# Add on license to run 3 additional lines from a boat



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

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


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)




----------



## icefalcon (Jan 30, 2009)

Why? So you fish a shorter time? It's not a race.find a better issue, like party fishing changing saginaw center Rd boundary for size, # 

Sent from my moto z3 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

Shoeman said:


>




Could we do the same thing ice fishing if we only used a hand powered auger?


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

I would like to see this on Lake Michigan.


----------



## Outdoor2daCore (Nov 8, 2010)

I’d love to see it for ice fishing as well but doubt they’d ever let it fly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shlack (Apr 6, 2012)

I would love if they would do this. Six rods would be helpful to establish a pattern when fishing solo. Also would increase the chance I accidentally catch a salmon!


----------



## Cpt.Chaos (May 28, 2006)

No. Three lines per person is enough. Truthfully I already see people running as many lines as they want, they won’t pay the additional $26. This would only add more duties to a DNR Officer, because every time they see a person running more than 3 lines they would have to stop and check for the additional license. Fishing is recreation to me and many others, not a race to see how fast I can get back to the dock.
A couple of years ago a MI outdoor personality went to the MUCC convention asking for their backing in committee to take a similar issue to the state for consideration or approval (they wanted unlimited lines)- it was unanimously rejected.


----------



## fowl (Feb 15, 2003)

This moves away from the North American model and towards the European model. In other words the rich own and have access to the resource. Pay more=get more. Prefer to keep the resources accessible to the peasants and not exclusive to royalty. Don’t support your idea. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## Shlack (Apr 6, 2012)

fowl said:


> This moves away from the North American model and towards the European model. In other words the rich own and have access to the resource. Pay more=get more. Prefer to keep the resources accessible to the peasants and not exclusive to royalty. Don’t support your idea.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


Interesting idea, I would not have thought about it that way. Kind of like in Canada where you can get two different license levels with different bag limits. I think they are called conservation or sport license. 

I would be OK if they raised the limit to 6 rods per person when trolling solo for the base price as well, would kind of take away your argument... Unless you want to say that only rich could afford 6 rods instead of 3, but then you could argue only rich could afford 3 rods instead of 1...


----------



## Shlack (Apr 6, 2012)

Cpt.Chaos said:


> No. Three lines per person is enough. Truthfully I already see people running as many lines as they want, they won’t pay the additional $26. This would only add more duties to a DNR Officer, because every time they see a person running more than 3 lines they would have to stop and check for the additional license. Fishing is recreation to me and many others, not a race to see how fast I can get back to the dock.
> A couple of years ago a MI outdoor personality went to the MUCC convention asking for their backing in committee to take a similar issue to the state for consideration or approval (they wanted unlimited lines)- it was unanimously rejected.



Easy fix to just let anyone run as many lines as they want when trolling. Then the DNR doesn't have to check anyone. The one issue I do see with this, is that it is difficult to run a very large number of rods and still safely navigate the boat, depending on the traffic in the area... 

I understand that fishing is recreation to you, it is also recreation to me. It doesn't matter to me if you want to run 3 rods and take your time fishing. I would like to run 6. If the bag limit is the same I don't see whey it matters how fast I catch the fish. 

Also, I don't think breaking the law and running as many lines as they want is super common. I don't do it, and won't, because that is not the law and I try to play by the rules.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

When I take my wife out, I run 6 rods. I can't run 6 rods, drive the boat, and net the fish all by myself. But I don't have auto-pilot of anything snazzy. She's getting pretty good at reeling Walleyes in.


----------



## CrawlerHarness (Dec 9, 2017)

I think 3 per person is more than enough. Compared to Minnesota where it is 1 line per person, we should feel privileged. 

But it would definitely sell more gear, as most of us only run 6 lines, and we would all have to upgrade to 8 or 9 rods, rod holders, boards, lures, etc....

But to answer your question....yes I would pay $52 for the privilege to run 6 lines.


----------



## cb223 (Mar 28, 2010)

I've long thought the 3 line limit in the water per angler was dumb. With the daily limit of how many fish you can catch what difference does it make how many lines you do it with weather it be 1 or 20.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Not too long ago it was 2 rods...


