Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bucketmouth64

double rigging

16 posts in this topic

I saw an episode on in-fisherman about double rigging for panfish using curly tails. Is this legal in MN? Tried to look it up in the regs., but the only thing I read that was close to it, that is legal, was using three artificial flies fishing for trout, panfish, rock bass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is tipping a crawler harness (2 or 3 hooks) with 2 or 3 leeches or minnows (rather than 1 crawler), legal??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the crawler harness itself is considered 1 lure, so it's legal to use whether you tip it with 1 nightcrawler or dozens of minnows or pounds of leeches ..... or any combination thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not legal. In Wisconsin if you do that it counts as 2 of your 3 lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the crawler harness is used for one crawler, then it is one lure. You can put two baits on one hook, like adding a nightcrawler to a plastic, and you can put two hooks into one bait as in the crawler harness. When each hook gets its own bait, each is counted separately, regardless of whether there is a spinner ahead of the whole thing or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the crawler harness is used for one crawler, then it is one lure. You can put two baits on one hook, like adding a nightcrawler to a plastic, and you can put two hooks into one bait as in the crawler harness. When each hook gets its own bait, each is counted separately, regardless of whether there is a spinner ahead of the whole thing or not.

That is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is the "three artificial flies for trout, panfish and rock bass". I tried to get an explanation from the MN DNR but was told they all had to be tied together at the hook eye, somehow, and that didn't make any sense.

Related to that is the question of whether a dressed panfish jig qualifies as a "fly" in that context. A weighted nymph is a fly but then isn't a Flu Flu by pretty much the same standards?

I have been playing it safe and staying with a single panfish jig on a single rod, preferring to have someone else explain it to me rather than my having to try explain anything to a judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Perch and Crappies jigs that have one hook comeing out of each side for a total of two hooks that are ment to each have a minow on them (so the minows fight against each other for better action) are actually illegal then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to see what type of jig that is? A jigging rap is 1 lure. Even though it has a hook on each end. As for the flies, they need to look like some type of actual insect. What I was told a few years back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
I saw an episode on in-fisherman about double rigging for panfish using curly tails. Is this legal in MN? Tried to look it up in the regs., but the only thing I read that was close to it, that is legal, was using three artificial flies fishing for trout, panfish, rock bass.

Tie three streamer on your line drop shot style.

Tie two pieces of line onto the end of your line using A surgeons knot leaving the tag end of the main line 8” long. Do the same with the other pieces of line. Tie the fly or streamers to the 8" long tag ends.

It is much easier to do with a fly rod.

One of the technique is to tie a spider or some other floating fly onto your line then tie a line to the hook and add a nymph to the “dropper” line. This is a standard Trout fishing search setup. How many time have you had a fish hit your float (strike indicator)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a visual on the flyfishing double rig:

