Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 6 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Mn. Two fishing Lines.... |  |
| Message Subject: Mn. Two fishing Lines.... | |||
Muskie Treats |
| ||
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. | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
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... | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
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? | ||
| Guest |
| ||
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. | |||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
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? | ||
| Joe Cal |
| ||
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. | ||
| AWH |
| ||
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 | ||
| dougj |
| ||
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 | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| 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? | |||
| Moltisanti |
| ||
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. | ||
| Top H2O |
| ||
Posts: 4080 Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | WOW.... I'm speechless. Edited by Top H2O 3/13/2011 9:48 PM | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| Top H2O |
| ||
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 | ||
| whynot |
| ||
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)." | ||
| Sam Ubl |
| ||
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. | ||
| Moltisanti |
| ||
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! | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
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? | ||
| jakejusa |
| ||
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. | ||
| Moltisanti |
| ||
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. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| 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 | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| 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 | |||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
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. | ||
| Kingfisher |
| ||
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 | ||
| Muskiefool |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| happy hooker |
| ||
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 | ||
| Moltisanti |
| ||
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. | ||
| Moltisanti |
| ||
Posts: 639 Location: Hudson, WI | Muskiefool...have a beer. | ||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
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 | ||
| Kingfisher |
| ||
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 | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
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. | ||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 6 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |