# Why not a 3 pole limit??



## catfishhunterjames

I fish a lot on the Ohio River and I know there is 2 poles limit just wondering how hard would it be to get them to change it to 3 poles limit. I have fished 6 days out of the past 10 days and the bites are very slow it seems. Just wondering what some people on here thought about it and how hard would it be to get it changed?


----------



## Stampede

Growing up as a kid we were allowed to have 4 poles . Now i'd be happy with 2 poles in the water and being able to cast around with the third.


----------



## sherman51

I live in Indiana and already have a 3 pole limit and think that ohio should have a 3 pole limit. I use to fish Michigan with a 2 pole limit, now they have a 3 pole limit. its just going to take enough people pushing for a 3 pole limit to get the laws changed. I troll lake erie and there is times when I would love to be able to run 3 poles. but I don't see it happening in the near future.
sherman


----------



## whodeynati

Buy a non resident Kentucky license. I was out on the river from the boat solo yesterday. I was using 5 rods for catfish, and doing an occasional casting with a 6th rod for skipjack.


----------



## catfishcc

I think Ohio should have a unlimited pole. 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## 33highland

I believe they touched on this subject at the catfish summit in cincy and they said it wasn't happening. I purchased a w.v. license and I run at least 4 cat rods and a night crawler on the big O. For 50$ it was a no brainer for me....


----------



## catfishcc

The way I look at it. The old law of two poles need changed. Also I don't understand u can have several limb lines, and several jugs out but only two poles. Doesn't make sense. I was at the catfish summit. The odnr has no clue what's going on out on the water. Hopefully they need to get there head out of there butts. 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## winguy7

catfishcc said:


> The way I look at it. The old law of two poles need changed. Also I don't understand u can have several limb lines, and several jugs out but only two poles. Doesn't make sense. I was at the catfish summit. The odnr has no clue what's going on out on the water. Hopefully they need to get there head out of there butts.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


I couldn't have said it better. What really sucks is when your on a lake a you see a single guy trolling 4 poles, while your sittn there with your two. Not that I blame him though.


----------



## BottomBouncer

I emailed them the same question. Even suggested the idea of paying maybe an extra $5 per extra rod. Seems like a very simple revenue increase that would not cost the state a dime.
I'd pay an extra $5-10 to fish one or two more rods.
They just want to take our money and tell us to **** up a tree. One of the many things I hate about Ohio. They actually told me there was very little interest expressed by people to fish more than two rods. Yeah. Right. Why not give the people that ARE interested the opportunity to do so??? No one is saying you must fish more than two rods.


----------



## Misdirection

BottomBouncer said:


> I emailed them the same question. Even suggested the idea of paying maybe an extra $5 per extra rod. Seems like a very simple revenue increase that would not cost the state a dime.
> I'd pay an extra $5-10 to fish one or two more rods.
> They just want to take our money and tell us to **** up a tree. One of the many things I hate about Ohio. They actually told me there was very little interest expressed by people to fish more than two rods. Yeah. Right. Why not give the people that ARE interested the opportunity to do so??? No one is saying you must fish more than two rods.


I do not know a single Lake Erie troller who doesn't want to use three rods per person. I also know guys who will fish the PA side of the border so they can run the extra rods...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## catfishhunterjames

Im going to look in to some sort of way to petition this and try to get them to increase it to 3. It will be a website that everyone could sign and if we could be over 10,000 people to sign and willing to pay the extra fee for the extra pole. They will see it could increase the revenue close to $100,000. They may open their eyes because a lot of people is paying an extra $50 to fish with as many poles as they want by buying Kentucky fishing license.


----------



## whodeynati

I'm pretty sure this was actually talked about within the DNR. If I recall I think they shot it down because of the northern part of the state. I'll try to find something online about it.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

catfishhunterjames said:


> I&#8217;m going to look in to some sort of way to petition this and try to get them to increase it to 3. It will be a website that everyone could sign and if we could be over 10,000 people to sign and willing to pay the extra fee for the extra pole. They will see it could increase the revenue close to $100,000. They may open their eyes because a lot of people is paying an extra $50 to fish with as many poles as they want by buying Kentucky fishing license.


www.change.org

I could get quite a few people to sign and share it, which would get more shares and signs.

With permission from the OP, I can start working on a rough draft, post it here and we can start writing this petition out.


----------



## Garyoutlaw77

I'm all about adding opportunity & for that privilege I'd pay for an additional endorsement on my license.
- Keep bag limits the same 
Because it does not matter to most of us are CP&R anyway) 

My only real concern is that the pile of revenue this creates could get added to the general fund & do little or nothing for the very people who provide it .


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Since no response from the OP, I'll work on a change.org letter this coming week at work and post it here.


----------



## catfishhunterjames

I have been working on it should have it posted this weekend.



Dana.Birrell said:


> Since no response from the OP, I'll work on a change.org letter this coming week at work and post it here.


----------



## BottomBouncer

Between 635,000 and 650,000 fishing license were sold last year in Ohio. Maybe more. Say half of those people add one rod for $5.

(635000/2) x $5 = $1,587,000. The DNR is telling us they couldn't use another $1.5million+???? Yeah, right. A government entity that doesn't mind increasing our yearly fee with no real gain for us, but give them a chance to drastically increase their revenue AND we get something for the extra(optional) fee and they're not interested.

I'm getting a bit fired up thinking about it. Heck, even if only 5% of people opted for an extra rod they'd still pull in an extra $150k. And that's only allowing people one extra rod. I'd pay to use three more rods. I'm not saying I would use five rods, but if I wanted to I could.


----------



## Misdirection

PA allows a third rod with out any extra fee...just saying...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## damrat

florida allows as many rods meaning a number that you can monitor. just my 2 cents. dave


----------



## Dana.Birrell

catfishhunterjames said:


> I have been working on it should have it posted this weekend.


If you'd like someone to look over it and suggest changes, you can email it to me at [email protected]


----------



## Salmonid

Ok I been involved wityh this debate with ODNR for the last several years and can tell you that the DNR is aware of a small group of folks who would be interested in a 3 rod limit, ( Trollers, Catfish and carp guys) and the DNR does agree that for those situations, its plausible but after doing surveys for the last two years to a broad scope of anglers, the vast majority of everyday folks replied with they didn't see any reason for it and only a small group of catfish, trollers and carp guys thought it was a good idea. anyways, the DNR has it on there watch list and will eventually probably change it but.. not in the next few years as license costs are very political and adding anything like a trout stamp or a 3rd rod fee would be quite costly to switch computer systems, tags, new brochures etc to make the changes and then there is the enforcement issues that would need to be addressed. Last point is that any more money going to DNR would really just go into the states reglar fund so you are dreaming if you think it would mean more funds for DNR, it just doesn't work that way. I applaud your efforts but can tell you that is where the state stands on this issue. an yeah it was discussed at the catfish summit,

Here is tha short comments from the Catfish summit, notes I received from Scott hale, 
"Topic: Rod limits (increasing the number of rods per angler from 2 to 3 or more).
SH: This is something we have looked at in the past, but opinions are split among anglers, and they tend to be fishery specific. For example, on Lake Erie, anglers that cast prefer the current 2-rod limit and those that troll would like to see this increased to three. Likewise, in our inland waters, some anglers would like to see the current 2-rod limit remain and others would like to see this increased. In our surveys, we did not have an extremely strong response favoring a change. However, there is no reason that we cant consider this in the future and discuss if such a change might be appropriate for some areas and not for others."

