Jaw Jackers and Automatic Fisherman in Minnesota!?!?

[B420]

Signed, thanks for posting this MNBassFisher

[Chad Holst]

Aanderud, Geesh, im not against the use of them! I could say it 12 more ways and re-write it for you in German, but it wont make it any clearer. you can say im ranting against them, but it wont change what i actually said.

I said that im not for going against the "goal" of the law. I also said i didnt know what that goal was, so i can not say i am for or against any SPECIFIC tool law change if it INLDUDED all the other junk that gets thrown into these laws..like auto REELERS. I did say that these types of things tend to get grouped together, infact im pretty sure that THIS topic came up because of another thread that recently died, which "yo-yo's" and other similar products including the JAwJacker were being talked about. (which is why i even mentioned the Yo-YO)

I also understand that there are many products that are "better" for the fish than others. But when i hear someone say "lets change the law so we can use XXX, and its ALL because its better for the fish", i raise my eyebrow a bit. Doesnt mean its not true, but im a bit skeptical at the same time. I think the fact that its better for the fish is a bonus. A very good bonus. But only a bonus for the real reason many people are becoming vocal about these types of tools.

I do my fair share of Kitty hunting too, and i can tell you the reason people started using circle hooks was NOT because it prevented deep hooking, it was because the hook up % is ALOT better with circle hooks. Its just a very nice bonus that it also prevents deep hooking fish. I would guess some guys only use them now, because of the mouth hook vs deep hook reason, but it doesnt change that it wasnt that fact that made them popular.

Anyway, im not trying to argue with you on this. Im just saying that when you start talking about Auto-hook setters, then you end up with auto-reelers and all types of other things thrown into the mix. (not saying they should be, but they are)...But it happens, just check the other threads on this topic. One guy, like here, has a legitimate question and then sooner or later someone is asking "why they shouldnt be able to use a spring loaded rattle auto reelers in their ice house."

I cant give you an argument about a tip up vs an auto setter, since its pretty clear they are the same thing except that the auto setter ALSO sets the hook. I didnt ever say that tip-ups are better so you wont hear that argument from me.

I hear alot of people saying that MN has alot of un-needed rules, but i have to say i really dont see that. We are pretty strict, but we are also sitting on a habitat that needs to be protected. Dont get me wrong, im NOT a big "law" guy, but the rules we have in place are to protect the resource, and thats not really a bad thing. As far as laws that are not needed that effect me on the ice, or in the woods? i dont know that i dont do exactly as i would if there were or were not laws. How i want to use the resource and how im "allowed" to are always the same, so it doesnt effect me.

EXCEPT that i think we should be able to use high explosive to fish for carp in our neighbors backyard carp ponds once a year. that law needs to be changed.

[pikerliker]

I wasn't trying to bite his head off. I just thought it was interesting a Colorado guy was doing the petition. In most cases there is an underlying motive. You don't know till you ask.

+1

[Capt. Russ]

Maybe the DNR will outlaw spring bobbers next, after all they are "springs".These guys are the most law making crazies I've ever encountered and I've fished all over the U.S. and Canada.

[castmaster]

Sirlips,

I will take your test!

The Automatic Fisherman is a device that acts like a tip up, but with a rod and reel. The rod is bent over, or "loaded" and the line is placed in a triggering mechanism, again similar to a tip up. When a fish strikes the line is released and the energy stored in the rod causes it to "pop up" and set the hook, similar to a flag "popping up" on a tip up. When you see that the rod is no longer doubled over, you know a fish has struck.

GEE, not one mention of the word SPRING!!! Could it be because these devices DO NOT use a spring??? If you think otherwise PLEASE show me a spring loaded mechanism on them.

That said I did not choose to sign the petition at this time. I do have concerns about the way these devices may be used in the open water season if they are made legal year round. If it was a hard water only change to the regs I would be in full support of it.

[jerkbait]

Castmaster, you also decribed the way a downrigger works. So they are already used in the open water.

[fishnowworknever]

I'm not sure they could stop you from setting up your own device like this...the DNR might not like it but it would never stand up in court.

[mainbutter]

GEE, not one mention of the word SPRING!!! Could it be because these devices DO NOT use a spring???

The part of your argument that would be tough to get past a court is the engineering definition of a spring, which is as simple as "an elastic object used to store mechanical energy."

Technically, bows are springs. Fishing rods are springs. Many other items that don't have the word "spring" in them are actually mechanical springs. They may not be coil springs which is probably what most people are imagining when they interpret a silly fish and game regulation, but coil springs are only one kind of spring. There are many kinds of springs, and a loaded fishing rod very much fits the definition of a "spring", in the mechanical engineering sense.

I would be happy with a law change. However, these "loopholes" are not loopholes that would stand up to the scrutiny of logic or the law.

[rockman]

I'm not sure they could stop you from setting up your own device like this...the DNR might not like it but it would never stand up in court.