----------



## Shane W (Jan 28, 2019)

Wait...what? In MI you are limited on how many piles you can be using? That is crazy. We just moved up from TX and I’ve never heard of such a weird thing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## scubajay (Jun 9, 2003)

IMO limiting the number of fishing rods is silly and unnecessary. Creel limits are in place, which make total sense and protect the resource, but the quantity of equipment I use to catch them should not matter (I understand that the type of equipment should be controlled for fair chase, e.g. not using dynamite) and should be my choice.

If I'm skilled enough to run 10 rods out the back of my boat, why shouldn't I? 

For me it breaks down to the protection of the resource. Creel limits have proven empirically that they do just that. Maybe someone can explain to me how defining the the number of fishing rods I can use protects the resource, because I don't believe that it does.


----------



## sullyxlh (Oct 28, 2004)

tgafish said:


> 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


No, because the way the DNR works is is they'll change it and it'll go for a few years and then they will raise everyone's lic to $52 across the board and then try and justify it.
They did the same thing with the trout stamp the lic doubled and nobody could do anything about it but be forced to pay it.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

I can't imagine trying to shore fish with a 6 rod rule.

Now, if they allowed 6 per person trolling, it could be done under the same 26 dollar license we have now. It's just a rule change.


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

icefalcon said:


> Why? So you fish a shorter time? It's not a race.find a better issue, like party fishing changing saginaw center Rd boundary for size, #
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Not necessarily a shorter time. Some days are more challenging than others. Some days an extra 3 lines gives you an opportunity to cover a different presentation or a different depth. I definitely do not limit every time I go out. I doubt I would with 3 extra lines either. But it could change a poor catch rate day into a good catch rate day. To follow this logic I would assume you only troll with 2 or 1 line in order to increase your time on the water?


----------



## perchjerker (Feb 8, 2002)

why pay more? Just make is 6 rods per license if you are going to do that


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

Cpt.Chaos said:


> No. Three lines per person is enough. Truthfully I already see people running as many lines as they want, they won’t pay the additional $26. This would only add more duties to a DNR Officer, because every time they see a person running more than 3 lines they would have to stop and check for the additional license. Fishing is recreation to me and many others, not a race to see how fast I can get back to the dock.
> A couple of years ago a MI outdoor personality went to the MUCC convention asking for their backing in committee to take a similar issue to the state for consideration or approval (they wanted unlimited lines)- it was unanimously rejected.


I actually have considered the increased enforcement argument but my response is this. If I CO needs to check every time they see someone running more than 3 lines because they may not have the correct license then why do they not check everyone running lines assuming they do not have a license at all? Does a CO check to see if a child is over 17 and has a license every time they see a child fishing with an adult and running 6 lines? I would guess they would treat it as any other violation. Assume the person is properly licensed until proven otherwise.


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

perchjerker said:


> why pay more? Just make is 6 rods per license if you are going to do that


Because it has to go through the legislature and in politics money talks. Also the proposed license is only legal when fishing from a boat to alleviate the concern of congestion at popular shore fishing locations. This was a very active objection when the rod number was changed from 2 to 3. In the grand scheme of boat ownership the assumption is $26 does not seem like it would be a limiting amount of money.


----------



## Slimshady (Apr 4, 2002)

scubajay said:


> IMO limiting the number of fishing rods is silly and unnecessary. Creel limits are in place, which make total sense and protect the resource, but the quantity of equipment I use to catch them should not matter (I understand that the type of equipment should be controlled for fair chase, e.g. not using dynamite) and should be my choice.
> 
> If I'm skilled enough to run 10 rods out the back of my boat, why shouldn't I?
> 
> For me it breaks down to the protection of the resource. Creel limits have proven empirically that they do just that. Maybe someone can explain to me how defining the the number of fishing rods I can use protects the resource, because I don't believe that it does.


This has always been my thought as well. Limit how many I can keep, sure. No problems with that. Other than that, leave me alone and let me fish as many rods as I want. 

I have asked both the DNR and MNR about this and the answer that I have been given as to why the limits even exist has to do with shore-fishing. They don't want a couple guys to be able to show up early and hog the whole fishing pier. I said, then why not just make that a rule when fishing on shore and their response was "well that would give an advantage to the boat fisherman, which wouldn't be fair", to which I replied "it already isn't fair. You can go anywhere in the boat, vs being limited to that spot on shore. Life isn't fair, for that matter." But that's the reasoning behind it. 

