# Add on license to allow 3 more lines from a boat



## tgafish

Looking to possibly go to the legislature and propose the ability to purchase an add on license which would allow the license holder to legally run 3 more lines when fishing from a boat. The add on license would be the same cost as a regular license at $26. So basically you could opt to pay $52 to run 6 lines for the year. It does not change your daily or possession limit. I would appreciate peoples feedback


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Yep. Better tangles!


----------



## Thirty pointer

Not for me but i guess a one year experiment wouldn't hurt .More money for fisheries .I'll go with maybe .


----------



## Shoeman

Might end up as an enforcement nightmare. Gotta pull all your lines to show proof.


----------



## Thirty pointer

Was this posted in the warm water species forum also ?


----------



## andyotto

Count me in.


----------



## BumpRacerX

This would mean I could have 3 extra lines out on the rough days that the kid stays home.

I'm in.


----------



## wpmisport

I don't think they would sell many licenses for 6 lines, not many people could set and deal with that many lines. What lobby is pushing this?


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

I’d definitely pay for the extra lines. Flying solo with 6 lines would be great. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## toto

Nope, I'm guessing the next step in the process is increasing the limits.


----------



## Scott K

It's a hard no for me


----------



## zfishman

Well it seems like in the hunting regulations the DNR talks about simplifying the laws. I’d propose people could run as many lines as they would like, the bag limits are still intact. People fishing the piers and such would still need to be limited due to space.


----------



## tgafish

Thirty pointer said:


> Was this posted in the warm water species forum also ?


Yes. I wanted to get opinions from people who frequented both forums


----------



## tgafish

wpmisport said:


> I don't think they would sell many licenses for 6 lines, not many people could set and deal with that many lines. What lobby is pushing this?


No lobby. But if one wants to join the cause it would be welcome. I also humbly disagree with your premise. Every salmon and walleye boat fisherman I know can set and run 6 lines and do it frequently. Anytime they have young kids, wives, non fishing friends they run 6 to 9 lines.


----------



## wpmisport

tgafish said:


> I also humbly disagree with your premise. Every salmon and walleye boat fisherman I know can set and run 6 lines and do it frequently. Anytime they have young kids, wives, non fishing friends they run 6 to 9 lines.


Four people fishing on a boat - 4 X 6 = 24 lines for that boat (not to mention all the other boats trying to keep up and compete). I don't think a law for this will ever get passed and I am okay with it if it does.


----------



## andyotto

My boat If this passed would be:
1 guy = 4 to 6 rods
2 guys =4 to 6 rods
3 guys =4 to 6 rods 
4 guys = 4 to 6 rods
Etc. 
I’ll carry 10 to 15 but usually run 4-6. 
I’d gladly pay the 26 bucks to be able to run an extra rod or two when by myself.


----------



## tgafish

wpmisport said:


> Four people fishing on a boat - 4 X 6 = 24 lines for that boat (not to mention all the other boats trying to keep up and compete). I don't think a law for this will ever get passed and I am okay with it if it does.


I understand your concern but I'm pretty sure this would be the exception rather than the rule. Regardless I would present this scenario to the legislature as $104 additional dollars to the state they would not have had otherwise. Also include the additional Dingell dollars from the 10% excise tax on the extra rods, reels, and tackle. Truly appreciate the feedback!


----------



## Nickolai M Miotto

Im in

Sent from my SM-N950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## TK81

andyotto said:


> My boat If this passed would be:
> 1 guy = 4 to 6 rods
> 2 guys =4 to 6 rods
> 3 guys =4 to 6 rods
> 4 guys = 4 to 6 rods
> Etc.
> I’ll carry 10 to 15 but usually run 4-6.
> I’d gladly pay the 26 bucks to be able to run an extra rod or two when by myself.


Exactly.


----------



## Nickolai M Miotto

I suck at catching fish.. so i would be running 12 rods with 2 guys and still not end up with my limit 


TK81 said:


> Exactly.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## SteelSearchin

Nope. Take a kid or a neighbor fishing if you want to run more lines.