Salmonid


----------



## BottomBouncer

So, because some anglers don't see a reason, then it's a no to all off us? Makes sense.

As far enforcement, what would they be enforcing then that they aren't now?


----------



## Salmonid

enforcement becomes an issue where an officer would have to stop and ask everyone who had 3 rods out and that is time consuming and not the way enforcement likes to work, so some sort of visible marker would need to be in use in a perfect world so an officer could see something and or that you were NOT displaying something to know a possible infraction was involved before approaching someone. Does that make sense? While many folks think there is NO enforcement now, its important that in the eyes of the officers, that is good so folks will continue to feel comfortable to still break laws In other words, if enforcement is heavy, the bad folks will just go somewhere else making it that much harder to catch because they start getting sneaky about it vs being comfortable breaking laws. Also its important to understand that the more invisible enforcement is the better


Salmonid


----------



## BanksideBandit

Salmonid said:


> For example, on Lake Erie, anglers that cast prefer the current 2-rod limit and those that troll would like to see this increased to three. Likewise, in our inland waters, some anglers would like to see the current 2-rod limit remain and others would like to see this increased.
> 
> Salmonid


So are casting anglers NOT wanting a 3 rod limit to stay on the same playing field as trolling anglers? Or do they not care?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Salmonid said:


> ... not in the next few years as license costs are very political and adding anything like a *trout stamp or a 3rd rod fee would be quite costly to switch computer systems, tags, new brochures etc to make the changes* and then there is the enforcement issues that would need to be addressed...


This needs to be addressed, I'm sorry but I am an IT major that works in the industry, I must correct you as this information is wrong and misleading. 

Trout Stamp: Unnecessary, and is really not part of the subject.

Third Rod Fee: Simple addition of a boxed area on the license that would have two variables; A star inside for those who DO have it, an X or other shape (two shapes that are not modifiable to look like one another, ie one that takes up the center one that doens't) that shows that someone does have it. A legend printed right underneath. Counterfeitable? Yes. Is it worth going beyond this? Probably not, no.

Switching Computer Systems: This is extremely unnecessary and over exaggerated by whatever your source of reference for this. The state would have required software to design the license template in the first place. In order to make simple additions to a template, the same software, which the state already has a license for (or even any PDF editor) is all that is required to make these chages.

Brochures: These are updated YEARLY. Why would adding a third rod be any different than changing the fishing year and adding a new bullet point to CHANGES FOR THIS YEAR. This is nothing new, the pamphlet is changed every year.
*Ref*: _Ohio Fishing Regulations 2014-2015_, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Page 7: Top of page all changes are listed in red lettering. *I bet you they use a PDF editor for this!*

Enforcement Issues: I see zero issues with this. the ODNR is no longer allow to do safety inspections in boats without reasonable cause. They lost something on their roster, why not change a law for them to memorize and send a memo out? I'm sure they have many many meetings and could be informed of law changes in one of the many many meetings they have.

I have the utmost respect for you Salmonid, but I'm sorry, these changes you speak of are minimal at best.

*The Real Problem*
Ohio Legislation. And I don't really see this being a problem if we have a petition circulating. As long as they headline of the petition isn't implying someone WANTS the law changed, but do they MIND the law change? Simple adjusting of wording makes makes people believe what they're reading is different and can cause a much different reaction to "surveys."

The English language is a real beast of burden.


----------



## Salmonid

in the states surveys, the Erie guys were very adamant one way or the others, the casters do NOT want 3 rods and the trollers DO want 3 rods and a large group of the Casters had their groups go online and heavily state that they did NOT want to see 3 rods in use on the surveys, ( there was an organized movement from them to go online and say NO to the 3 rod limit) This put the NO's way over the YES's in the survey so it appears the Majority of folks do not want it.. The state was aware of this ploy and is why they are willing to relook at it in the future

Salmonid


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Salmonid said:


> in the states surveys, the Erie guys were very adamant one way or the others, the casters do NOT want 3 rods and the trollers DO want 3 rods and a large group of the Casters had their groups go online and heavily state that they did NOT want to see 3 rods in use on the surveys, ( there was an organized movement from them to go online and say NO to the 3 rod limit) This put the NO's way over the YES's in the survey so it appears the Majority of folks do not want it.. The state was aware of this ploy and is why they are willing to relook at it in the future
> 
> Salmonid


Okay so we're down to Erie fishermen casters not wanting it? Was this (specific) survey mainly for Erie? Or were inland fishermen included as well? 

Also, do you understand my above argument regarding the other things I'm sure some speaker was told to say?


----------



## tehsavage

I think you should be able to use as many rods as you can handle. I'd pay money to see someone tend to 6 poles by themselves with no help. Anyone with multi-tasking skills to handle 3 or more rods at once and fish all of them effectively, should be able to. Me personally? i get fed up enough fishing 2 poles and usually end up switching to 1 pole by mid trip.


----------



## Salmonid

Ok, I agree with you completely here as Im an IT guy as well, but I m just telling you what I hear from the powers that be. It does come down to the fact that state sees "any" changes as a lot of work and as you know anything the state does is not quick or cheap. 

Yes its time consuming to change any regs as its taken over 2 years to get the new rule to allow Big motors to Idle at Acton lake and the average person would say, just change the regs, edit the software, print a few new signs and its done, but the state process is very lengthy with many meeting with groups and public, many man hours of many people to make these things happen. and remember, Im just the messenger here...LOL Ive been involved with many DNR projects and its a slow moving process. 

Now, when I was talking about switching computer systems, I meant modify code for the present software system. Probably a 100 hr project by the time you code, test, implement, fix bugs, and retest and implement. LOL

My comment about Tags is just that, I am positive that if this would ever happen, there would have to be a way to show, at a distance, that you opted for this 3rd rod and that may be a clearly visible tag that is worn or some sort of visible tag that you hang on the 3rd rod, ( just speculation here) this would be for the enforcement issues involved. and that requires more printed or stamped matter, that's what I meant by the Tags. Ever notice how in ANY state with a Trout Stamp, that you must clearly wear the license for all to see. This is an Enforcement issue so you can be spotted a long ways off by an officer.

I might also get into the politics where any increase of fees ( even optional) becomes VERY political and is often looked at as a fishing "Tax" and getting higher ups to back such a thing is hard to do. 

I agree, it should be simple but in all reality, if you've ever wondered why Ohios fishing regs are only 4-5 pages of a brochure while other states like Michigan or Penn. have a 30-50 page booklets. It is because Ohio is trying to make the rules as easy as possible for the masses which is why they have tried to generalize the rules across the state but have slowly been modifying the rules ( 9" crappie limits, Bass Min size) to more specific lakes which only makes thing more confusing for the masses and then becomes a bigger enforcement issue. 