DropperFly2.jpg

I use it fly fishing without a strike indicator. The first fly usually acts a "bobber" and the trout are caught on the dropper fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Aczr2k, So zinc plated screws can be used with aluminum?
    • I guess the one positive regarding this Carrier deal is at least, of what I've seen from watching some of them, the press starting to question government involvement in  private enterprise and cronyism.   It only took them eight years but better late than never, I guess.
    • They're made by NGP, an industrial producer in Ningbo, China. Good luck getting service or parts on that, is all I'll say. I know all the other augers engines, etc, are made in China, but they also have been around for years with an established company, which is a huge difference. I'd be real cautious...
    • I use 100 pound power pro braid never had any issues with it.
    • I've been looking into them.   I believe 33 is a typo.
    • Old fashioned black Dacron musky line. Durable tough  Have thought of trying  50 or 100lb flouro but knots are hard to do in it then you have to use crimps etc more point to fail. Interested to see what others do.   Mwal
    • I kinda wish Parise would have opted for the surgery this offseason and miss the first month or so, rather than to rehab it.  Its starting to show.
    • Here is good overview article that might be interesting...   https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/diseases/cwd/science-behind-cwd-management/   The Science Behind CWD Management Why Manage CWD? Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has the potential to negatively impact deer herds wherever the disease occurs. CWD is always fatal and while there have only been 13 cases detected in Virginia, as of February 2016, CWD could have serious negative impacts on the state’s deer population if it became established and widely prevalent (Almberg et al. 2011). CWD infection decreases deer survival odds and lowers total life expectancy (Miller et al. 2008). If a large percentage of the population were to become infected there could be negative impacts for the population, including: A decline in doe survival, which results in an overall reduced population (Gross and Miller 2001); Fewer older bucks, as male animals are more likely to be infected due to specific male social and behavioral tendencies (Miller et al. 2008, Jennelle et al. 2014); and An overall decline in population (Gross and Miller 2001, Almberg et al. 2011), as exhibited in Colorado. In the area of Colorado with highest CWD prevalence, mule deer numbers have plummeted by 45%, in spite of good habitat and protection from human hunting (Miller et al. 2008). DGIF is concerned about the impact CWD could have on Virginia’s deer herd; once CWD has become well established in an area, its persistence in the environment makes eradication extremely difficult, if not impossible. Taking action to keep the percentage of infected animals low helps to prevent (or at least slow) the spread of CWD to new areas, and also helps to slow the transmission of the disease between individuals. Understanding the Spread of CWD CWD prions, which are the infectious proteins that cause the disease, are found in saliva, urine, feces, and blood (Mathiason et al. 2006, Mathiason et al. 2009). They can persist for years outside the body, in soil and in other substances, and can be transmitted by animals that are not yet showing symptoms of the disease (Miller et al. 2004, Mathiason et al. 2009). Halting or slowing the spread of CWD is therefore a matter of reducing transmission between deer and making deer less likely to pick up prions from the environment (Mathiason et al. 2009, Grear et al. 2010, Storm et al. 2013). Differences in behavior make tracking the spread of CWD different between does and bucks and between younger and older adults. Bucks are more likely to become infected, for reasons that are not well understood (Grear et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2008, Jennelle et al. 2014). Higher CWD prevalence is found in older age classes of bucks (Grear et al 2006). Adult bucks make long excursions outside their home range, bringing them into contact with a wider area and more individual deer (Karns 2011). Young bucks are more likely to disperse from their mother’s home range and can cover many kilometers, thereby potentially spreading the disease across the landscape (McCoy et al. 2005). Young bucks infected with CWD may not be indicative of established CWD presence at the location they were killed because the buck may have been traveling. Does are relatively sedentary, usually spending their lives near their place of birth and with a related social group. Does only rarely make excursions (Kolodzinski et al. 2009, Miller et al. 2010, Grear et al. 2010). Locations where infected does are found are likely to be a source of further infected deer (Grear et al. 2010, Magel et al. 2013). An infected doe suggests that CWD is established in the population where that doe was killed (Grear et al. 2010, Magel et al. 2013). Of Virginia’s thirteen infected deer (as of February 2016), just four were does. Of the nine infected bucks, seven were harvested within just a few miles of the does, suggesting a small cluster of infection. The last two bucks were killed several miles from the cluster. The fact that these two outliers were young bucks makes it likely, though not certain, that these individuals were on the move, dispersing from their birth places. Managing CWD Due to the nature of the prions which cause CWD (please see the What Are Prions page for more information), treatment of diseased animals is not an option. Research suggests that there is some hope of managing CWD, and that the best methods available are: Decreasing transmission opportunity by:Lowering the density of the deer population A lower density population surrounding a location of known infection reduces the chances of deer picking up CWD prions from the environment, or from each other. Research indicates that indirect transmission is just as important as animal-to-animal transmission (Storm et al. 2013). Population reduction could reduce contacts between infected and susceptible individuals and consequently reduce the disease transmission rate. Analysis of spatial data indicates that CWD is clustered on the landscape, from which one could infer that deer near CWD-positive deer are more likely to be infected (Joly et al. 2003.) Earn-a-Buck, currently in effect in Frederick, Warren, and Clarke Counties (the cluster of infected deer is located in Frederick County), is designed to reduce the overall deer population by focusing more hunting pressure on the female segment of the population. Banning feeding or baiting of deer in areas with CWD CWD prions can be found in saliva (Mathiason et al. 2009), and feed or bait piles are excellent modalities to transfer saliva between deer. Feed and bite piles also artificially congregate deer, thereby facilitating transmission through urine and feces. Prevent the introduction of CWD prions into new areas: VDGIF prohibits the movement of deer carcasses out of the CWD Containment Area until after they have been processed according to guidelines described in Transporting Carcasses Within and Out of the Containment Area. VDGIF prohibits the transport of carcasses from states/provinces listed as CWD Carcass Restriction Zones into Virginia unless they have already been processed according to these guidelines. VDGIF prohibits the possession and use of attractants made from real deer urine or other natural body fluids from deer while afield. CWD prions may be found in the urine of infected deer even if the deer is not showing symptoms (John et al. 2013). There is no live animal test for CWD that is approved by the USDA, therefore deer farms producing and bottling urine cannot guarantee that they are collecting urine from healthy animals. There is no economically viable way to test urine for CWD after collection. Doing nothing to manage CWD is not a satisfactory option, as shown by a number of studies that have examined hunters’ attitudes toward current and potential strategies for managing CWD (Vaske 2010). Among hunters in most states and studies, (a) testing harvested animals for CWD and using hunters to reduce herds in CWD areas were acceptable strategies, (b) agencies taking no action and allowing CWD to take its natural course were considered unacceptable, and (c) using agency staff to reduce herds in CWD areas was controversial. Hunters also generally supported efforts to minimize spread of CWD and eliminate the disease from animal herds (Vaske 2010). A VDGIF survey conducted following the discovery of CWD in Frederick County in 2009 concluded that respondents supported five of seven potential strategies to control CWD in affected areas, including mandatory disease testing of hunter-killed deer, deer feeding prohibitions, deer carcass movement restrictions, restrictions on deer rehabilitation, and reduction of deer populations using hunters (VDGIF 2010, unpublished data). Respondents did not support the use of sharpshooting to reduce localized deer populations (42% opposed, 36% supported, 22% were neutral), but the strongest opposition was recorded for the option that described a complete lack of effort or attempt to manage CWD (79 % opposed, 8% supported).   (the references are at the link and appear to all be from various scientific type journals)
    • The recount effort underway in Wisconsin is turning out to have some disappointing results for former Green Party nominee Jill Stein and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. By the end of the fifth day, and after more than 1 million votes were recounted, Trump grew his lead by just over two dozen votes.     Meanwhile in Pennsylvania, Clinton has only gained five votes after the state’s two largest counties completed their recount.     
    • It turns out that there haven't been many studies of long term impact of cwd, that I could find.    Here is a write up about one of them, from Wyoming.    http://www.wyofile.com/study-chronic-wasting-disease-kills-19-deer-annually/ and this one... http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161127 Chronic Wasting Disease Drives Population Decline of White-Tailed Deer David R. Edmunds , Matthew J. Kauffman, Brant A. Schumaker, Frederick G. Lindzey, Walter E. Cook, Terry J. Kreeger, Ronald G. Grogan, Todd E. Cornish      
  • Our Sponsors