----------



## anagranite

I feel like catching a limit is still a limit. If it take 20 rods or 1 rod you are still limited on the number of fish you can catch. A limit or a restriction please, not both. 

I'd pay for the extra rods because every time I run 3 it seems like I'm handicapped. When I'm solo I stay away from other boats, spread my lines out more, and wish I had more rods out every time. 

. If you can't run more than 3 rods or you enjoy extra time on the water then you can run 1,2, or 3 without a ticket. I like getting back as quick as I can, my gas, time, and family also appreciate it.


----------



## fisheater

I only run two rods on my canoe. I can legally run 3, but with paddling 2 is enough. If I peddled I would consider 3. 
While I think running 6 solo in a boat solo could be a tangled mess, I fully support the idea. It is all about depth and color. It just gives guys a better chance to figure things out, before the bite dies.
That being said, I wouldn’t support the extra license beyond for the solo fisherman. I wouldn’t want to see guys running 5 or 6 yellowbirds per side in shallow during spring.


----------



## someone11

No for me because as stated before, it would be a nightmare to enforce, and what about those on the pier? They would assume they could run 6 lines there also


----------



## BelieveX

I would be all for it. I usually fish solo and would love to have the ability to wash more lures. My inline planer boards might get some use. A limit is a limit. 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Anyone remember when we had browns and somedays they were fussy and you had two rods to sort ot out?

We ran a 12 rod spread for browns once and went 2/3, with all three hits on one rod. The night before I was 7/9 with all six rods getting hit and not being able to get them pulled in time to avoid a seventh fish.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Been checked many times by the dnr and had them even board my boat without having to pull lines. Had a CO fight a fish for a while once, but only after we confirmed his license. With his boat tied up to mine I could not leave the helm as I had to counter steer to troll a line so my buddy handed him the rod, to net a fish.


----------



## Southsider1

Extra lines are overrated in my opinion. If you have fish under your boat(most important) and a good program, you will stay busy. I can’t believe how many times I have added an extra divers on a good diver bite and then have everything go cold. Less is more with the gin clear water we have now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## slightofhand

I dont have an issue with it, I never understood why there was a limitation on rods on boats in the first place, a limit is a limit it should not matter how many rods it takes you to get it done. Same for tournaments imo.

On the other hand, its never going to pass. Pier guys will bitch about not being included....and if they were to be included....two guys will show up at 2 am and set 12 lines out and take up the entire pier and block out everyone else. 

If they could figure out a way to exclude it for pier guys (beach okay except on rivers) that would be great. But again, not going to happen.


----------



## AdamBradley

While I see the perspective from the single boaters, I also see the push back from pier anglers. The 2 to 3 increase made the piers a nightmare as it is, if it went to the piers too, it’d be a nightmare. Reallllllly same to be said for the beach. 6 per guy could really occupy some space.... overall too much potential conflict from the “but I don’t have a boat and I’m limited as it is in where I can go, I should get the rod count too” crowd.

to get an extra 3 rods, I’m sure 3/4 times if posted on here the day before a planned outing looking for crew, a guy would find one. Helps with netting, multi hookups , and keeping the boat straight too.


----------



## Scadsobees

Sure, but only if it allows me to run 3 extra lines on the pier and beach too!


----------



## danthebuilder

Scadsobees said:


> Sure, but only if it allows me to run 3 extra lines *on the pier* and beach too!


A boat can have unlimited rods and not prevent anyone else from fishing, The piers honestly should go down to 2 rods on some days.


----------



## Scadsobees

danthebuilder said:


> A boat can have unlimited rods and not prevent anyone else from fishing, The piers honestly should go down to 2 rods on some days.


Oh, I was just joking. I don't need an extra license on account of two kids that can come along. I don't have room in my cart for any more poles.

Takes me almost 5 minutes to walk from one side of my poles to the other.


