting other groups within the state only to have muskie fishermen from all over the country telling us how we don't get it...even though they all come here on their vacations to fish. Does anyone wonder why the fishing is as good as it is here? Does anyone think it may be because we have some of the strictest regulations in the area? It isn't only 2 line, a tone of people say "what impact will fishing before the spawn do?" It's on and on how people want it "easy". Seriously, if you want easy fish (that are small) go fish Kentucky where you can fish as many rods as you want, before the spawn, and keep your 2 30"ers a day. What's even more sad is that I have to waste my time pointing this out.
Edited by Muskie Treats 3/14/2011 8:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Top H2O - 3/6/2011 11:20 AM
Not sure if this is old news or not, but it comes up every year.
I was driving in N.Mn. 2 weeks ago and they were talking on the radio about it... they seemed to think it may become a reality in the next yr. or two.
Soooo,.... What do you think? Some think that this will HURT the fishery.
I like the Idea of being able to troll 2 lines in mid Nov. or have 1 line with live bait hanging over the edge while Casting..
Jerome
Now here is the opening question. I see no where in this question that only Guys from Minnesota are allowed to post. If you dont want answers to questions dont post on public forums .
No one here from other states has tried to tell you guys that you(quote:dont get it") I told you what we have going on here so you can weigh in the evidence. Our Michigan fisheries in many places are bigger than yours. Saginaw walleyes, Detroit river walleyes, Great Lakes Salmon and some of the best perch fishing in the entire world and two and now three rods has not destroyed our fishery. Our Musky fishery in spite of all the terrible things in our regulations like open spearing with a one fish per day limit all winter is still growing. Its in decline on some lakes due to spearing but improving where there are spearing bans. We have solid numbers to prove what kills fish here. Having more then one fishing pole simply is not going to effect your waters as much as some of you guys think.
This all or nothing attitude is funny. I mean you guys elected an independent Governor a few years back. I would think you all would have more diversity in your ideas. ha ha ha . All kidding aside, Minnesota has to do what is best for Minnesota. You have some real special waters and I think you all would be surprised at how little it all would change by adding the right to use a second rod.
Ontario fought it for years on St. Clair and finally they decided to allow it. They have no regrets that I know of. Now the guys out of Belle river catch a few more fish and the guys from the U.S. who fish there dont have to run sliders. No big deal really. In Michigan we dont see a difference. It will help your catch rates a little on bigger water when trolling and give you a second line for live bait. Your economy will get an added bump from sales and some guys will actually catch more fish. You might end up stocking a few more walleyes on lakes where trolling them increases catch rates a little. My point is that on a state wide basis you wont even notice it. Michigan has been two rods as long as I have fished. Its always been pretty good. now with three? I just dont see any difference. People still abuse the limits and we have to catch those guys and make them pay. Anyway good luck you guys. Its your state and you guys will decide it at the ballot box. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Muskie Treats - 3/14/2011 7:45 PM
esoxaddict - 3/14/2011 12:31 PM
WHat I'm trying to get at here is pretty simple - allowing two lines: How significant is the impact really going to be?? People who care about the resource aren't going to fish in a way that harms the fishery no matter what the law says. People who don't care are going to do whatever they want anyway.
Sorry dude, but we're all dumber now for reading this. "How significant is the impact going to be?" In a state where the number of people fishing muskies is growing exponentially and the number of new waters is few and far between I'll argue that ANY additional negative impact to the fishery is unacceptable. The number of muskie anglers in this state grew from about 20k in 1990 to over 225k now. We've added all of 3 new lakes during that time. If we're going to maintain the fishery we have (not even going to talk about improving it ) we need MORE protections!
What really drives me crazy is that we in this state do all we can to improve and protect the fishery while fighting other groups within the state only to have muskie fishermen from all over the country telling us how we don't get it...even though they all come here on their vacations to fish. Does anyone wonder why the fishing is as good as it is here? Does anyone think it may be because we have some of the strictest regulations in the area? It isn't only 2 line, a tone of people say "what impact will fishing before the spawn do?" It's on and on how people want it "easy". Seriously, if you want easy fish (that are small ) go fish Kentucky where you can fish as many rods as you want, before the spawn, and keep your 2 30"ers a day. What's even more sad is that I have to waste my time pointing this out.
Shawn, what's sad is that even YOU won't openly admit that your fisheries aren't a result of the laws you have in place. You KNOW better. It takes the right combination of acreage, forage, water chemistry, and genetics to grow big muskies. MN has big muskies because you have the lake ecosystems to support them. It's mostly the environment you PUT them in that determines their growth potential, AND their numbers. Comparing KY to MN? Are you SERIOUS??
What do you think KY musky fisheries would look like if you stocked the same strain of fish you have in MN, and enacted the same exact laws??? Now what about IL, IN, WI, or any of the other 38 states that have muskies???
You know as well as I do that it wouldn't be the same.
I've got to hand it to you, though. You are the first poster in six pages of banter with the balls to ACTUALLY point out what the issue is, even if nit was uni9ntentional. It's not about additional lines, it's not about regulations or size limits. It's about THIS:
"The number of muskie anglers in this state grew from about 20k in 1990 to over 225k now."
and this:
"even though they all come here on their vacations to fish."
Let's skip the BS for once. We all know who you are and what you do for the fisheries. It's commendable, it's honorable, and we need more people out there like you. But let's not pretend the issue here is something other than what it is. The entire muskie world has descended on MN like flies on sh*t, and you guys are ALL angry about it.
And what's worse is that you can't even stop for a minute, and NOT mention how fantastic the muskie fishing is in MN!!! Well... What did you THINK was going to happen??!? Everybody from MN is constantly going on and on and on about how superior your fisheries are to everyone elses. And then when the great unwashed masses from every other state show up and fish, you all have some sort of crap hemmorage?
Come on, man.
|
|
| |
|
| Moltisanti - 3/14/2011 7:32 PM
Muskiefool...have a beer.
Wish I could but too many morons are trying to screw up our fish, gotta stay sharp friend.
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 3/14/2011 8:55 PM
EA
Shawn, what's sad is that even YOU won't openly admit that your fisheries aren't a result of the laws you have in place. You KNOW better. It takes the right combination of acreage, forage, water chemistry, and genetics to grow big muskies. MN has big muskies because you have the lake ecosystems to support them. It's mostly the environment you PUT them in that determines their growth potential, AND their numbers. Comparing KY to MN? Are you SERIOUS??
What do you think KY musky fisheries would look like if you stocked the same strain of fish you have in MN, and enacted the same exact laws??? Now what about IL, IN, WI, or any of the other 38 states that have muskies???
You know as well as I do that it wouldn't be the same.
I've got to hand it to you, though. You are the first poster in six pages of banter with the balls to ACTUALLY point out what the issue is, even if nit was uni9ntentional. It's not about additional lines, it's not about regulations or size limits. It's about THIS:
"The number of muskie anglers in this state grew from about 20k in 1990 to over 225k now."
and this:
"even though they all come here on their vacations to fish."
Let's skip the BS for once. We all know who you are and what you do for the fisheries. It's commendable, it's honorable, and we need more people out there like you. But let's not pretend the issue here is something other than what it is. The entire muskie world has descended on MN like flies on sh*t, and you guys are ALL angry about it.
And what's worse is that you can't even stop for a minute, and NOT mention how fantastic the muskie fishing is in MN!!! Well... What did you THINK was going to happen??!? Everybody from MN is constantly going on and on and on about how superior your fisheries are to everyone elses. And then when the great unwashed masses from every other state show up and fish, you all have some sort of crap hemmorage?
Come on, man.
So your saying the waters you list of have less carrying capacity for biomass than say Vermilion? I would bet my Dog (great dog too ) on it (Big V ) having hundreds of times less potential than those lakes in any of those places.
You could all have the same or better but most wont sacrifice the chance for 1-6 fish a day for the chance of 1/50" a week or 1/55 in a lifetime, Mississippi strain fish are not the largest, actually the larger fish from Mille Lacs have been WI fish from Iowa.
Stop stocking 100000000000000000 fish and let them grow without getting guts full of hooks and some crazy things can happen. Then you need a Kellett and support from all who care; and we do care, most you'll know or ever see here or on any site. Guys like him are working for fish while and so you and everyone can come here and enjoy them, thats not fun or easy at times so we crack and spit.