Another issue they bring up is that with the lack of public access in Ohio and the high number of anglers that the 3 rod limit becomes an issue with 1 person hogging up a bigger shore area, For example say there is a point on the Great Miami River and 2 guys spread 6 rods out over the whole area claiming it so others can not fish there. now it becomes an issue of how much space 1 angler can temporarily claim . Others might say, " if your in a boat, you can use 3 rods" but that becomes discriminatory


I guess the bottom line is the state isn't interested in this at this time, LOl I tried to convey what has been told to me when ever I bring it up. I hope i could shed some light on what should be a simple fix but in reality is a implementing nightmare with more work, less money, people, etc 

Salmonid


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Thank you for the extensive and intelligent response. This is, however, why I use bank lines for catfish.


----------



## ducky152000

Dana.Birrell said:


> Thank you for the extensive and intelligent response. This is, however, why I use bank lines for catfish.


Yeah....A LOT of fun doing that! I love fighting a fish with only 4 feet of line after he's been hanging on a hook all night. I also love just placing a line every two feet down the bank. There is so much skill to learn to do that.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

ducky152000 said:


> Yeah....A LOT of fun doing that! I love fighting a fish with only 4 feet of line after he's been hanging on a hook all night. I also love just placing a line every two feet down the bank. There is so much skill to learn to do that.


You're angry, aren't you?

I use a few thirty foot lines that I check every hour or so while I'm fishing.

On a side note, I really appreciate your feedback and will remember it next time I rod and reel a fish. You know, it takes a lot of skill to sit on a bank and drink beer too. Man, I'm a genius! 

Sarcasm aside, power is likely go out here at work, and I will leave you be butt mad about the laws and my ability to utilize bank lines to catch fish.


----------



## cmiller

With that petition, could somehow get it on fb to sign via external link. My thaught to help. 

Sent from my LG-VS410PP using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Dana.Birrell

cmiller said:


> With that petition, could somehow get it on fb to sign via external link. My thaught to help.
> 
> Sent from my LG-VS410PP using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Could make a Facebook page for it, and that wouldn't be hard.

E: All things considered, I have four more hours to sit and do nothing until I go home. Might as well do something useful. I have made a dedicated page to it. This way the Erie caster guys can come in and post their reasons why it wouldn't be a good idea ----- this would make it so everyone can see both sides of the argument.

Anyone here good with Photoshop and have some artistic inclination? Would love a cover photo made for this page.


----------



## Garyoutlaw77

I am glad to see such active debate on this subject but think it would be more productive if seen by more of the open forum if anything just to bring it to attention.

_*Repressing your opportunity *_ .. just say that a few times & tell me how it makes you feel.

The notion that this will create more work & interactions for wildlife officers with Anglers ..
good..an honest Man has no fear of meeting old Green jeans & those who are not deserve the recourse according to the Law.

The *ONLY* negative I personally see is the fact the revenue created will be stolen from the very people who generated it & given to the general fund to pay for other short comings in this administration.


----------



## ducky152000

Dana.Birrell said:


> You're angry, aren't you?
> 
> I use a few thirty foot lines that I check every hour or so while I'm fishing.
> 
> On a side note, I really appreciate your feedback and will remember it next time I rod and reel a fish. You know, it takes a lot of skill to sit on a bank and drink beer too. Man, I'm a genius!
> 
> Sarcasm aside, power is likely go out here at work, and I will leave you be butt mad about the laws and my ability to utilize bank lines to catch fish.


You really have no idea what I do to target flathead. It very well could be mind boggling to a dropliners. Btw I drink shine with a cheek full of Redman and have blue Jean bibs on. Not a beer drinker.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

ducky152000 said:


> You really have no idea what I do to target flathead. It very well could be mind boggling to a dropliners. Btw I drink shine with a cheek full of Redman and have blue Jean bibs on. Not a beer drinker.


You sure are bitter. How does it make you feel to get angry about words on the internet?


----------



## KaGee

Alright it's getting too personal now. Stick to the topic.

Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S4 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## murphy13

I thought you were allowed 3 hooks in the water at all time?


----------



## weekend angler

murphy13 said:


> I thought you were allowed 3 hooks in the water at all time?


You're allowed 2 poles with up to 3 hooks on each.

Sent from my HTC Desire 601 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## CANEYEGO

Leave the upcharge out of it.. no political "fishing tax",and no additional enforcement issues. The simpler you make it the better chance of acceptance.


----------



## CANEYEGO

I see the issue of bank hogging to be huge, probably a deal breaker. As stated above, a small group could completely take over a limited access area, depriving others of the opportunity to fish with their kids, etc. And they could hold that spot indefinitely. That's a real problem us "Big Water" guys wouldn't even think of. That said, with trolling, six rods in the water is about the minimum when covering multiple depths and large area to find active fish. Even 4 rods x 2 anglers would be easy enough, so I think the wording of "number of rods that can be actively monitored" would apply there. And of course, Daily Bag Limits would protect the fishery. My last point would be, Why are we not in line with other states around us on this? (Maybe the limited access and high demand.)


----------



## crestliner TS

Salmonid said:


> in the states surveys, the Erie guys were very adamant one way or the others, the casters do NOT want 3 rods and the trollers DO want 3 rods and a large group of the Casters had their groups go online and heavily state that they did NOT want to see 3 rods in use on the surveys, ( there was an organized movement from them to go online and say NO to the 3 rod limit) This put the NO's way over the YES's in the survey so it appears the Majority of folks do not want it.. The state was aware of this ploy and is why they are willing to relook at it in the future
> 
> Salmonid


you cant lump "casters" all together and blindly state they all want the same thing. I am sure that is not the case,


----------



## crestliner TS

what about the charters? I can see the charters out there running 30 rods at a time occupying a swath of 150' side to side. I am sure the charters would love 3 rods a person! I would!


----------



## BottomBouncer

weekend angler said:


> You're allowed 2 poles with up to 3 hooks on each.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Desire 601 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


So much logic in the existing regs.


----------



## bowdog45

Regulations are ALREADY in place to protect the resource (fish).............. harvest and size restrictions. As long as an angler is abiding by _*those*_ restrictions, why give a flip about how many fishing poles are used?? Never understood that.


----------



## bowdog45

I see your point Caneyego......... about the bank fishing (hogging). I normally boat fish, so didn't really consider that angle, but can certainly imagine a group over taking a spot.


----------



## All Thumbs

most of the surrounding states have 3 pole/2 hook limits for a total of 6 hooks, ohio has 2 pole/3 hook limits for a total of 6 hooks. we need to change the rules for ohio to 3 pole/2 hook, not to add additional charges for additional poles. the bag limits should not be changed. if charter boats can manage 30 rods and using a path 150' wide, so be it, lake erie is almost 10,000 square miles. bank fisherman can easily crowd up a spot with 3 or 4 fisherman and 6 or 8 poles but fishing for many years most (not all) are friendly and share. 

again, change the pole numbers, not add additional fees

all thumbs


----------



## KaGee

bowdog45 said:


> Regulations are ALREADY in place to protect the resource (fish).............. harvest and size restrictions. As long as an angler is abiding by _*those*_ restrictions, why give a flip about how many fishing poles are used?? Never understood that.


Anyone ignoring current regulations will ignore future ones. These people are most likely using more rods/hooks than allowed now. 

