Keep in mind that seniors don't pay for their license, therefore would it be implied that the +65's automatically have the #2 rod rights?

Thats my fear Capt Hoop.
Right now we can fish with two rods, what happens if our State
starts looking at other states that you have to pay for rod #2 and also rod #3??

There should be no limit on the amount of rods used as there is a limit on the amount of fish taken. So what's the difference if you use one or maybe four rods? You can keep only so many fish anyway. You can put six tip ups thru the ice so why not 6 poles in the water? Just my opinion.

Great point Hank!

Hmmmm sounds good Tony I'll love to troll more than two rods in my trout spread.

Tony Im with Mike and pistol I would gladly pay an extra 5 dollars for an extra rod while trolling! Between my out of state yearlys and everything else another (OPTIONAL) $5 for something I want is worth it.

A summary of STATE Regs governing “Number of Fishing Rod”, follows. I would appreciate any corrections and/or additions to the summary (Note RI, ME and VA info is missing).

Summary
Legal Rod Limits............................................... States
1 rod ............... MN,
2-rods ..... CT, GA (some qualifications), IL- (3-pole trolling), IA, KS-$6.50 3rd pole permit, MA, NE, NH, NY, ND, OH, PA, VT

3-rods.... IN, NJ (from shore/silent on boat fishing), WI (3-lines/lures)

No limit specified.... AL, AR, DE, FL, KY, LA, MD, MS, MI, MO-label rods if more than 3-must be attended, MT, NC, OK, SD, TN, TX, WA-( You may not Fish with a rod not under your immediate control or leave your gear unattended), WV, WY

Two Pole Stamp....AZ- $6, CA- $13(?), CO-$5, ID-$13.75, NV $10, NM-$4, OR-$17, UT $5(?)

Anyone know the regs?..... RI (?), ME (?), VA

North Carolina... Not more than 2 of these devices may be used by any fisherman at the same time, except when fishing in a boat. An unlimited number of lawful fishing devices may be used if every boat occupant (who would normally be required to have a fishing license) possesses a valid fishing license.


The next step in this project is to build arguments/ points which will support the use of more than two-rods in CT. To make the argument, I would like to understand the rational underlying CT’s 2-rod limitation. While I could hypothesize any number of reason for the 2-rod limitation, such as, conservation, enforcement ease, safety, shoreline crowding, “other states do it”, etc, the actual underlying rational would be more productive.

Does any know of the rational for a 2-rod limitation that would have a bearing on a proposed reg for more than 2-rods?

I’ll try to attach my notes to this thread, because the various state regs have helpful tidbits of information and phraseology which can be used in a CT proposed regs. For an example a proposed reg could be:

Up to 4-rods maybe used by any fisherman, providing each rod is labeled with the fisherman’s name and address and is under the fisherman’s immediate control. No shoreline fisherman can occupy more than 5-feet of shoreline per rod. When fishing from a boat, an unlimited number of lawful fishing devices may be used if every boat occupant (who would normally be required to have a fishing license) possesses a valid fishing license.

If conservation were an issues were an obstacle a compromise for catch and release may be introduced, such us, 2-rod limit unless a fisherman practices catch and release then 4-rods per fisherman may be used.

At this point discussion and speculation as to a proposed reg is way ahead of where the thought process should be.

FYI

I am working with Bob Crook, CCS on this proposal.
He is advancing the following to the CAC. See email below:


Hi Bob,

Thanks for introducing a “multi-rod” use proposal to the CAC. As you know, CT Regs restricts a fisherman to 2-rods. While this restriction is not an issue for many fly, bass and casting fisherman, it is restrictive to some carp, bank and trolling fisherman.

I have researched the Regs for most of the states on this subject. The following is a brief synopsis of the research and a North Carolina Reg from which I crafted a rough draft proposal follows

1. AL, AR, DE, FL, KY, LA, MD, MS, MI, MO-label rods if more than 3-must be attended, MT, NC, OK, SD, TN, TX, WA-( You may not Fish with a rod not under your immediate control or leave your gear unattended), WV, WY

2. North Carolina: Not more than 2 of rods may be used by any fisherman at the same time, except when fishing in a boat. An unlimited number of lawful fishing devices may be used if every boat occupant (who would normally be required to have a fishing
License) possesses a valid fishing license.


3. Rough Draft CT Proposal: Up to 4-rods maybe used by licensed fisherman, providing each rod is labeled with the fisherman’s name and address and is under the fisherman’s immediate control. (similar to ice fishing). No shoreline fisherman can occupy more than 5-feet of shoreline per rod. When fishing from a boat, an unlimited number of lawful fishing devices may be used if every boat occupant (who would normally be required to have a fishing
License) possesses a valid fishing license.

Bob, to be clear our sportsmen’s interest is not to catch more fish for the table. The interest in a multi-rod Reg is to allow “catch and release” sportsmen to more fully enjoy the “search and hunt” aspect of fishing. If conservation concerns were an obstacle,a compromise for catch and release could be introduced, such us, 2-rod limit unless a fisherman practices catch and release (then 4-rods per fisherman may be used).

Thanks again,

On April 12th Pennsylvania's Fish Commission approved a 3 fishing rod proposal effectitive Januuary 1st 2012. Here is a copy of the proposal.

http://fishandboat.com/rulemakings/224nprp.pdf

Sent the following to Bob Crook:

Hi Bob,

One of our CT Fisherman site members reports that PA is in process of liberalizing the "2-rod fishing".

Of interest to, note the PA addresses administrative cost and "fish-catch " issues. While PA's change speaks to the use of 3-rods, our proposal is seeking up to 4-rods, primarily to accommodate the art and enjoyment of fisherman who troll and/or fish for carp. To be clear, our goal is not to catch more fish for the table it is to enhance the "search and hunt" aspects of our respective sports and to that end we would be willing to accept restrictions on 'catch and release" rules when more than 2-rods are in use, plus, any other rules that would ease an administrative burden on the DEP.

If you require me or anyone from our group to speak to a regulating committee we are egar to participate.


Please, see web address below for the proposal.

http://fishandboat.com/rulemakings/224nprp.pdf

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION
Title 58. Recreation
Part II. Fish and Boat Commission
Chapter 63
Fishing

--
Thank you,

Tony Melito
72 Timberwood Rd.
West Hartford, CT 06117

Tony, thanks for taking the initiative on this topic. It amazes me all the constructive input..........
We are not all saltwater fisherman, and some of us like the option of having a third rod either for casting or increasing our chances at a trophy C+R fish. The idea is still for the "rod stamp" to be an

OPTION

Unless i'm not spelling that correctly............

count me in Tony

Seems like a reasonable concern. What are the names and/or type of ponds/lakes that you are fishing that are cause for concern. Acreage? Bank? Small access points?

LOL

You are missing the point that when 1 person is in a boat he can only use 2 rods - I want to use 3 or 4 when I am fishing alone.

And to tell you the truth - since it's optional I don't care if they want to charge me dbl my current license to run dbl the poles.

When trolling in a boat a 4 pole spread increases the effectiveness of the troll enough where I would pay it. Considering the amount of money I already have invested in the sport.

I don't understand the negative reasonings...

1. if need by restrict to trolling
2. price - who cares, the ones who want to pay will the others won't