It is not about getting to a limit faster. It is about testing lures, techniques, trying to see what might work. Also, if you are running spoons or cranks behind boards, it is hard to even tell if you have a junk fish on one of them unless you are running 3 in a row. If I am by myself, I can only run 2 in CAN, 3 in the US. 

I would like to be able to put 3 boards out on one side, then run at least one or 2 "boat rods" on top of that. Once I figure out what is working, I would back it down to a 2 or 3 at the most. There are other times I might want to put a couple larger lures out for Muskies while I am trolling for walleyes on LSC. It is really about options, not about getting to my limit faster. I rarely keep a limit as it is.


----------



## piketroller (Oct 24, 2016)

Limit planer boards to a boundary within 50 feet to either side of the boat and I don’t care how many lines anyone runs. But if you get 5 guys on board trying to run 30 rods on planers, they might also need to buy some Wisconsin licenses for the boards that stray over the line when the boat is fishing near Frankfort.


----------



## asb8mcc (Feb 14, 2011)

scubajay said:


> IMO limiting the number of fishing rods is silly and unnecessary. Creel limits are in place, which make total sense and protect the resource, but the quantity of equipment I use to catch them should not matter (I understand that the type of equipment should be controlled for fair chase, e.g. not using dynamite) and should be my choice.
> 
> If I'm skilled enough to run 10 rods out the back of my boat, why shouldn't I?
> 
> For me it breaks down to the protection of the resource. Creel limits have proven empirically that they do just that. Maybe someone can explain to me how defining the the number of fishing rods I can use protects the resource, because I don't believe that it does.


If you believe that the creel limits make sense and protect the resource then limiting the number of rods should make sense as well. Increasing the number of rods will increase the number of limits taken and total fish harvested. Would creel limits have to be reduced to offset this?

I personally have no need for more than three rods while fishing alone from a boat (and wouldn't trust the majority of anglers to be able to manage 6 rods and operate a boat). The only instance where I would like to use more than three lines is while ice fishing and running tip-ups and jigging at the same time.


----------



## Gillgitter (Nov 5, 2003)

I have a hard enough time managing 3 rods when fishing solo.


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

So, if I like paid $27 can I start setting up trot lines?

How much if I wanted to just use a commercial grade trap or gill net?


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Lund Explorer said:


> How much if I wanted to just use a commercial grade trap or gill net?


I'm curious also... And to think no quotas or limits on eyes & perch, bonus other game fish and Nobody will know... Shhh....


----------



## piketroller (Oct 24, 2016)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> I'm curious also... And to think no quotas or limits on eyes & perch, bonus other game fish and Nobody will know... Shhh....


Welcome back Brian. Are you getting ready for the burbot to start showing up?


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

piketroller said:


> Welcome back Brian. Are you getting ready for the burbot to start showing up?


Thanks! Sending you a pm


----------



## sfw1960 (Apr 7, 2002)

Tom,
I heard you catch enough fish for my limit when I'm home too.


I rarely run 3 rods, occasionally just two and for this time of year I'm happy with just one in hand - though I have a certain piece of terminal tackle I've been wanting to try.

IMO there's already enough differential rules per body of water, specific species types, sizes and locations to keep track of and the regulations lack congruency almost as bad as the trout regs - which are all over the map now.

In an overly complicated world, when I can fish I'd like to seek out simplicity, not making it more difficult for the regular guy and officers to decipher.

What we have now works, I'm not all about a limit every time and we're far better off now than just using clubs and loin cloth...


----------



## TK81 (Mar 28, 2009)

sfw1960 said:


> In an overly complicated world, when I can fish I'd like to seek out *simplicity*, not making it more difficult for the regular guy and officers to decipher.


How many graphs are you running?:evilsmile


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

To bad "They" are still not required to keep using canoes & spears.....disagree on ANY added prices to us Sporstmen for ANY more licenses to enjoy the outdoors.


----------



## sfw1960 (Apr 7, 2002)

TK81 said:


> How many graphs are you running?:evilsmile


I have 3, but only one that's been mounted.
Boat trailer is on jack stands Dave.
Need to work on engine, replace bunks and two of them need to be finished up mounting.
I do have an ice machine really though LOL


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

I dont necasarily have a problem with how many lines are used trolling. I would be against allowing shore fisherman to use 6 rods. Personally I dont like the 3 rod limit for shore fisherman in certain situations. I think it hinders abilities for some newcombers to the sport when the hard core guys take up every spot on a pier or boardwalk for 12 hrs a day.....6 rods would be alot worse. 