Allowing 3 rods will only lead to the call for 4, etc etc. Of all the problems in the world and our country today, getting all wadded up about this doesn't even move the scale.

Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S4 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## papaperch

There is actually no logical reason to oppose raising the rod limit to three.

1. No one would be forced to use any more rods than they care to use.
2. A group of fishermen could not " hog a spot " much different than the 2 pole limit.
3. Would not bother fish populations ( example Pymatuning )

The only REAL reason for the opposition is people are reluctant to change. I worked at a place where at first our regular schedule required us to be at work 79% of the calendar days of the year. Having even holidays off was a rarity. That was even before the OT. Which was plentiful like it or not.

Since our place was on a 24/7 365 day schedule a 12 hour schedule was proposed and adopted. Which meant now the work day percentage fell to 50%. Once every month we had 7 straight off and 7 straight work days.

At first 25 % of us opposed it. Which was roughly about 30 people. After about 6 months of actually working it. The number opposed to the 12 hour schedule fell to just 1 hard head.


----------



## partlyable

I understand the people that want 3 rods and why they want it more fish. But this is fishing not catching. And I agree we do not have that much shore access for some who are shore bound or below spillways just taking over the whole shoreline.


----------



## BMustang

Canada still only permits one pole.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

BMustang said:


> Canada still only permits one pole.


It is Canada, afterall.


----------



## sherman51

we have had a 3 pole limit here in Indiana for as long as I can remember. I use to do a lot of bank fishing and never had a problem using 3 poles. if a spot already had enough fisherman then I would just keep moving until I found a good spot. but most times I would just ask if there was room for us to fish and almost always got a yes. I've even had guys move there poles to give us more room. and not everybody that fishes uses poles. a lot of guys still fish with 1 or maybe 2 poles.

im 63 yrs old now and have fisher Indiana since I was 14 and I cant remember not one argument about how much room was being used by another fisherman. most bank fisherman don't really take up more room but fish all 3 lines closer together. a lot of the time I used 2 poles with bobbers and wanted them close so I could see them good, then I would use 1 pole with a jig and just fish the open spots between fisherman. the bottom line is we get along just great here in Indiana with 3 poles and im sure ohio would be just the same as Indiana.
sherman


----------



## OPTIMIST

I once asked a DNR Officer about that and he said "Because we always done it that way" I just stood there with my mouth open looking at him. He should never be at a sports show but cleaning out the toilets at the boat launches. 

The amount of people 3 poles would hurt is minimal at least. People that are going to take over their limits are always going to cheat regardless of how many poles they use. This is why it only hurts the people that love to fish. Bass fisherman can only use one pole at a time, so most are against 3 pole use. That is why when they take surveys not everyone wants a 3 pole law. Our DNR Officials are like the EPA Officials stubborn and won't change regardless of what the people want.


----------



## fishhogg

I don't understand the opposition to this rule change? The limits are not being changed, just the number of rods you can use. I troll lake Erie out of a tournament style walleye rig, with 3 of us on board, I run 6 rods being able to use 3 a piece means I might put out another 2 rods. I don't see the what the big deal is? If we want it done, we have to make sure our voices are heard. I like the petition idea, I will sign.


----------



## BottomBouncer

I'm sure no one using this site has ever used a third rod in Ohio.

***obnoxious cough followed by muffled "bull****"


----------



## real reeltime

I agree that 3 rods is too many for creek bank fishing. I've see guys with two rods try to monopolize a eddy.


----------



## Salmonid

FWIW, ever Ohio River catfish guy buys a KY out of state License ( $50 for the year) so we can use as many rods as we want on the mainstem since each state has a reciprocating License agreement, Indiana allows 3 but Ky allows unlimited so all Indiana guys do the same thing, all tourneys even from Ohio and Indiana ramps usually allow 6 rods per boat assuming you have the license to use them, Drifting on the Ohio, I will use as many as 10 rods, even by myself. 


Salmonid


----------



## Lundy

The fish limit and the number of rods is really an apples and oranges evaluation.

To assume that the number of rods would not increase the total catch would have to make the assumption that everyone catches their limit every trip.

Obviously that is not the case or so many would not be so interested in increasing the number of rods.

Protecting or regulating a fishery is more than just the limits placed on a species or body of water. You also control it by means and methods of fishing. Increasing the number of rods by 1 would increase the overall number of fish caught, just as decreasing to number by 1 would decrease the overall catch. If the management was strictly species limits with no restrictions on methods we could shoot, spear, net and dynamite our way to a limit

I don't have strong feelings either way concerning a increase to 3 rods but for many to say an increase would have no impact on the catch is certainly not founded in reality.


----------



## winguy7

I say go to three. Often I'll have one out for channel's, and one for flats. I cant tell ya the number of times I've had to pull one in so that I could go get more blue gill. Guess which one gets pulled in, Ha. Also for us bank fisherman under the same scenario things can get a little boring sometimes. I'd like to be able to throw some lures for bass, while fishing for one or two different species of cats. Sign me up!!.


----------



## Lucky Touch Charters

CANEYEGO said:


> Leave the upcharge out of it.. no political "fishing tax",and no additional enforcement issues. The simpler you make it the better chance of acceptance.


.
Amen to that!!! I am all for 3 rods per angler. Other states allow it at no fee why should Ohio make money on it? They get enough of my money. It will NOT cost them anymore money to allow 3 rods rather than 2 rods. the rule books get reprinted every year anyways they even have the changes in them. the enforcement side is no different.


----------



## Lucky Touch Charters

Salmonid said:


> Ok I been involved wityh this debate with ODNR for the last several years and can tell you that the DNR is aware of a small group of folks who would be interested in a 3 rod limit, ( Trollers, Catfish and carp guys) and the DNR does agree that for those situations, its plausible but after doing surveys for the last two years to a broad scope of anglers, the vast majority of everyday folks replied with they didn't see any reason for it and only a small group of catfish, trollers and carp guys thought it was a good idea. anyways, the DNR has it on there watch list and will eventually probably change it but.. not in the next few years as license costs are very political and adding anything like a trout stamp or a 3rd rod fee would be quite costly to switch computer systems, tags, new brochures etc to make the changes and then there is the enforcement issues that would need to be addressed. Last point is that any more money going to DNR would really just go into the states reglar fund so you are dreaming if you think it would mean more funds for DNR, it just doesn't work that way. I applaud your efforts but can tell you that is where the state stands on this issue. an yeah it was discussed at the catfish summit,
> 
> Here is tha short comments from the Catfish summit, notes I received from Scott hale,
> "Topic: Rod limits (increasing the number of rods per angler from 2 to 3 or more).
> SH: This is something we have looked at in the past, but opinions are split among anglers, and they tend to be fishery specific. For example, on Lake Erie, anglers that cast prefer the current 2-rod limit and those that troll would like to see this increased to three. Likewise, in our inland waters, some anglers would like to see the current 2-rod limit remain and others would like to see this increased. In our surveys, we did not have an extremely strong response favoring a change. However, there is no reason that we cant consider this in the future and discuss if such a change might be appropriate for some areas and not for others."
> 
> Salmonid


A survey HUH??? Only a small group interested heh???