----------



## taizer

I would love that but only for a boat. not shore.


----------



## georgeb

would this mean that I can bring someone with me without them having a license if I buy the extra 3 lines upgrade ? 

it could be kind of like a floater license for the boat for my friends that only go once a year.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

As long as they don’t physically touch a rod, yes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John Hine

Soo, you can’t run 6 rods solo now???!!!
HMMMM.


----------



## John Hine

Just kidding!! Hell yes, I’d pay a hundred bucks for 3 more lines, I’m always solo.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

Ha!!! And I thought you were jigging those dodger/spinnglo combos. My bad. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishndude

georgeb said:


> would this mean that I can bring someone with me without them having a license if I buy the extra 3 lines upgrade ?
> 
> it could be kind of like a floater license for the boat for my friends that only go once a year.


It wouldn't allow you to keep more fish. You'd just be able to use more rods to catch your limit. So your one-time guests might be treated to a very fast fishing experience, if you bang a quick limit. But maybe that's what you are looking for?


----------



## Clum

ThreeDogsDown said:


> This would be a discussion for quickly limiting 10 years ago.
> 
> Out of 29 salmon-specific trips for me last year, I never limited on salmon. I got 3 on my best day.
> 
> This is a question of what is best for the fishing industry.
> 
> More license purchases is more revenue for the DNR=more stocking, studies, enforcement.
> 
> More rods in water is more revenue for tackle shops and manufacturers=jobs, volume of sales and fisherman satisfaction.
> 
> Pretty good reasons to support it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If that's the case, then why stop at 3? Why not make it 10? Each boater can have 10 rods. Yet shore guys still get 3? You're going to have a lot less bought licenses when shore guys have less fish to fish for when they return. There's a lot more bank anglers than boaters, and when they are all lined up on the river banks and the numbers arent there, they'll get tired of pissing their gas money away on trips to MI. You speak of enforcement, but the only enforcement that happens are to bank anglers and boats near the ports. There's virtually zero enforcement miles out. 

The simple fact is, those that want this rule cant cut it with three rods and want special rights. They want better odds, and with better odds comes more fish, and with more fish in their boat, there's less going to return. 

If the lottery only allowed you to buy 3 tickets, but people that owned boats got to buy 6 tickets, how would that be equitable? It doesnt matter if the pot limit is the same, its the odds.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

Good points. I am very interested to see if this proposal gets off the ground. Last year it was tried and didn’t get far. 

In the meantime, I’ll continue the hunt for silver. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fowl

Bad precedent to allow special privilege to those that pay more. Goes against the basic premise of the North American model of fish and wildlife management. Similar to European countries where only the wealthy and royalty can hunt and fish. The current regs are fine. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## Cpt.Chaos

ThreeDogsDown said:


> Everyone is partially correct in this discussion.
> 
> This proposal is for Great Lake boaters only. It does not apply to Shore fishermen or inland lakes. The additional license would not apply to protect shore fishermen from a fine if they used more than 3 lines a person. Boaters on the Great Lakes only.
> 
> The possession limit doesn’t change for boaters on the Great Lakes. So, there is no change to “equity” with shore fishermen. It may just get more boats off the water quicker.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> As an aside, this proposal was heavily favored within the NWMI Fishing Club, which is currently 70% inland lakes and shore/pier fishermen. Our letter of support went to the GLSI for their lead through the MUCC and MI legislature.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


MUCC did not support nor endorse the proposal for increased rods for boat fisherman in 2019 at the convention (unanimously defeated actually) and they have not had their yearly convention yet this year. Truthfully I don’t think it will get their endorsement or recommendation this year either.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

Yes, understand. The GLSI may have success in their presentation. This is one of those topics that both sides (pro and against) really feel strong about. 

