Two lines in MN? Possibly..........

[sandmannd]

I agree with Auggie and Tim when is enough enough? In the land of 10,000 fees we have enough. Other states do this and have no problem. If they are going to allow two lines, then allow it. But don't do special licenses for it, that's a CO nightmare!! Either do it or not, I don't really care as I fish on the Croix and use tow lines all the time. For those against it, do you use two lines in the winter?

If they need more money then raise the license $5 as it hasn't gone up in the last number of years anyway.

[sandmannd]

One more thing that's funny to me is I had a buddy that keeps saying he's all for the extra fees and whatnot because it goes to the DNR and they need it. Yet this same person couldn't afford to pay for gas, bait or whatever else to go out fishing. I don't understand how that even works? 

[kingfisher1]

 

Sandmannd-
maybe your friend was going through a rough financial patch. 

Lets keep this on topic.  If you still have problems with your old friend, talk directly to them.

[JCAMERON]

Sounds like this is getting personal. Let's keep it on topic.

[ChrisWallace]

i think its dumb that it would cost a fee, however how often would you actually use 2 lines in open water, usually only trolling or when your sitting in one spot. most open water anglers are constantly casting and on the move and another line would just be a hastle and get in the way. just think as soon as you cast you get a bite and so you catch that fish and then have to un-snag your lure from the grass or rocks... i dont think i would use a second line much but i would be nice at some times. i dont think paying $10 for it would be worth it, or $1 at that. now ice angling on the otherhand 2 lines is almost a necessity. imo

You would/could use two lines quite often.

How about slinging for muskies and having a follow come boatside and having a nice fat pinned down sucker swim across that skis face? Usually a dead sucker results.

How about slip bobbering out on a mille lacs rock pile as the sun sets?

How about spring time crappies?

How about for trolling for skis? Having a bait running through the prop wash is a great place, but sometimes running a bait off a bird works well too.

How about lead coring on woods for walleyes? or Running birds and wire for eyes out on 8 mile mud?

How about fishing the river? Throw a line out as lindy rig/yoyo set up and toss a crank with the other?

How about fishing suspended crappies over deep water? 2 lines gives you one extra rod to try a different depth.

How about trolling on Red lake for pike? Rolling a heavy spoon right off the bottom and burning a blade bait right under the surface?

How about throwing a spoon for pike on red and having a bobber out for your walleyes?

My concerns are this:
Yes we are only allowed to keep so many. But how many people dont get their limits day in and day out, so how many more fish will be caught and killed because of that second line.

Hooking mortality...how many fish are going to be reeled in, have the hook ripped out, thrown over the side of the boat so the angler can simply reel in the other fish?

I would be all for paying a fee IF the money stayed with the DNR your licenses go to the general fund, i.e your paying for some artsy fartsy class for a kid who doesnt know the difference between a sauger/walleye/zander. Did anyone see they want to start taking from the legacy fund again?

Comparing this fee to hunting ducks is wrong. Last I checked there wasnt any fees associated with duck or goose hunting that gives any hunter an advantage, like saying heres a 10 dollar fee for 6 shots instead of 3. Our fish also dont migrate south either, so our fish are not managed on a nationwide level if you can say they are managed.

[IKE311]

  If someone could show me that all the money that we spend goes to were it is suppose to go I would have no problem paying a little more. The problem is there are to many hands in the cookie jar. I personally would not wanto pay for an extra line. Just another way to take more money from us in an already tough time. the government is full of crooked politicians and that is never going to change

[GirlGuide]

Sounds like this is getting personal. Let's keep it on topic.

I agree with this Cameron on this one.

I think both of the sides of the spectrum have good and valid points.

BUT PLEASE, AGREE TO DISAGREE AND MOVE ON.  Say your opinion, but no need to bash anyone else for their opinion if they don't agree with you.  It get's old after a while...no need to try and beat your point into someone's head over and over again.  I don't think you can change the way some people feel on things no matter how hard you try.  And to keep repeating your opinion over and over again, is pointless AND annoying.   

~gg

[kingfisher1]

well said GG.  If you feel the need to bash someone, this isn't the spot for it.  Please do it in other ways.  I know I can be guilty of this, but we all need to watch the bashing at some point.  If you feel the need to bash someone, do it somewhere else.

[Auggie]

Thank you Chris Wallace. The point of where the money is going is more important than another regulation and the actual $ itself. GG, nice to see you join in! But again you need to get off the fence!

[kingfisher1]

I totally agree with you Auggie.  I totally agree that any money we pay in license fees should go straight to the DNR instead of the General fund.  I, too, am pissed that politicians want to take from the cookie jar. 

Nontheless, I don't have a problem paying $10 if I choose to use an extra line. 

[sandmannd]

  Didn't mean to come accross that way.

Anyway, with the extra fee, I don't have a problem with $10 to use another rod. The problem I have is you are opening up a slippery slope for them if you are fine with this. It will be a fee for the rod. Then soon you will see a fee for using spinner baits, or to use redtail minnows. Might be a fee to fish for pike or walley or bass. It just won't end when you open the door for it. And I can't get behind the "The DNR needs more funds" when they miss-spend almost 300k on a party.

[kingfisher1]

While you make some decent points sandmannd, the whole "DNR needs more funds" and the misspent money was beaten to death in another thread.  The DNR is taking care of that problem and those responsible are no longer with the DNR.  Move on.

This bill hasn't passed yet, and it's optional.  If you don't like it, don't pay the optional fee if it passes. 
It's an option that we might have have, pending passage, and while I agree that the money from all licenses and fees from the outdoor sports should go straight to the DNR instead of the general fund and that if they pass this they should allow it for free, I personally wouldn't have a problem with the possibility of using a second rod.  The DNR isn't close to being perfect, but either is any other part of Government.  We have all misspent money at one point or another, and have hopefuly learned from it. 

[Woody]

Kingfisher....I'll have you know that money I gave that exotic/erotic dancer was not misspent money-she was saving up to go to college.   

[kingfisher1]

Kingfisher....I'll have you know that money I gave that exotic/erotic dancer was not misspent money-she was saving up to go to college.   

 

would the wife agree?