Come fish and bring lots of money.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | M-fool, you might want to lay off of the Jose for a while....... Your beginning to scare me.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| You must not like that dog very much... |
|
| |
|
| Shawn, what's sad is that even YOU won't openly admit that your fisheries aren't a result of the laws you have in place. You KNOW better. It takes the right combination of acreage, forage, water chemistry, and genetics to grow big muskies. MN has big muskies because you have the lake ecosystems to support them. It's mostly the environment you PUT them in that determines their growth potential, AND their numbers. Comparing KY to MN? Are you SERIOUS??
Growing big muskies requires the correct balance of many variables. To insinuate that Laws aren't an important part of the equation is simply wrong! Is the main key factor? No, but it IS important. Look at some of the traditional big fish waters of WI like Big Chip for example. All the key factors are there but still fewer big fish. Why? I'm not saying two lines ruined big Chip, rather management plans failed to stay ahead of increased pressure.
Remember, we're not talking about taking away rights! MN has always been a 1 line limit. I, personally don't think adding a line will "ruin the fishery." Nobody can make concrete claims about how it will effect things, and that's part of the problem! Comparing the fisheries of any two states is tricky and not very scientific. If we knew for sure it wouldn't effect the fishery I'd be for it! We simply don't, so I support the status quo. If two lines passed, I'd live (and even use two lines on occasion) and life would continue. The sky is not falling!
Lastly, I know plenty of gas stations, bars, resorts, restaurants, guides and even Muskie conservation organizations that are benefiting from the increased popularity of our sport. Please try not to make blanket statements or judgments about an entire state or Muskie community based on the comments of a few on a website. I welcome all who come to fish MN and really feel blessed to have this resource in our backyard. No "crap hemmorage" here! And if you need a Guide....
Edited by Ben Olsen 3/14/2011 10:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'too many morons are trying to screw up our fish'
Now there's a statement open to interpretation.
|
|
| |
|
| pretty closed statement Steve they are all crying like stray cats at the Capital, They want the fish gone so you and I and all the other Muskie freaks go away.
The same bunch that wanted your fish dead 20 years ago are back with a vengeance, they hate Muskies and the fisherman, they hate and intimidate the DNR. They will do anything to stop the new lakes from being stocked and the old ones too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Oh.... THOSE morons.
I am compelled to be cautious when publishing posts from you and some of your associates, for reasons I am sure you clearly understand.
|
|
| |
|
| I hear ya, I dont think the 2 line will go anywhere, especially after the DNR told the House committee they would reduce all harvest by 30 to 50% (3 years in a row), part of me wants it because I know harvesting 1/2 a Muskie will be hard to do.
Most will riot if they cut the rest of the game fish, its a fun discussion but I also know its reality as well.
ZERO Chance; and if it does, we win as well, not bad odds. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Agreed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | EA, if you think I haven't said anything about how great our fishery is in this thread then you need to start reading what I type...
As far as growing big fish, you bet MN's lakes are very good at growing big fish. Now getting fish to grow big is another thing all together. Fish can't grow big if they've been gut-hooked, exhausted from being caught after spawn with open wounds everywhere that cause bacterial infections, get bonked at 34", get speared, are targeted in the winter and held out in subzero temps for a 10 min photo session, etc.
Another reason why fish grow big in MN is because of our stocking rates. We stock at a lower rate then most anywhere I've heard of. Now if there's fewer fish in the lake we should increase the protections right? It only makes sense to me, I don't know about everyone else.
I ran the numbers on Tonka and I figure there is around 1500-2000 adult muskies in the system. 2 years ago when I ran the numbers I knew of over 1000 fish caught out of around 25 boats. Now considering about 2/3 of the muskie anglers are from the cities and figure 1/2 of them fish Tonka that would mean around 75k people fish muskies on Tonka by the numbers. So if 25 boats are catching over 1000 fish, what about the other thousands? THAT's why we need protections: to MAINTAIN our current quality of fishing.
Will 2 line kill the fishery on it's own: no. Will 2 line + early open season + winter harvest + low size limits + etc? Yes. So if we know something will make our resource (that we already know and love) worse why do it? It's short term gain for long term pain if you ask me.
Edited by Muskie Treats 3/15/2011 8:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| 1 line only please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 540
| I'd have to admit that draping a sucker over the side and casting too at the same time has always had me wanting mn to have two lines but after reading this thread I think peoples comments on the neagative results out weigh this, I think we should just leave well enough alone. I guess I woul'nt mind having 3 lines during the winter though lol |
|
| |
|
|
The reason our fisheries got so good so fast was because nobody knew about them.