I’ll be there to vote and report of course. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cork Dust

In fishery management courses when managing techniques are discussed, several options, in terms of how to approach numbers of participants are covered. You can offer a lottery for licenses which limits fisher numbers. You can regulate gear used and season fished. You can limit participation via the number of boats allowed. For hook and line fisheries, season closures and numbers of rods and hooks are generally chosen since this enables maximum participation without bias (sorry Clum it's just not accepted as biased against one angler group or another) and is essentially based o the reality that hook-and-line fishing is incredibly inefficient in terms of ability to remove fish from a population at rates greater than their reproductive capacity,


----------



## Cork Dust

Clum said:


> Sure, go and attack me for having a differing opinion, I think the idea is selfish and stupid, and if you think there's as many fish as there used to be you have your head in the sand.


You paint shore fishers as second citizens who are discriminated against routinely. That is not the case.

The declines in fish numbers in the Great Lakes are related to declines in alewife stocks, not related to angling pressure induced fish removal rates; they are driven by invasive dreissenid mussel nutrient removal and sequestering within their colonies. I worked in fishery research on the Great Lakes for just under a decade. Had the MDNR Fishery Division moved to a multi-species planting reduction in 2013 as suggested by multiple conservation organizations, as well as the sport and charter fishery, things would quite likely be VERY different now. Instead they opted for a single species chinook only stocking reduction. NOW, they have adopted a multi-species stocking adjustment approach in both Lakes Michigan and Huron, interesting that it can be done now, but was impossible eight short years ago.


----------



## Clum

Cork Dust said:


> You paint shore fishers as second citizens who are discriminated against routinely. That is not the case.
> 
> The declines in fish numbers in the Great Lakes are related to declines in alewife stocks, not related to angling pressure induced fish removal rates; they are driven by invasive dreissenid mussel nutrient removal and sequestering within their colonies. I worked in fishery research on the Great Lakes for just under a decade. Had the MDNR Fishery Division moved to a multi-species planting reduction in 2013 as suggested by multiple conservation organizations, as well as the sport and charter fishery, things would quite likely be VERY different now. Instead they opted for a single species chinook only stocking reduction. NOW, they have adopted a multi-species stocking adjustment approach in both Lakes Michigan and Huron, interesting that it can be done now, but was impossible eight short years ago.


I dont paint them that way, because we are generally on a level playing field since we all get to present 3 baits, a regulation changing that would create a second class fisherman and not afford some the same odds and/or opportunity at fish. 


Explain how this has anything to do with 3 rods for shore guys and 6 rods for boaters...


----------



## Cork Dust

Do you notice the State capping license sales on fishing licenses? That odds increase you whine over is such a low incremental probability increase that the State can sell an infinite number of fishing licenses, each with three lines allowed, annually without concern for fishery impacts. Why not focus on campaigning among your brethren to pick-up their garbage, rather than whining about something that will have negligible impact on catch rates


You complained about the decline in Great Lakes fish abundance without any idea what is actually driving those reductions...declines in baitfish abundance. Your answer to the blue highlighted question focuses on the Decision Analysis Model the MSU Quantitative Fisher Center presented to Great Lakes sport fisher and conservation clubs in 2012 prior the stocking decision implemented in 2013. They offered four different stocking array modifications to attendees as well as folks who accessed Michigan Sea Grant's website. Each of these options had a stocking model associated with it, as well as a probability of restoring the alewife stock over time. Each stocking array simulations was run 10o times to determine their individual probability of success. Option 4. A mixed multi-species reduction model that included reductions in lake trout plants carried the highest liklihood of restoring the alewife stock. Respondents, conservation club officers, the charter industry representatives all voiced a preference for Option 4. The Lake Michigan Management committee opted to go with a single species (chinook plant) reduction, the same thing they had been doing previously without success. In truth, the only thing that saved the fishery from the same collapse seen in Lake Huron was that water levels in all Michigan-side streams in fall of 2012 were so low this resulted in a massive reduction in the wild-origin salmon year-class, significantly lowering chinook, since the managers had opted for a 50% reduction in planted chinook, over their constituent's preference for Option 4.