Well of course only a "small group" was interested.... because it was a small group that was surveyed. Common sense and simple math tells me that you CANNOT get large group support out of a small survey. I mean heck I was NEVER asked??? niether was any of my fishin buds??? I buy a fishing license every year and they never take that opportunity to ask me or you! Sounds like they missed an opportunity to survey us didn't they? espcially if we purchase online. I was checked a few times again i mention it and nothing happens. i go to the open houses.. it falls on death ears. Yet i always hear about this "survey". Like many others would say for once I would like to be surveyed. 

BTW slamonid dont take this personal. My rant is not against you it is against the ODNR. You are just messenger and i am not shooting you


----------



## winguy7

I would also hope the odnr is erring on the safe side and setting limits assuming that everyone's catching their limit. Now if we can just find a way to tax all those dam big fish from eating the small ones, we'll really be in business.


----------



## Snakecharmer

All Thumbs said:


> most of the surrounding states have 3 pole/2 hook limits for a total of 6 hooks, ohio has 2 pole/3 hook limits for a total of 6 hooks. we need to change the rules for ohio to 3 pole/2 hook, not to add additional charges for additional poles. the bag limits should not be changed. if charter boats can manage 30 rods and using a path 150' wide, so be it, lake erie is almost 10,000 square miles. bank fisherman can easily crowd up a spot with 3 or 4 fisherman and 6 or 8 poles but fishing for many years most (not all) are friendly and share.
> 
> again, change the pole numbers, not add additional fees
> 
> all thumbs


Sorry I like my lures that have three trable hooks. Hate to have to get rid of them.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

OP, any progress on that petition?


----------



## catfishhunterjames

Dana.Birrell said:


> OP, any progress on that petition?


Yes, I sent you a PM.


----------



## EyeCatchEm

Send me a copy of the petition... I will get some signatures


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## sherman51

Lundy said:


> The fish limit and the number of rods is really an apples and oranges evaluation.
> 
> To assume that the number of rods would not increase the total catch would have to make the assumption that everyone catches their limit every trip.
> 
> Obviously that is not the case or so many would not be so interested in increasing the number of rods.
> 
> Protecting or regulating a fishery is more than just the limits placed on a species or body of water. You also control it by means and methods of fishing. Increasing the number of rods by 1 would increase the overall number of fish caught, just as decreasing to number by 1 would decrease the overall catch. If the management was strictly species limits with no restrictions on methods we could shoot, spear, net and dynamite our way to a limit
> 
> I don't have strong feelings either way concerning a increase to 3 rods but for many to say an increase would have no impact on the catch is certainly not founded in reality.


lundy I agree with you 100% that a 3 rod limit would be more fish in the box in a shorter time. but for guys like me that has to drive 335 miles each way then spend the money for gas and camping and food for the time we are there a 3 rod limit would just make our trips better. my boat is only set up to run 10 rods so if I have 4 people on my boat I can still only run 10 rods. but it would really be nice for me to run 9 rods when there is only 3 people onboard. or be able to run my 6 divers with 2 people on board. so I would love to see the 3 rod limit in ohio. just my personal opinion.
sherman


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Going to rewrite his petition today so it's taken seriously. I'll post a change.org link and a link to the facebook page for this cause by 8 PM. Anyone who has a passion for photoshop would be great to have to create some images.

In the mean time, *does anyone have a link to the Erie 3 rod survey*? Any references would be great. I would like to be able to add this side of the argument stating that "research has been done, however on too small of scale to give accurate results"

At this time, I will not be including *anything* to with with research as not having tangible evidence makes our argument look unsubstantiated and ignorant. In order to avoid any of this, until I have results for this survey in front of my eyes from a credible source, I will not be writing about it within the petition. I wish to provide references with this as to make it as substantiated as possible.


----------



## papaperch

When I was studying debating. I was always taught to examine the opposing side of view to strengthen my argument.

So if the ones who oppose going to a three rod limit on the grounds that somehow it would diminish their sport. Should you not propose going to a ONE rod limit ? This would somehow add to your sport in that line of logic.

I often vacation in southern states. Most of which have NO limit on the amount of a rod an angler may use. Unless the fish were found extra rods did not guarantee more fish.
Regardless of where you fish you have to fish where they are at. Now matter how many rods you use. Your brain will still be your best tool. 

By the way while down south often I fished with 4 poles. Boats came by me that were spider rigging that had 12 + poles sticking out. They neither added or subtracted from my enjoyment. Well it might have added to my enjoyment a little when they snagged on to a large catfish that promptly tangled more than half their lines. And it detracted a little when the same thing happened to me. LOL


----------



## Dana.Birrell

papaperch said:


> When I was studying debating. I was always taught to examine the opposing side of view to strengthen my argument.
> 
> So if the ones who oppose going to a three rod limit on the grounds that somehow it would diminish their sport. Should you not propose going to a ONE rod limit ? This would somehow add to your sport in that line of logic.


I agree with this 100%. If you give a one sided view and people find that you're not stating all of the facts, your argument becomes less believable.

Just opened MS Word, all of my work has been updated and I'm putting my brain into this. I'll be posting a rough draft here within an hour or two as well as some paragraphs that may be good additions.

So far I have...



> Many Ohio fishermen have sat and pondered the rules and regulations and as to why regulations are in place. Regulations are in place to protect the limited and fragile ecosystem in Ohio, ultimately preserving the ecosystem for our children, their children and many generations to come. If these resources are destroyed, it would affect our daily lives. Losing these environmental resources would have a great effect on our food supply, water supply and many other daily needs. However, for law abiding citizens a raise in Ohio angler&#8217;s rod limits would not have a drastic effect on the ecosystem. In fact, this change could help our ecosystem thrive.
> 
> Using additional rods within Ohio&#8217;s waterways would not have an effect on our daily bag limits. Using an additional rod per person would simply allow for an additional line to reach our daily bag limits. In our surrounding states, anglers are allowed to use more than two poles per person; Michigan ($26 resident license) maximum is 3, West Virginia ($19 resident license) imposes a rod limit of two only if fishing in an impoundment stocked by trout, Indiana ($17 resident) and Pennsylvania ($22.70 resident license) impose a 3 rod limit and Kentucky ($20 resident license) allows for use of unlimited rods.
> 
> With over 600,000 fishing licenses sold on the state of Ohio for the 2013-2014 fishing season, how could an additional rod help Ohio&#8217;s ecosystem? If Ohio imposes a small additional fee, which most anglers would be willing to pay for a third rod, the amount of increased revenue would be no small number. If the fishing license fee was raised by only $2, Ohio would see an additional $1.2 million dollars in increased annual revenue. These additional resources could be put back into the environment by means of fish stocked annually in the fishing waters of Ohio and additional ODNR employees to ensure our laws are followed.
> 
> The previously mentioned fee should remain small and mandatory. If Ohio imposes an &#8220;optional&#8221; fee, the amount of work and money involved into new a fishing license and the previously used &#8220;stamp&#8221; style Michigan has recently done away with would be astronomical in comparison to a slight inconvenience for those who do not wish to use a third rod.
> 
> There will always be people who do not abide by rules. The people who do not abide by rules are not just fishermen, these people lie everywhere. Regardless of the rules in place for assisting and protecting our ecosystem, people all over the world still litter. People will always take more fish than allowed, fish with more rods and improperly dispose of their trash. A lot of fishermen will not actively fish 3 rods on every trip. While fishing for some species there is barely time to fish with two rods (bluegill, sunfish and actively casting lures for bass). However other species take time to find the bait because they&#8217;re actively searching for foods (catfish and carp) or you&#8217;re moving baits around trying to locate the fish and entice them to bite (walleye, saugeye, perch, crappie, pike and muskie).


