|
|
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
|
|
| |