----------



## tgafish

Clum said:


> I dont paint them that way, because we are generally on a level playing field since we all get to present 3 baits, a regulation changing that would create a second class fisherman and not afford some the same odds and/or opportunity at fish.
> 
> 
> Explain how this has anything to do with 3 rods for shore guys and 6 rods for boaters...


When the 3 rod vs 2 rod rule first came out there was a large outcry from shore fisherpeople that it would *decrease* opportunities because 1 person would take up too much real estate along limited shore or pier access points. Excluding shore is being done with this concern in mind. The same concern was voiced about inland lakes. There was also concern with vulnerable fish populations in smaller inland lakes.

To be clear, limiting the additional 3 rod license to Great Lakes and connecting waters was not done to create privileged status for bad big lake fisherman. It was done to limit the amount of arguments against the proposal.

The proposal is currently on hold at the request of several players in the Consent decree negotiations. During this time the GLSI is still seeking letters of support from angling organizations across Michigan.


----------



## SJC

As I said before, I really don't give a flip how many rods you put out on your boat. I just feel that if it is biologically, ethically, and socially okay, why should I have to pay extra for it? If shore anglers could run six rods, then two nobs could tie up the the best area on the pier instead of four. A lot of times on the pier or surf, I only run two out of courtesy but a lot of people have zero courtesy. There's dozens of way more worthy issues for the anglers of this state to spend their efforts on.


----------



## tgafish

Cpt.Chaos said:


> MUCC did not support nor endorse the proposal for increased rods for boat fisherman in 2019 at the convention (unanimously defeated actually) and they have not had their yearly convention yet this year. Truthfully I don’t think it will get their endorsement or recommendation this year either.


MUCC's support would be extremely helpful in lobbying the legislature to introduce and vote for this proposal. The GLSI has contacted representatives at MUCC on how to proceed with them. With that said, MUCC's endorsement is not a requirement to move forward. Mike Avery wanted MUCC to champion and lead the charge on his unlimited rod proposal. Once they said no he felt he did not have the time or resources to go it alone. He has signed onto and pledged his support to this proposal.


----------



## Clum

Cork Dust said:


> Do you notice the State capping license sales on fishing licenses? That odds increase you whine over is such a low incremental probability increase that the State can sell an infinite number of fishing licenses, each with three lines allowed, annually without concern for fishery impacts. Why not focus on campaigning among your brethren to pick-up their garbage, rather than whining about something that will have negligible impact on catch rates
> 
> 
> You complained about the decline in Great Lakes fish abundance without any idea what is actually driving those reductions...declines in baitfish abundance. Your answer to the blue highlighted question focuses on the Decision Analysis Model the MSU Quantitative Fisher Center presented to Great Lakes sport fisher and conservation clubs in 2012 prior the stocking decision implemented in 2013. They offered four different stocking array modifications to attendees as well as folks who accessed Michigan Sea Grant's website. Each of these options had a stocking model associated with it, as well as a probability of restoring the alewife stock over time. Each stocking array simulations was run 10o times to determine their individual probability of success. Option 4. A mixed multi-species reduction model that included reductions in lake trout plants carried the highest liklihood of restoring the alewife stock. Respondents, conservation club officers, the charter industry representatives all voiced a preference for Option 4. The Lake Michigan Management committee opted to go with a single species (chinook plant) reduction, the same thing they had been doing previously without success. In truth, the only thing that saved the fishery from the same collapse seen in Lake Huron was that water levels in all Michigan-side streams in fall of 2012 were so low this resulted in a massive reduction in the wild-origin salmon year-class, significantly lowering chinook, since the managers had opted for a 50% reduction in planted chinook, over their constituent's preference for Option 4.