Making different rules for trollers and shore fisherman I think would cause animosity between fisherman so for that reason I think I would probably be against this.


----------



## jiggin is livin (Jan 7, 2011)

The only benefit I see to having more than 3 rods is trolling, or maybe tip-ups for ice fishing. 

Why not just say you can't have more than 3 lines per person, except if trolling? Maybe have a max number of lines in the water. Some people do get stupid, but I don't really care. 

I don't care if one guy wants to run 8 rods. Not my ticket. I personally don't like having that much to deal with by myself.


----------



## Slimshady (Apr 4, 2002)

asb8mcc said:


> If you believe that the creel limits make sense and protect the resource then limiting the number of rods should make sense as well. Increasing the number of rods will increase the number of limits taken and total fish harvested. Would creel limits have to be reduced to offset this?
> 
> I personally have no need for more than three rods while fishing alone from a boat (and wouldn't trust the majority of anglers to be able to manage 6 rods and operate a boat). The only instance where I would like to use more than three lines is while ice fishing and running tip-ups and jigging at the same time.


I completely believe in creel limits to protect the resource. No issues there at all. In most years, sport fisherman fall below our allotted quotas for harvest anyway, so I don't think that's an issue. You say you wouldn't trust most anglers to run 6 rods, and that might be true, but that's their problem, not yours. Let me decide how many I can manage and how I get to my limit (if I even get there). For example, at Wheatley with 2 of us fishing, it would be nice to be able to run a couple boards out targeting walleyes up high. Then run our 2 riggers along with 2 dipseys on each side (one up higher, but further to the side, and one deeper). That would be a total of 8 rods. When it's slow, that would allow us to run a bunch of different colors, depths, etc, to figure out what might work and get "dialed-in". There have been other times when we couldn't keep 4 rods in the water with all of the action. Again, it is not about getting to a limit faster, it is about being able to cover the water column and run different things to figure them out. 

Whenever we even get close to a limit we run fewer rods and swap out all of our spoons to single hooks so we can release any "extras" next to the boat unharmed. (In case we only need one fish for our limit, but then get 3 on at once). If they are going to limit the number at all, I think it should be 2 from shore and 4 per-person from a boat, IMO. I would be fine with that.


----------



## asb8mcc (Feb 14, 2011)

Slimshady said:


> You say you wouldn't trust most anglers to run 6 rods, and that might be true, but that's their problem, not yours.


I understand where you are coming from, but still disagree. It becomes other people's problem when people attempt to run too many rods and proceed to become distracted (trying to man all those rods or lines become tangled) and run aground, impede (or hit) another boat, etc. I would say this is similar to distracted driving. Are there people out there that can handle operating a phone while driving? Certainly. Does that mean it should be allowed? No. Same with speed limits. I would expect that many anglers can handle operating more than 3 rods, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed. I would say it is actually important to keep the rods allowed lower (not that 3 is all that low) as it encourages people to invite friends, kids, wives/girlfriends, etc. out fishing.

And I agree that most of the time anglers come below the quota limit for systems. However, there are very few places in Michigan where quotas are developed for anglers (for example, not a single inland system). For certain species in certain areas of the Great Lakes waters, yes there are quotas.


----------



## Slimshady (Apr 4, 2002)

I pretty much only fish the Great Lakes system, so that is my perspective. I agree that current rod limits make sense for inland lakes. I am thinking more about giant bodies of water where I may not have anyone within a few miles of me. If I was fishing in tight conditions, I would never attempt to run many lines either. Conditions also play a role. I would never run a bunch of rods when there are floating weeds, etc. But there are certain times when I could easily run more to experiment and would if I could.