They grew for 10 years without pressure, which in essence is having a C&R fishery.
When you are talking about trophy fish that take many years to grow and are by nature a low density creature the thought that regs won't make your fishery defies common sense.
Bob Strand ( a man who farts more muskie knowledge than anyone who posted here) says that our success was a direct result of little to no pressure for a decade, than the only conclusion you can come to is that muskies thrive when you take care of them. He very clearly states that even low numbers of delayed mortality and intentional kills would have made our waters a much different story.
They populations are very succeptable to roller coaster rides when delayed mortality and intentional harvest are put into the equation.
We have 48" limits, one C&R lake, a short season and one line only.
We also have the most popular fishery in the US for muskies.
To think that stringent regs aren't part of the equation, or that we now need to be complacent about taking care of what we have is very ignorant to history and the facts regarding what actually goes on the real world.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Muskie Treats - 3/14/2011 7:45 PM
It's on and on how people want it "easy". Seriously, if you want easy fish (that are small) go fish Kentucky where you can fish as many rods as you want, before the spawn, and keep your 2 30"ers a day. What's even more sad is that I have to waste my time pointing this out.
Don't be a 'tard Treats, we got too dang many already, and let me tell you, they aren't easy when they see 8 baits per boat pass. Keep your suggestions to yourself.
It would help if we had a surtax on FIB's, but they squeal so loudly when you tweak em, it's probably not gonna happen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| What about raising out of state license fees? I know getting size limits changed and changing season dates is a circus, but it seems like that needs to happen too. I still think the harm to the fisheries would be negligible adding an extra line, but the more I hear about the other issues that are facing the MN fisheries? Well, Shawns #'s alone indicate that there are already too many people fishing to sustain the numbers of big fish that are being caught these last few seasons. It's a young fishery, too, which means that the first few generations grew to maturity with little competition for forage and more food than sucessive generations will have available.
There's not much more fun in muskie fishing than raising a fish, and watching it turn off your lure and smash a sucker you had out. As much as I'd like to see folks able to enjoy dragging s sucker in the fall in MN? You guys have a long way to go to keep what you have going into the next decade. I've been planning a trip to MN for the last few years, but... I don't want to be part of the problem. God knows we have our own issues in WI, many of the same issues in fact. But 75,000 people fishing 14,000 acres of water, for 1500 - 2000 fish?
Is that even fun? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| Non-resident license fees are a little low, but the best deal in the state is the deal the non-resident guides get! Talk about a crock. I'd be willing to be big money the vast majority of them don't pay anything into the state for taxes (illegal) and they get to exploit Minnesota's resources. THAT is where the focus should be if you want to talk money. Not to mention they are a big part of the reason a lot of people are now fishing many of the "smaller" lakes in MN after Mille Lacs turned cold and Vermilion fish became a night deal.
Non-resident fishermen spend a lot of money on stuff while they're in the state, from gas to food to lodging. I could see a slight increase in their license fee making sense, but not that much.
In fact, I'm gonna send an email to the DNR asking just this question. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | Deep breathing....another one..."proud of the fishing opportunities we have in MN." you bet your last crankbait we are! Back in the late 70's when an honest effort began to produce a Muskie fishery in this State that we could all be proud of there wasn't much known and fewer people knowing it. The numbers have grown and the pressure is visible. We cannot add Muskie lakes fast enough to withstand the growth. Yet there is allot more known now, but in comparison not that many more out there working on the issues and using the knowledge. I for one want ONE place in the United States that has "World Class Muskie Fishing" I see what the guys from out- of - state are thinking is a bragging statements, not meant to be. More work than I can imagine went into getting it. Allot more work to do....there simply is no room for setbacks & resource harm. We will NEVER get to this point again. If you think it is good now....it COULD be better. I say GO AHEAD ON John & Shawn keep doing what you do. We need to support your efforts not berate you for wanting to protect the resources. |
|
| |
|
| You want to use 2 lines, go use 2 lines where it is legal. That should be a tourist attraction for all the states that have such "good" fishing, right? I think it's funny how all the out of stater's want 2 lines in MN, and most of the guys in MN who are good fishermen and educated on the issue want it to stay at 1 line. The out of stater's want to catch more fish on their trips, understandable, but greedy in my opinion. Catching more fish now results in catching less quality fish in the future....I think it is pretty much common sense to understand that. Protecting the resource now ensures quality fishing in the future. Going on 3 years now, I have not heard any good arguments from those who support 2 lines, other than that they will catch more fish. Again, thinking about themselves first and not the quality of the fishery in the future. This will never pass anyway. If it does, you can put an asterisk next to any new state record fish caught while using 2 lines since it has been at 1 line for as long as I can remember.