Notice in paragraph three, I choose my words very carefully and use the word "could" instead of "would." This is suggesting to the reader that the state may use the money for our ecosystem, but does not guarantee it.


----------



## catfishhunterjames

That is much better than what I would have done also I'm not the best at writing stuff.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Will not be able to finish this today, mental state got thrown into a colorful mess, and I will more than likely remain this way until god knows when (hopefully not beyond tonight).

Hour fourty five left at work, then I think I'm going fishing for the night. Rain, storms, don't care.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Alright gentlemen, I have Rough Draft of the petition here. I would like *ANY and ALL input*. Sentence restructuring, wording and really any grammatical errors or word choice problems that may help our cause. I have made some additional changes from above and will be continuing to nit pick this with some of my English Major (dumb) buddies!


The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) should listen to the people and change our regulations regarding the number of active fishing poles we can use from two to three. Many Ohio fishermen have sat and pondered the rules and regulations and as to why regulations are in place. Regulations are in place to protect the limited and fragile ecosystem in Ohio, ultimately preserving the ecosystem for our children, their children and many generations to come. If these resources are destroyed, it would affect our daily lives. Losing these environmental resources would have a great effect on our food supply, water supply and many other daily needs. For law abiding citizens a raise in Ohio angler&#8217;s rod limits would not have a drastic effect on the ecosystem. In fact, this change could help our ecosystem thrive.

Using additional rods within Ohio&#8217;s waterways would not have an effect on our daily bag limits. Using an additional rod per person would simply allow for an additional line to reach our daily bag limits. In our surrounding states, anglers are allowed to use more than two poles per person; Michigan ($26 resident license) maximum is three, West Virginia ($19 resident license) imposes a rod limit of two only if fishing in an impoundment stocked by trout, Indiana ($17 resident) and Pennsylvania ($22.70 resident license) impose a three rod limit and Kentucky ($20 resident license) allows for use of unlimited rods. Currently the state of Ohio allows *two* active rods per person and up to *fifty* bank lines in total, or up to *six* in waters under 700 surface acres. This means that in smaller bodies of water, you can already fish with up to *eight* lines, however *six* of them have to be tied to a tree or other naturally occurring object above the water and not a rod and reel. 

With over 600,000 fishing licenses sold on the state of Ohio for the 2013-2014 fishing season, how could an additional rod help Ohio&#8217;s ecosystem? If Ohio imposes a small additional fee for a third rod, which most anglers would be willing to pay for, the amount of increased revenue would be no small number. If the fishing license fee was raised by only $2, Ohio would see an additional $1.2 million dollars in increased annual revenue. These additional resources could be put back into the environment by means of fish stocked annually in the fishing waters of Ohio and additional ODNR employees to ensure our laws are followed. 

The previously mentioned fee should remain small and mandatory. If Ohio imposes an &#8220;optional&#8221; fee, the amount of work and money involved into new a fishing license and the previously used &#8220;stamp&#8221; style Michigan has recently done away with would be astronomical in comparison to a slight inconvenience for those who do not wish to use a third rod. This change does not mean that every angler will use three rods all of the time, if ever. This change simply allows anglers to use three rods if the situation calls for it.

There will always be people who do not abide by rules. The people who do not abide by rules are not just fishermen, these people lie everywhere. Regardless of the rules in place for assisting and protecting our ecosystem, people all over the world still litter. People will always take more fish than allowed, fish with more rods and improperly dispose of their trash. A lot of fishermen will not actively fish three rods on every trip. While fishing for some species there is barely time to fish with two rods (bluegill, sunfish and actively casting lures for bass). On the other hand, other species take time to find the bait because they&#8217;re actively searching for foods (catfish and carp) or you&#8217;re moving baits around trying to locate the fish and entice them to bite (walleye, saugeye, perch, crappie, pike and muskie).

In conclusion, allowing Ohio anglers to use an additional rod can ultimately be beneficial to the state&#8217;s waterways. With the ability to fish as little as eight lines and as many fifty-two lines at once already, Ohio anglers would see a more humane way to catch fish being used more often as means to use additional lines. As long as the ODNR places a goal for the additional raised funds to benefit Ohio waterways the benefits to having a third rod in the state of Ohio could far outweigh the risks. Protecting our environment is essential to our future. If you believe that having a third rod would benefit you, your children, someone you know or even the environment then please sign petition and help our cause.


----------



## papaperch

Appreciate the effort you have put into this. But I really can't support an extra fee for increasing to three poles.

1. Never offer any politician a tax increase. They think of enough of them on their own.
2. If the tax was collected chances are it would go to general fund to disappear from public site.
3. Sales tax , income tax , property tax ,gasoline tax , usage tax---- ad infinitum. I am no means poor or rich but right now over 50% of my income goes towards taxes

Whatever the governments local , state and Federal label it or rename it. It is a [email protected]#$#%$!^&%$ tax.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

papaperch said:


> Appreciate the effort you have put into this. But I really can't support an extra fee for increasing to three poles.
> 
> 1. Never offer any politician a tax increase. They think of enough of them on their own.
> 2. If the tax was collected chances are it would go to general fund to disappear from public site.
> 3. Sales tax , income tax , property tax ,gasoline tax , usage tax---- ad infinitum. I am no means poor or rich but right now over 50% of my income goes towards taxes
> 
> Whatever the governments local , state and Federal label it or rename it. It is a [email protected]#$#%$!^&%$ tax.


Anymore input on this?


----------



## Misdirection

I agree. I think the state will I directly benefit regardless. If I can run extra rods, I'll buy them. Then I need to put lures / bait on them. More tax revenue there. We may draw more people from neighboring states / countries if they can run three rods...just my thoughts...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Misdirection said:


> I agree. I think the state will I directly benefit regardless. If I can run extra rods, I'll buy them. Then I need to put lures / bait on them. More tax revenue there. * We may draw more people from neighboring states / countries if they can run three rods...just my thoughts...*
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


You know, I never really thought about this. I'll figure out a way to add "tourism" into the benefits


----------



## BottomBouncer

Introducing a new tax is never a good idea. Why? Because it will never go away and it will never cost less. Whether it be a fishing license, dog license, marriage license, etc etc they're all taxes...on top of the things that are actually labelled taxes.

I was for this idea, of having a fee, but more as a way to entice the rule makers. However, after reconsidering all the fees, licenses and taxes we already are required to pay....I'm done. Like others have said, adding another rod or unlimited rods would not cost another dime to enforce. As if there is heavy enforcement at all. Like I've said in another thread, I haven't been checked for a license anywhere since I was 14. 20 years and countless hours spent fishing and never checked again.

