Posts 1 through 7
for The DNR seems to hate the new fishing bill
|
| The DNR seems to hate the new fishing bill - - -
7 messages.
Showing 1 through 7.
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 1 Posted: 08:42 PM 05/19/10 (CST)
|
passed by the legislature. I think allowing anglers to use two poles during open-water season is long overdue. Kinda funny that in the Strib the head of the DNR says nobody will fork over the extra $10 for the license, and in the PP somebody from the DNR says allowing two poles will put more pressure on the resource. Which is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 2 Posted: 11:55 AM 05/20/10 (CST)
|
|
I agree that using two lines is long overdue and also don't understand the extra strain on the resource. What difference would it make if we could use twenty lines the limits still remain the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 3 Posted: 12:35 PM 05/20/10 (CST)
|
$10 fee and anglers who have the "2 line stamp" can only take 1/2 limit and possession even if they fish with 1 line.
I won't buy one if it is going to reduce my limit and possession for the season. It's a shame for the clause because I am for the 2 line bill other wise.
also states that 2 lines can't be used on management lakes with slot limits, I wonder if that means if you have the stamp, and fish a slot limit lake with 1 line, would you be only able to take 1/2 the slot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 4 Posted: 02:57 PM 05/20/10 (CST)
|
Since I'm 100% catch and release, the two line rule wouldn't really affect me anyhow, but I do fine with just one line, so I'm probably not going to pay the extra $10. Maybe. I buy a trout stamp every year, though, even though I never fish for trout. I just like supporting the DNR.
The one change they made that I support fully, though, is the raising of the age when a fishing license is required to 18. I see lots of inner city kids fishing on the river. Turning 16 doesn't mean they can afford an $18 license. At 18, it's another story.
I'm all for kids fishing, and kids in high school are still kids, as far as I'm concerned.
I was also in favor of an increase in fishing license fees. I'd like to see the annual resident license set at $25. Heck, that's just a small bag of Rapalas. No problem there, as long as the money is spent by the DNR.
I realize that not everyone will agree with me on that, though.
MineralMan
O So Minnesota Blog -- Fishing Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 5 Posted: 04:09 PM 05/20/10 (CST)
|
Regardless of the 1/2 limit clause a lot of people will argue that because of hook mortality rates the new law will still hurt the fish population.
There are a lot of variables to consider but I think time will be the best judge. In reality, the expansion of private property and the limitations on easily accessible fishing will probably have a larger impact on fisherman, fish population and lake health beyond that of any new law like this.
I would bet that in the future fishing as a sport will become less popular but fishing in general will get better. I'm basing that on trends that I think I see happening.
Of course, I see this from my geographic perspective where it seems kids are usually in to school sports and other "more important activities" and where tax dollars will definitely go to bike paths or basket ball courts before a fishing dock.
Not that we don't have some public fishing spots because we do.
Overall, I'm happy with the law. Let's see how it goes.
I'm interested where the bill is in the process?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 6 Posted: 07:41 PM 05/20/10 (CST)
|
The bills been approved by the legislature and is wating for sign/veto by Pawlenty. DNR wants him to veto so it'll be interesting to see what happens.
If fish mortality is a big enough concern to derail the bill, tournaments should also probably be outlawed.
|
|
|
| The DNR seems to hate the new fishing bill - - -
7 messages.
Showing 1 through 7.
|
Members Browsing
the Forums: |
Unclelevi
|
| Users Online: | 1 |
| Guests Online: | 80 |
| Total Online: | 81 |
|
Terms and Conditions
|
|
|