Edited by Baby Mallard 3/15/2011 1:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| BM, I think most of the support is coming from guys who fish two lines in their own states and haven't seen any significant impact on those fisheries because of it. You can try to compare the quality of fishing in different places as an example, but the fisheries are so different it's impossible to draw parallels. Different genetics, different forage, no natural reproduction... Muskie fishing down here is a whole different animal, because we just don't have the water. If we put them anywhere, and they actually survive in enough numbers to produce a viable fishery it's all we can hope for.
So when we get in the truck and drive 8 hours each way, spending $350 in gas just to get there and back? We want to catch fish. If we wanted to fish all day and see one skinny 33" fish, we'd just stay here and fish. Except that there are so many boats on our lakes they actually crash into each other, and when we joke about taking your life into your hands even being out there, we are NOT kidding... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Baby Mallard - 3/15/2011 12:57 PM
You want to use 2 lines, go use 2 lines where it is legal. That should be a tourist attraction for all the states that have such "good" fishing, right? I think it's funny how all the out of stater's want 2 lines in MN, and most of the guys in MN who are good fishermen and educated on the issue want it to stay at 1 line. The out of stater's want to catch more fish on their trips, understandable, but greedy in my opinion.
If it does, you can put an asterisk next to any new state record fish caught while using 2 lines since it has been at 1 line for as long as I can remember.
Your entitled to your opinion. Now man up and do this at the Expo this year. Walk up to Gregg Thomas and say, "Hey Gregg, when I watched your first Blueprints video and the detailed multi-line trolling setups you use, I was appauled. I think you are greedy and your fish shouldn't count." Then on to Radloff's booth, Tanner Wildes and everyone else. Why don't you tell them how you are ethically superior? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Moltisanti - 3/15/2011 2:18 PM
Your entitled to your opinion. Now man up and do this at the Expo this year. Walk up to Gregg Thomas and say, "Hey Gregg, when I watched your first Blueprints video and the detailed multi-line trolling setups you use, I was appauled. I think you are greedy and your fish shouldn't count." Then on to Radloff's booth, Tanner Wildes and everyone else. Why don't you tell them how you are ethically superior?
That's funny, but Greg would just start laughing. |
|
| |
|
|
How exactly is one to know that using multiple lines hasn't affected thier fishery, unless they have a some way of knowing what it would be like now if they had only used one line?
I look at what MN has and realize we've only had one line up to now.
How many MN anglers do you see flocking to the states that allow 2 lines?
How many big name guides would rather stay in states where they can use 2 lines?
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Actually, JS, I know a ton of Minnesota guys who take October trips to Wisconsin, just so they can run suckers.
And I prefer to look at what Minnesota didn't have...like a viable stocking program until 20 years ago. Wisconsin made the mistakes that you learned from, while all the metro guys were beating Deer, Bone and Hayward to a pulp. Now you have a great fishery and you'll be #*^@ed if some out of towner comes in with an opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: Lake of The Woods | How about those Packers..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Guest - 3/15/2011 3:11 PM
How exactly is one to know that using multiple lines hasn't affected thier fishery, unless they have a some way of knowing what it would be like now if they had only used one line?
I look at what MN has and realize we've only had one line up to now.
How many MN anglers do you see flocking to the states that allow 2 lines?
How many big name guides would rather stay in states where they can use 2 lines?
JS
Well, John, I've fished 2 lines in IL and WI for the last 35+ years, and the only fish that I've hooked badly enough to kill were the ones I kept to eat. Those fish were going to die by means of fillet knife anyway. And for the last 7 years muskie fishing in the fall, we've run two lines constantly and it has not resulted in any muskies being killed that I am aware of. Muskie fishing is better EVERYWHERE than it's been, even in the places where you can run two lines or even 3 lines. All the signs point to catch and release as the main factor in the success of those fisheries. WI still has a 34" size limit, they have the same issues with treaty harvest, and they have the same issues with out of state anglers flocking there.