Now, if I started seeing all the bank side parasites that are having a negative impact on our fisheries being checked and punished appropriately, then I might be willing to pitch in another couple dollars. But until I start seeing my money at work, then they shouldn't get another dime.

Bottom line, I'm tired of having to pay for my privileges meanwhile all the low-lifes take advantage of our tax dollars without any consequences.


----------



## All Thumbs

i could not support this - any increase is wrong. i could support just changing the number of poles without an increase.

all thumbs


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Will rewrite tomorrow.


----------



## willcfish

Iowa just went to a 3 pole limit and it raises funds for the DNR programs. 
They charge an additional $12 I believe it is for the extra pole. 
Works for me and there are a lot of very happy fishermen.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Honestly, this no longer flows as well as it did before. 

Increasing the Ohio Fishing Regulations Rod Limit from Two to Three

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) should listen to the people and change our regulations regarding the number of active fishing poles we can use from two to three. Many Ohio fishermen have sat and pondered the rules and regulations and as to why regulations are in place. Regulations are in place to protect the limited and fragile ecosystem in Ohio, ultimately preserving the ecosystem for our children, their children and many generations to come. If these resources are destroyed, it would affect our daily lives. Losing these environmental resources would have a great effect on our food supply, water supply and many other daily needs. For law abiding citizens a raise in Ohio angler&#8217;s rod limits would not have a drastic effect on the ecosystem. In fact, this change could help our economy.

Using additional rods within Ohio&#8217;s waterways would not have an effect on our daily bag limits. Using an additional rod per person would simply allow for an additional line to reach our daily bag limits. In our surrounding states, anglers are allowed to use more than two poles per person; Michigan ($26 resident license) maximum is three, West Virginia ($19 resident license) imposes a rod limit of two only if fishing in an impoundment stocked by trout, Indiana ($17 resident) and Pennsylvania ($22.70 resident license) impose a three rod limit and Kentucky ($20 resident license) allows for use of unlimited rods. Currently the state of Ohio allows two active rods per person and up to fifty bank lines in total, or up to six in waters under 700 surface acres. This means that in smaller bodies of water, you can already fish with up to eight lines, however six of them have to be tied to a tree or other naturally occurring object above the water and not a rod and reel. 

With over 600,000 fishing licenses sold on the state of Ohio for the 2013-2014 fishing season, how could an additional rod help Ohio&#8217;s economy? Not all of these fishing licenses are in-state license purchases. Some of these fishing licenses are out-of-state licenses by visitors to our state. People who are looking to go out-of-state to go fishing, might consider our current regulations when visiting. Raising the rod limit could attract more people to Ohio, bringing in more revenue as fishing license sales and overall money spent inside of Ohio. 

The in-state and out-of-state fishing licenses prices should not change. If Ohio imposes an &#8220;optional&#8221; fee, the amount of work and money involved into new a fishing license and the previously used &#8220;stamp&#8221; style Michigan has recently done away with would be astronomical in comparison to a slight changes in the regulations. For those who do not wish to use a third rod, it would be, of course, completely optional. This change does not mean that every angler will use three rods all of the time, if ever. This change simply allows anglers to use three rods if the situation calls for it.

There will always be people who do not abide by rules. The people who do not abide by rules are not just fishermen, these people lie everywhere. Regardless of the rules in place for assisting and protecting our ecosystem, people all over the world still litter. People will always take more fish than allowed, fish with more rods and improperly dispose of their trash. A lot of fishermen will not actively fish three rods on every trip. While fishing for some species there is barely time to fish with two rods (bluegill, sunfish and actively casting lures for bass). On the other hand, other species take time to find the bait because they&#8217;re actively searching for foods (catfish and carp) or you&#8217;re moving baits around trying to locate the fish and entice them to bite (walleye, saugeye, perch, crappie, pike and muskie).

In conclusion, allowing Ohio anglers to use an additional rod can ultimately be beneficial to the state&#8217;s waterways. With the ability to fish as little as eight lines and as many fifty-two lines at once already, Ohio anglers would see a more humane way to catch fish being used more often as means to use additional lines.


----------



## Lundy

I wish you all well with your endeavor but you may have some, like me, questioning the logic used to support to change, the need and overall impact, before signing on. 

For law abiding citizens a raise in Ohio angler&#8217;s rod limits would not have a *drastic effect *(so it would change the ecosystem?)on the ecosystem. In fact, this change could help our economy.

Using additional rods within Ohio&#8217;s waterways would *not have an effect on our daily bag limits*]( total catch would change). Using an additional rod per person would simply allow for an additional line *to reach our daily bag limits*].(bag limits are not meant, or expected, to be reached every trip. If they were, bag limits would have to be substantially reduced)


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Thank you for the changes you have suggested Lundy. I was writing that on the basis of the fees, so it really changed the thought process behind the writing when I had to change it. They really didn't meld well.

I will pull this up tomorrow when I get into work and try to smash my face into changing it a bit. I'll figure out how to reduce the idea of opposing effects in my writing.

E: I've been busy, took a few days off of work and then today I hurt my damn back. Will work on this on one of my slow days at work this coming week.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Sorry this took so long everyone.




Lundy said:


> I wish you all well with your endeavor but you may have some, like me, questioning the logic used to support to change, the need and overall impact, before signing on.
> *1.*
> For law abiding citizens a raise in Ohio angler&#8217;s rod limits would not have a *drastic effect *(so it would change the ecosystem?)on the ecosystem. In fact, this change could help our economy.
> 
> *2*
> Using additional rods within Ohio&#8217;s waterways would *not have an effect on our daily bag limits*]( total catch would change). Using an additional rod per person would simply allow for an additional line *to reach our daily bag limits*].(bag limits are not meant, or expected, to be reached every trip. If they were, bag limits would have to be substantially reduced)


I have made changes based upon your recommendations. 

1.
I made an argument at the end of paragraph two as the currently allowed fifty bank lines have potential to cause an even greater effect.

2. 
I removed the sentence stating allowance to reach daily bag limits.


*******************************************************

*Increasing the Ohio Fishing Regulations Rod Limit from Two to Three​*
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) should listen to the people and change our regulations regarding the number of active fishing poles we can use from two to three. Many Ohio fishermen have sat and pondered the rules and regulations and as to why regulations are in place. Regulations are in place to protect the limited and fragile ecosystem in Ohio, ultimately preserving the ecosystem for our children, their children and many generations to come. If these resources are destroyed, it would affect our daily lives. Losing these environmental resources would have a great effect on our food supply, water supply and many other daily needs. For law abiding citizens a raise in Ohio angler&#8217;s rod limits would not have a drastic effect on the ecosystem. In fact, this change could help our ecosystem thrive.

Using additional rods within Ohio&#8217;s waterways would not have an effect on our daily bag limits. In our surrounding states, anglers are allowed to use more than two poles per person; Michigan ($26 resident license) maximum is three, West Virginia ($19 resident license) imposes a rod limit of two only if fishing in an impoundment stocked by trout, Indiana ($17 resident) and Pennsylvania ($22.70 resident license) impose a three rod limit and Kentucky ($20 resident license) allows for use of unlimited rods. Currently the state of Ohio allows two active rods per person and up to *fifty* bank lines in total, or up to *six* in waters under 700 surface acres. This means that in smaller bodies of water, you can already fish with up to eight lines, however six of them have to be tied to a tree or other naturally occurring object above the water and not a rod and reel. The ability to use fifty bank lines, trotlines (up to three per body of water with up to fifty hooks each) has the potential to cause a much more drastic effect on our ecosystem than three rods would. These lines cause a lot of damage to the fish if not checked frequently, and if the fish dies on the hook, the person using the line would more often than not unhook the fish and put it back into the water.