----------



## Pinusrubra (Jun 30, 2018)

This year I fished solo after my son moved out for work in May. I would have gladly paid to run an additional 3 rods when fishing Lake Huron (DeTour) or Lake Michigan (Ludington). I caught 2-4 fish most trips, never a limit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## loomis82 (Nov 4, 2014)

With how many walleye are out there you shouldnt need more than 3 rods per person. I could see the argument for salmon fisherman with the dismal salmon fisheries here in Michigan. I also believe you should be able to limit with any size fish. Ex. Trolling erie. How many eyes die each year from being drug around for a hour or so unkown. We are all guilty of that. Then you throw that 14.5 incher over to see float right back up


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

Hey Loomis, bring you and your boat to Saginaw Bay right now. Bring those 3 rods and try to catch a limit, I mean all those walleye should be ready to catch right now

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

Bring those extra rods on

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

I say screw off to adding any new laws, fees, licences, reducing any limits on us Sportsmen & Sportswomen. If the laws, reduced limits, quotas set and ENFORCED, HUGE increase in fee's & licenses for the commercial scammers (netters) don't happen then why in Hell should we follow the masses of followers..... Down right disgusted with how some can and most can't....I pay to play and one's that don't pay and play piss me off


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> I say screw off to adding any new laws, fees, licences, reducing any limits on us Sportsmen & Sportswomen. If the laws, reduced limits, quotas set and ENFORCED, HUGE increase in fee's & licenses for the commercial scammers (netters) don't happen then why in Hell should we follow the masses of followers..... Down right disgusted with how some can and most can't....I pay to play and one's that don't pay and play piss me off


Not sure how this tirade fits with the thread. This question is adding an opportunity that does not currently exist for sport fishermen.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

tgafish said:


> Not sure how this tirade fits with the thread. This question is adding an opportunity that does not currently exist for sport fishermen.


Tirade?? Ok. Adding an opportunity for a ADDED fee. Add the opportunity but Dont add anymore Damn fees to us Sportsmen. If these 3 bills don't pass it will get to the point that you could run 12 per angler and still struggle. Hope that clears it up for ya


----------



## GSPNut (Nov 15, 2009)

tgafish said:


> 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


----------



## GSPNut (Nov 15, 2009)

tgafish said:


> 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


----------



## KI Jim (Apr 14, 2004)

I have no problem at all with someone running as many rods as they want as long as the creel limits are enforced. I personally only run 2 because running harnesses that is how many I can manage. More than that and it becomes more like work. 

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## mjh4 (Feb 2, 2018)

I'll just stick with one rod that's all I need. Once in a while 2 rods while ice fishing but not very often.


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## Wannabe Angler (Oct 21, 2019)

I'm not as experienced as many of you and don't really have the right boat/set up for serious trolling. But sometimes off my pontoon or smaller boat I try to rock 3 rods with different techniques - usually results in comedy and error...3 is probably too many for me, can't imagine 6!


----------



## Chris Hurttgam (Jan 26, 2018)

The logic to pay for increased lines doesn't work. Common sense would be your time fishing will only be reduced. Now if they offered an increased fish limit for a fee that is something I can get on board with. ( No pun intended )


----------



## rageoda (Jan 17, 2009)

I don’t need 6, but would like to be able to set 3 tip ups and jig a rod....


----------



## fishinthed (Nov 7, 2007)

The most a figure I could handle with a trolling spread would be 4, or 5 on the extreme outside if it's a straight run and I have one in my hand, but I wonder if the extra tangles would be worth the better odds. Might be useful for search purposes to figure out a pattern but once I figured out the pattern I'd go with 3 or even 2 if it's hot enough. 3 is fine.


----------



## John Hine (Mar 31, 2019)

Anyone know if this has been proposed or put forth to the powers that be?


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

John Hine said:


> Anyone know if this has been proposed or put forth to the powers that be?


It has not. Waiting for the new session to get started to start the push with legislators.


----------



## sfw1960 (Apr 7, 2002)

I'll say GL with it Tom...


----------



## big buck 75 (Sep 6, 2010)

3 is plenty it was a big increase going from two to three. I would see some issues when it comes to tip ups and ice fishing if 6 lines were allowed.


----------



## fishinthed (Nov 7, 2007)

More than 3 would be a total fire drill for shore fishers in crowded situations, unless there were some limit of the "spread" for stationary (still fishing) lines.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

I believe in some states you can use more rods for ice fishing but they have to be under your control at arms reach .


----------



## John Hine (Mar 31, 2019)

Rods per boat would simplify it, as in 3 extra rods per boat.