As for how many big name guides would rather stay in states where you can run two lines? Many of them DO stay in their own states until the water gets too warm to fish for muskies safely. Then, it's off to MN. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | John ,
the reason the "big name Guides come here from the south is because their lakes get to hot to fish during the summer,.... and that MN. has great muskie fishing.....
"If you build it, they will come" ......and you guys built it right,...that's why they come.
again, muskie guys aren't pushing for 2 lines.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| EA
water is that much warmer in wisc?
WOW imagine how long its gonna take to get on a spot on V if people have to slow down dragging a sucker off the back
Edited by happy hooker 3/15/2011 3:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| happy hooker - 3/15/2011 3:35 PM
EA
water is that much warmer in wisc?
WOW imagine how long its gonna take to get on a spot on V if people have to slow down dragging a sucker off the back
No but it's certainly a lot warmer in IL, IN, and KY, which is where many of your out of state guides come from. As for the WI guys guiding in MN? Not sure who most of those are, but maybe they are guys from Vilas County looking for a place where you can troll without oars?? I know of one central WI guide who goes to MN during the warmer months. Judging by the condition of his area lakes by July? 80+ degree water, bad algae blooms... I'd want to leave too.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Guest - 3/15/2011 3:42 PM
So there are a "ton" of muskies guys from MN that go to WI in the fall to sucker fish? Like if you add all their weight together, or is ton a number?
I have seen the exact opposite. WI guys coming over and sucker fishing in the fall in MN. Nothing wrong with it at all.
So MN DNR learned everything they know about stocking and muskies from the WI DNR. Really? I am pretty sure that Bob Strand found out alot of information working with Leech Lake guides/fishermen and using radio tracking.
I am not trying to discredit the work that a lot of people have put in to make MN a world class musky fishery in any way. I'm sure Bob and many others did a ton of research and hard work to get there. That would be stupid to ignore that. Just like it would be stupid to think that those people didn't take data from other stocking programs to help achieve the end result.
And yes...many Minnesota fishermen also fish in Wisconsin. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MN activists et al:
Hard to ask someone you just slapped around for help. Just a thought...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Come on guys, lets keep it some what civil.
I started this thread to find out what you thought about this 2 line bill, and you guys have given us a lot of good information.
I'm all for conserving our resources, and if 2 lines proves to damage it, than I guess I will side with keeping it as is.
There seems to be more important things going on in the World right now than to worry about using 1or 2 lines for fishing.
Later |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| I agree with Jerome and besides 2012 is less then 9 months away and were all history anyways |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Hell, it doesn't even affect me either way. I am so bitter at old man winter that I just take frustrations out on strangers at a keyboard. Man, that sounded lame.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | All I know is that it doesn't matter since this winter is never going to end. By the time all the snow and ice melts it's going to be November anyway... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | What ever you guys do regarding number of rods per person is your choice. What you do not EVER want to allow is a winter season on Muskies, Spearing of muskies or multiple fish per day limits on Muskies. Here in Michigan we are up against it with the Dark house group[. They are firmly entrenched and they kill every Musky they see under the ice. Its so frustrating I feel like banging my head against the wall at times. You guys have the laws on the books that we want (except for the single rod law) . I f we could ban spearing here and or just close the winter season on them we would save a lot of fish every year. I for one advocate total catch and release as an option but it falls on deaf ears in our state. Again good luck guys and be glad you dont have our fight . The Dark house group for some reason has a foothold that we cant seem to break. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Never said you copied anyone. Never diminished the work that was done by Mr. Strand, either. My point was that your fishery is relatively young, especially in the metro, and looking at mistakes made in WI (stocking densities, etc) would certainly be an aid in creating a better fishery. And no, Wisconsin is nowhere near MN in terms of kicking out 50's, but we had and still have some great spots to catch 'skies.
Editor's note: This post should not have been necessary. Our apologies to the author.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | I don't know Shawn........ With all this HOT AIR that this thread is producing I'm thinking that this Ice and Snow can be gone in a few weeks.............Sheeeeeshh! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | On a much brighter note we got 2 new muskie lakes today: Horseshoe Chain in Sauk Rapids and Roosevelt in the Nisswa area. |
|
| |