With over 600,000 fishing licenses sold on the state of Ohio for the 2013-2014 fishing season, how could an additional rod help Ohio&#8217;s ecosystem? Not all of the fishing licenses purchased are in-state fishing license purchases. Some of these fishing licenses are out-of-state licenses by visitors to our state. People who are looking to go out-of-state to enjoy an outdoor vacation may consider our current regulations when visiting our state. Raising the rod limit could attract more out of state visitors to Ohio, bringing in more tourist based revenue.

The in-state and out-of-state fishing license prices should not change. If Ohio imposes an additional fee, much more time and money would have to go into changing a rod limit rate. This could take years to not only see additional revenue, but recover from the financial loss that would entail all of the changes which would have to occur for licenses and training. Imposing a stamp system which would increase fees, which Michigan has recently done away with, would have astronomical changes as opposed to slight changes in the regulations. Not everyone would utilize a third rod all of the time, if ever. This change simply allows anglers to use a third rod if desired by the situation. 

There will always be people who do not abide by rules. The people who do not abide by rules are not just fishermen, these people lie everywhere. Regardless of the rules in place for assisting and protecting our ecosystem, people all over the world still litter. People will always take more fish than allowed, fish with more rods and improperly dispose of their trash. A lot of fishermen will not actively fish three rods on every trip. While fishing for some species there is barely time to fish with two rods (bluegill, sunfish and actively casting lures for bass). On the other hand, other species take time to find the bait because they&#8217;re actively searching for foods (catfish and carp) or you&#8217;re moving baits around trying to locate the fish and entice them to bite (walleye, saugeye, perch, crappie, pike and muskie).

In conclusion, allowing Ohio anglers to use an additional rod can ultimately be beneficial to our state. With the current ability to fish as little as eight lines or as many as fifty-two lines at once already, Ohio anglers may see a more humane method to catching fish using three rods as opposed to setting bank lines.

The closing statements suck. I'll work on it.


----------



## Crazyheaven

Dana.Birrell said:


> This needs to be addressed, I'm sorry but I am an IT major that works in the industry, I must correct you as this information is wrong and misleading.
> 
> Trout Stamp: Unnecessary, and is really not part of the subject.
> 
> Third Rod Fee: Simple addition of a boxed area on the license that would have two variables; A star inside for those who DO have it, an X or other shape (two shapes that are not modifiable to look like one another, ie one that takes up the center one that doens't) that shows that someone does have it. A legend printed right underneath. Counterfeitable? Yes. Is it worth going beyond this? Probably not, no.
> 
> Switching Computer Systems: This is extremely unnecessary and over exaggerated by whatever your source of reference for this. The state would have required software to design the license template in the first place. In order to make simple additions to a template, the same software, which the state already has a license for (or even any PDF editor) is all that is required to make these chages.


I've been around IT for most of my life so I can completely understand what your talking about here. However, we have to really consider what should happen and match it up with what usually happens. If it is state funded additions things can go wrong in a hurry. Never assume they will do things the easy clear cut way because that would make too much sense. I really don't want to get political at all so I've said enough on that topic.

In short, the increased fees for using extra poles makes this whole idea messy so it would be better if we skipped it. As others have pointed out allowing 3 setups will mean more sales in bait and tackle. Couldn't imagine just how many more sales raising the limit to 5 would do for us. Thinking of the guy happily watching over 5 poles at the same time while talking on his phone. Suddenly a school of fish comes along and he loses 2 or 3 poles. Just wait, next week he'll have more. 

All joking aside I do believe that increasing the amount of poles would bring the state more revenue and that adding an extra fee would probably only make things extra complicated. 

I would like to give Dana and catfishhunterjames some serious credit for all the effort they put into this. I'm only a one or 2 pole max fisherman but I don't see any reason at all to stop others from using more. I hope we can get this law changed so we can all have a little more fun on our fishing trips.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

Crazyheaven said:


> I've been around IT for most of my life so I can completely understand what your talking about here. However, we have to really consider what should happen and match it up with what usually happens. If it is state funded additions things can go wrong in a hurry. Never assume they will do things the easy clear cut way because that would make too much sense. I really don't want to get political at all so I've said enough on that topic.
> 
> In short, the increased fees for using extra poles makes this whole idea messy so it would be better if we skipped it. As others have pointed out allowing 3 setups will mean more sales in bait and tackle. Couldn't imagine just how many more sales raising the limit to 5 would do for us. Thinking of the guy happily watching over 5 poles at the same time while talking on his phone. Suddenly a school of fish comes along and he loses 2 or 3 poles. Just wait, next week he'll have more.
> 
> All joking aside I do believe that increasing the amount of poles would bring the state more revenue and that adding an extra fee would probably only make things extra complicated.
> 
> I would like to give Dana and catfishhunterjames some serious credit for all the effort they put into this. I'm only a one or 2 pole max fisherman but I don't see any reason at all to stop others from using more. I hope we can get this law changed so we can all have a little more fun on our fishing trips.


Thank you very much for the input. Refer to the last draft post above your post. I have completely excluded adding additional fees.


----------



## EStrong

.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

EStrong said:


> So where at we at with this?
> 
> I think Ohio needs to step up and match pole limits to the surrounding states. Just because you can use 3, 4 or more poles in the water doesn't mean most people will. Someone else mentioned it would be nice to be able to have 2 in the water for cats, carp, etc., and then cast a 3rd around for bass and/or other game-fish with lures. I'll also agree that implementing an extra fee for the extra pole(s) isn't a good idea. They'll end up raising license fees sooner or later anyway and they could really jack up the cost of the extra pole past way what it's worth.
> 
> 
> Most Ohio Govt. Organizations and Ohio lawmakers are pretty bassackward to change. Look how long it took to get CCW and a Castle Doctrine passed. If it makes common sense in Ohio it sure confuses and scares most Ohio Lawmakers and Govt. Agency officials to the point of taking no action at all.
> 
> Forget 3 poles, let's go for 4!
> 
> E...


I have everything done, I just need to post the petition to change.org and get some good photos for the facebook support page.


----------



## EStrong

.


----------



## Recneck

Does the two rod limit mean only twp in possession or just two in the water? Could i have a third pole with me if it aint in the water?


----------



## catfish1605

Yes, you can only have two rods in the water with no more than three hooks on each. You can have a dozen or more rods with you, as long as you only have two in the water you're fine.


----------



## Dana.Birrell

https://www.change.org/p/ohio-depar...rod-limit-to-three-in-the-state-of-ohio#share


Post it to your Facebook Gentlemen.

If we could also get some pictures on and supporters of; https://www.facebook.com/ThreePlusRodsOhio

I would appreciate it.


----------