So, are you advocating it's ok to break the law then, in doing what you're suggesting? Really? The problem with one of these products is simply in the name itself. 'Automatic' Fisherman will get resistance from that DNR by that alone. Some in govt, may look at these products like they are some kind of hardwater trotline. I'm on the fence with these devices, as far being for, or against them. I would need to see one in action first to decide.

[castmaster]

Jerkbait,

A downrigger needs to be set up on a boat and used for trolling. Pretty tough to set a down rigger up on a tree overhanging the water and "setting" a pole. With an Automatic Fisherman it would be very easy to use as set lines in the summer, especially for a larger group out camping etc.

Heck I know folks in some states use to round Frabill thermal tip-ups in place of jugs for "jug fishing" in the open water season.

So I guess unless someone can give me a good argument as to why and how they would be used in the open water season other than as a way to skirt the set line laws I am only in favor of them for the ice season.

MainButter,

If the court wanted to go with such a strict definition of the word "spring", then EVERY SINGLE FISHERPERSON in the state is breaking the law by using a fishing pole. Right?

The "scrutiny of logic or the law" would certainly be able to interpret the legislative intent, as they do many many times every year on various issues, of the no spring loaded device wording in the statute.

[Chad Holst]

Quote:

I simply stated I don't know how they can enforce this law...and referring to earlier posts... against a device that doesn't use a SPRING. If we were to think like mainbutter up above, saying technically a fishing pole is a spring, then we're all breaking the law aren't we? Search the MN Fishing Regulations, it states once again:

"The use of ex plo sives, firearms, chemicals (not in clud ing fish scents), spring

devices, or electricity for taking fish is unlawful."

You skipped right over the part that is at the end of the law...FOR TAKING FISH

Ok fellas, lets slow down for a second.

There is a HUGE, common sense, difference between using a SPING of any kind to take a fish, and using a spring while fishing. If you cant figure out the difference between the spirit of the law and some of the off the cuff arguments, then you need to stop typing and start just reading on the forum. I would say to pull your head firmly out of your....but i'm not the type of guy to say that...usually.

A spring in a tip up sets the FLAG....not the HOOK. HUGE difference.

A spring in a reel, or spring in your wheel house suspension, or the spring on my planner boards, or a spring strike indicator tip on an ice rod are all used for other reasons than to actually "take" the fish.

Go back a few posts and read the smartest post on this thread..its says the issue here is the "automatic" part of the fishing process. For goodness sakes the company even calls it the "automatic" fisherman.

Again, as i said before, im not advocating for or against this right now, but lets stop the silly debate about a rod not being a spring. If you bend it over, and make the stored power SPRING into action and "automatically" set the hook...then its a SPRING. You dont have to agree, you dont have to like it, you can come up with other examples of springs in NON fish taking equipment we can use...but in the end you turned the rod into a spring to automatically hook the fish.

PERIOD.

Cast master, thanks for taking the test. Now go and read that, minus the fishing references to someone and ask what you just described and then will all say .."hey, that’s a spring". Im pretty sure you actually used 3/4th of the dictionaries words for describing a spring, even if you simply used synonyms in place of "spring".

Can we all agree that the law doesnt say you cant use a spring, while fishing, it says you cant use a spring to take fish. IE, automatic type fishing.

Just like the tip-up guys are saying...the spring sets off a FLAG, it doesnt do a single thing to the fishing line or anything that actually hook, reels, takes the fish.

Spring bobbers are BOBBERS that work with a coiled spring. they are, just like a tip up...a strike indicator..they dont take the fish, set the hook, or reel in the fish.

Rods are springs, but they dont set the hook, reel in the fish or TAKE the fish, we simply use the rods ability to "spring" back and forth from breaking the line or pulling out the hook.

The simple question is: WHat does this product do? the answer, it sets the hook for you. THERE YAH GO. now, the question is...is that necessarily a bad thing? in the case of ice fishing for steelies i say no. In the case of open water walleye fishing? i say 100% yes.

P.S. if the law is how you are reading it, then using elctricity is illegal...so no more gas motor boats..with a spark plug, or fish finders, or cell phone cameras...or....Come on! You know and i know exactly what they are saying. If they have to re-write the law so you can understand the differance, then maybe you shouldnt be out of your padded room just yet.

[fishnowworknever]

This could go back and forth forever...I'll agree to disagree.

[castmaster]

Sirlips,

So a rod isnt a spring until its loaded and "automatically" sets the hook correct? Then as others have asked, how are downriggers legal under that interpretation of the law? The rod is loaded and placed in a replease, when a fish strikes the load on the rod is released and it sets the hook based on that release of tension, i.e. a "spring" by the definition your using.

Like I said, I completely understand the argument folks are making correlating down rigger use to devices like the "Automatic Fisherman" (Gee maybe if they had named it the "winter rigger" some guys could get past the name and look at it for what it really is?). I just would prefer to only see them allowed during the hard water season. That may be odd to some, but its the view I have on it.