Your arrogance is truly dizzying. You're doing the exact same "whining" that you consider me doing but for the Yah's that I am doing for the Nah's. So look in the mirror. Once again, you keep bringing up fish populations like it has ANYTHING to do with the conversation at hand. I could care less how much of an expert you think you are, and how much you spout off about theoretical guess work. You muddy the waters with non arguments. Once again, this has everything to do with odds, and nothing to do with fish populations. The math is simple:

1000 fish exist in the lake. Bob gets to fish 3 rods and catches 3 fish. 1000-3 = 997
1000 fish exist in the lake. Bob gets special privilege's and fishes 3 rods and catches 5 fish. 1000-5=995

995 is LESS fish then 997. 

It really doesnt matter what the number of fish currently existing is, the FACT is, the more rods in the water for one person means less fish for others. It's as simple as that. Maybe you should quit whining about the amount of rods you can fish and maybe start honing your skills a little better to catch more with 3 rods. Why should others be handicapped because your skill level is lacking? *If the impact is so "negligible", then why are you for it??* 









Experts Are Super Smart And 100% Reliable, Experts Confirm


U.S. - A new study performed by experts has confirmed that experts always know what they're talking about and never, ever just make stuff up to sound smart, experts confirmed today.'Experts are always to be trusted and have never been wrong before,' said the experts at the recent Expert...




babylonbee.com





Two weeks to flatten the curve.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

I see both sides of this story. Its good brain food for sure. 

If the Consent Decree ever becomes final and this thing moves forward, I will be excited to see what happens. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## charminultra

Can Indians fish unlimited lines from the piers?


----------



## Boat with no name

About a month ago I attended a MDNR virtual meeting discussing the state of the southern Michigan region. I believe the meeting was hosted by regional managers, so not the guys that create policy. However, I asked the question about an additional three line trolling license. For what it's worth I interpreted their response as unfavorable to the idea and a topic not worthy of discussion at the moment. I think the question was premature for that particular meeting.

On a personal level I am in favor of an additional license for Great Lakes solo fisherman when trolling. The reality is fishing an additional three lines is only reasonable to fish the extra lines away from traffic and when searching for the bite. The expanse of a Great Lake in terms of water column and square miles over limited structure makes it reasonable to me to request the additional lines. It would not be reasonable or manageable to fish six lines in a confined area or where a strong bite is available. Would there be solo individuals trying to fish six lines, in 25 feet of water, in a congestion of 100 boats, trying to net a fish or 2, handle his tangles, mange his heading, and not have a care about anyone else but his own needs? Yep. Those guys are out there in numbers. 

Is it fair to the pier, shore, ice fisherman? Absolutely. Because it doesn't pertain. Trolling in open deep water miles off shore is not the same as structure oriented fishing such as congested pier heads, shore fishing, dam fishing, ice fishing, etc. So with the opportunity to fish an additional 3 lines I would expect stricter rules of engagement as it pertains to where to fish. For instance outside of one mile of the shoreline or a particular depth of water.


----------



## Cork Dust

Clum said:


> Your arrogance is truly dizzying. You're doing the exact same "whining" that you consider me doing but for the Yah's that I am doing for the Nah's. So look in the mirror. Once again, you keep bringing up fish populations like it has ANYTHING to do with the conversation at hand. I could care less how much of an expert you think you are, and how much you spout off about theoretical guess work. You muddy the waters with non arguments. Once again, this has everything to do with odds, and nothing to do with fish populations. The math is simple:
> 
> 1000 fish exist in the lake. Bob gets to fish 3 rods and catches 3 fish. 1000-3 = 997
> 1000 fish exist in the lake. Bob gets special privilege's and fishes 3 rods and catches 5 fish. 1000-5=995
> 
> HE
> 
> 995 is LESS fish then 997.
> 
> It really doesnt matter what the number of fish currently existing is, the FACT is, the more rods in the water for one person means less fish for others. It's as simple as that. Maybe you should quit whining about the amount of rods you can fish and maybe start honing your skills a little better to catch more with 3 rods. Why should others be handicapped because your skill level is lacking? *If the impact is so "negligible", then why are you for it??*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Experts Are Super Smart And 100% Reliable, Experts Confirm
> 
> 
> U.S. - A new study performed by experts has confirmed that experts always know what they're talking about and never, ever just make stuff up to sound smart, experts confirmed today.'Experts are always to be trusted and have never been wrong before,' said the experts at the recent Expert...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> babylonbee.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two weeks to flatten the curve.