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

Can we also add in trot lines? I'd really like to set a dozen or so 100' trot lines that I may or may not be able to check on a consistent basis.

What about a few of the different kinds of commercial nets? What is the best gill net pattern?


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Lund Explorer said:


> Can we also add in trot lines? I'd really like to set a dozen or so 100' trot lines that I may or may not be able to check on a consistent basis.
> 
> What about a few of the different kinds of commercial nets? What is the best gill net pattern?



Down South Trot lines, jugs and unlimited rods are the norm


----------



## piketroller (Oct 24, 2016)

Lund Explorer said:


> Can we also add in trot lines? I'd really like to set a dozen or so 100' trot lines that I may or may not be able to check on a consistent basis.
> 
> What about a few of the different kinds of commercial nets? What is the best gill net pattern?


Why only 100' long trot lines? That's actually fairly short.


----------



## sfw1960 (Apr 7, 2002)

Thirty pointer said:


> I believe in some states you can use more rods for ice fishing but they have to be under your control at arms reach .


This is specified here also unless that's been changed.
I generally run two lines on ice & my Wife will only run one, laugh if you like about her choice - but don't fish along side her, friends of mine have before, but the laughing stops pretty quickly...


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

Shoeman said:


> Down South Trot lines, jugs and unlimited rods are the norm


I've fished a number of those southern impoundments, and this Damn Yankee learned real quick to NOT cast your favorite crankbait anywhere near flooded timber.


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

piketroller said:


> Why only 100' long trot lines? That's actually fairly short.


Well, I don't want to get greedy!


----------



## Cpt.Chaos (May 28, 2006)

I support the 3 rod limit as do many of the responders to this poll/thread as well it seems.
In Michigan we are blessed with great fishing, especially on the Great Lakes, and considering some of the rules and regulations other states have in place that allow far less, I really think anglers here should appreciate the quality of fishing we already enjoy.


----------



## Chasin (Jun 25, 2002)

I sure hope we can get this passed. Remember all you guys that cant run more than two rods without tangles. You dont "Have to buy the extra license", just like you didnt need to buy a trout stamp until the licenses were just recently changed. Fishing by myself or with one other I would love to add more to my trolling presentations. I cant easily run 9 rods by myself and do so all the time with my wife and daughter sleeping in the boat.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

John Hine said:


> Rods per boat would simplify it, as in 3 extra rods per boat.


So I can drag my tin can boat out on the ice and use 6? 









Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk


----------



## John Hine (Mar 31, 2019)

Josh R said:


> So I can drag my tin can boat out on the ice and use 6?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As long as your sitting in it seems legit!


----------



## Personal Business (Jun 7, 2018)

You better get it straight, darlin' 
Poor man wanna be rich. 
Rich man wanna be king. 
And a king ain't satisfied 'Til he rules everything. The Boss.
Weird as it maybe, after all theses comments, I’d prefer to pay an extra $26.00 for 3 rods to be used by another person. To someone be it young, old, in need, etc... A fund where fisherman can donate funds to license others to experience what it’s like to get outside and to fish (hopefully not to be abused). Over time, in the future maybe they can join in discussions like this one. 
I know, weird. 
Blame in on COVID Cabin Fever (CCF)
Tight Lines Matter(TLM)


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Does any state allow double the rods for an additional license fee? Seems really excessive to me. I have bought licenses in about 7 different states. The only time i have seen anything similar was kansas. They had an annual license of something like $27 that allowed 2 rods at one time. They had an additional $8 trout license and $8 license for 1 additional rod. They still capped at 3.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

DirtySteve said:


> Does any state allow double the rods for an additional license fee? Seems really excessive to me. I have bought licenses in about 7 different states. The only time i have seen anything similar was kansas. They had an annual license of something like $27 that allowed 2 rods at one time. They had an additional $8 trout license and $8 license for 1 additional rod. They still capped at 3.


I believe most of Florida there is no limit on rods .Texas had a 100 hook limit so 100 rods possible .Some other states allow 4-6 rods .


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Thirty pointer said:


> I believe most of Florida there is no limit on rods .Texas had a 100 hook limit so 100 rods possible .Some other states allow 4-6 rods .


A quick google search shows that texas has a two rod limit per angler. Florida has no limit as you stated. I am not sure if ocean fishing is really relative in this conversation though.


----------