The events are not connected, one person catching six fish does not cause someone else to catch fewer fish. Why? They are indepedent of one another, a point that is lost completely on you!

No, again it is not a FACT that when one person fishes more lines than another, they are diminishing the other person's potential success rate, a reality that you either cannot grasp, or more likely simply refuse to accept because it bursts you balloon. IF what you contend is an automatic and correct, they only thing that would matter is fishing with as many license holders on a boat as physically possible to increase catch totals. 

You mention fishing skill, but then opt, in your example to simply imply that more rods equal more fish. 

Actually, you keep equating purchasing three lines as some "special privilege" that will result in more fish caught, when the probability of catching ANY fish via hook and line is actually quite negligible, again, why there is no cap on the number of licenses sold to participate. Per Sea Grant data on the Lake Michigan CHARTER fishery catch rates are currently less than one fish per hour for salmonids. Gee I wonder how many rods these folks fish on average per outing? Average outing time for these folks who make a living off of catching fish with hook and line is just under five hours

So , help me understand, per your logic that having more licenses sold to participants in a sport fishery, automatically confers more fish to the person with more lines in the water. YOU keep making that argument, but never actually offer any evidence to support that is a automatic outcome. It is not a given. Maybe you should petition the State to be forced to give you fish, as a pier fisherman, because you are so vastly discriminated against....Or, unwilling to purchase a boat.


----------



## charminultra

Boat with no name said:


> About a month ago I attended a MDNR virtual meeting discussing the state of the southern Michigan region. I believe the meeting was hosted by regional managers, so not the guys that create policy. However, I asked the question about an additional three line trolling license. For what it's worth I interpreted their response as unfavorable to the idea and a topic not worthy of discussion at the moment. I think the question was premature for that particular meeting.
> 
> On a personal level I am in favor of an additional license for Great Lakes solo fisherman when trolling. The reality is fishing an additional three lines is only reasonable to fish the extra lines away from traffic and when searching for the bite. The expanse of a Great Lake in terms of water column and square miles over limited structure makes it reasonable to me to request the additional lines. It would not be reasonable or manageable to fish six lines in a confined area or where a strong bite is available. Would there be solo individuals trying to fish six lines, in 25 feet of water, in a congestion of 100 boats, trying to net a fish or 2, handle his tangles, mange his heading, and not have a care about anyone else but his own needs? Yep. Those guys are out there in numbers.
> 
> Is it fair to the pier, shore, ice fisherman? Absolutely. Because it doesn't pertain. Trolling in open deep water miles off shore is not the same as structure oriented fishing such as congested pier heads, shore fishing, dam fishing, ice fishing, etc. So with the opportunity to fish an additional 3 lines I would expect stricter rules of engagement as it pertains to where to fish. For instance outside of one mile of the shoreline or a particular depth of water.


I agree with what you’re saying here. The law can’t be enforced in the situations where it is reasonable to run 3 extra lines cuz you’d be the only one out there for a few miles. It would be a big waste of money to send a dnr boat out to check the lone troller.. That’s why I say go ahead and run as many as is reasonable for the situation regardless of the arbitrary law. Sometimes that means running less than the law permits, sometimes it means running more. I agree with bag limits, and I agree some morons would put as many lines as they could regardless of the situation so I agree with the arbitrary law somewhat.


----------



## DirtySteve

SJC said:


> There's dozens of way more worthy issues for the anglers of this state to spend their efforts on.


Probably the most sensible statement on this thread.


----------



## maliki

I would pay to have another three rods in the water if it doesn't hurt the fish population. This would be very helpful on solo runs when I cannot get my wife or kids on the boat.


----------