Beyond that likefishnow said, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[Transporter]

I have used the jaw jacker for over 6 years now, for fishing multiple species in MN and Ontario, (where they looked at the mortality issue and were legalized a couple years back). I spoke directly with the owner about the legality issues and he informed me that he spoke with "one" person only at the DNR regarding the device. Evidently this one person felt his/her take on the device was enough to cast a final decision on allowing or disallowing the device. When the owner made the comparison to a downrigger the person at the DNR replied that those were on the way to being outlawed as well and ended the meeting. The owner felt that the time and effort to convince the MN DNR was not worth the time or effort and chose to keep buiding and selling to the othe states and provinces.

I will continue to use the device, my feeling is that if a CO checked me and examined it closely, chances are I would not get a ticket. If I am wrong, I will go to court and plead not guilty in hopes of convincing the court that it is not any different that a downrigger in theory and operation.

[Chad Holst]

Down riggers? I have no idea what your talking about as I have never used them and can't speak to how try work. I have read on this very thread that some down believe they do set the hook automatically. However it seems you have used them and they in fact do. I simply don't know first hand.

The path of this thread however has brought up a good question, the real question in fact: should we allow auto hook devices if that is truelly what they are meant to do? I believe we should based on the other threads about this, but only for certain types of fishing on certain lakes at certain times. I have heard no other arguments that support open water use or panfish/walleye/catfish...use that has convinced me they should be allowed. I would even support an open ice fishing reg on this if it included a proximity clause so it wasn't unattended fishing. Say 25 or 50 feet. And only if it clearly had no " cling on" equipment namely auto reelers.

[Surface Tension]

Thanks for providing the Link to petition here ----->Petition to Legalize Hook Setting Devices

If you would like to see auto hook setting devices legal in MN the OP has made it easy for you to do something about it. Lets keep the discussion on topic which is hook setting devices on a stationary line. We could do without the name calling and whatever else is going on that always sends topics down the drain.

About downriggers for those that don't understand the concept. Your trolling and hooks are set by the fish at the time of the strike.

Reason for loading up the rod is to take some slack out after the release. Same principle as when fighting any fish, you don't give them slack. I say some of the slack because the slack will increase with depth and setbacks and often there is slack after a rod has popped but the idea is to reduce the slack time. Remember the route of line on a downrigger rod is at a 90 degree angle. After the release another line is drawn back to the rod which is greater then line out and greater then what the rod can take up. In my boat and a lot of other Great Lakes boats the rule is you don't set hooks after any release whether that be off a downrigger or a release off a board line. Again the hook has been set by the fish via trolling speed and strike.

[jerkbait]

Sirlips,

So a rod isnt a spring until its loaded and "automatically" sets the hook correct? Then as others have asked, how are downriggers legal under that interpretation of the law? The rod is loaded and placed in a replease, when a fish strikes the load on the rod is released and it sets the hook based on that release of tension, i.e. a "spring" by the definition your using.

Like I said, I completely understand the argument folks are making correlating down rigger use to devices like the "Automatic Fisherman" (Gee maybe if they had named it the "winter rigger" some guys could get past the name and look at it for what it really is?). I just would prefer to only see them allowed during the hard water season. That may be odd to some, but its the view I have on it.

Beyond that likefishnow said, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Not sure how these could be used to replace a set line. Still should fall under the unattended rule correct. You are correct too about if it was named the winter rigger instead. Basicly people would use them in place of a tip up or along with tip ups.

[fishnowworknever]

[Please Read Forum Policy Before Posting Again, Thank You]

[fsnrod]

Sirlips,

I will take your test!

The Automatic Fisherman is a device that acts like a tip up, but with a rod and reel. The rod is bent over, or "loaded" and the line is placed in a triggering mechanism, again similar to a tip up. When a fish strikes the line is released and the energy stored in the rod causes it to "pop up" and set the hook, similar to a flag "popping up" on a tip up. When you see that the rod is no longer doubled over, you know a fish has struck.

GEE, not one mention of the word SPRING!!! Could it be because these devices DO NOT use a spring??? If you think otherwise PLEASE show me a spring loaded mechanism on them.

That said I did not choose to sign the petition at this time. I do have concerns about the way these devices may be used in the open water season if they are made legal year round. If it was a hard water only change to the regs I would be in full support of it.

Thy already are in use in the open water season thy are called downriggers the exact same thing.

[Chad Holst]

Thank you Surface tension, for both the info and for the "other stuff".

So, to be clear, the tention stored in the rod being bent over does NOT snap the line forward, which is attached to the hook, causing the hook to possibly set in the fish? Then i dont understand why people are equating this "Auto-setter" piece of equipment to a down rigger. I've stated my limited support of the auto-strike, but at the same time i want to understand the equipment and the arrguments for or against it.

I dont think this means we still shouldnt look at being able to use them, but the argument that "it is the same thing as a down rigger" has been made and i dont know anything about them. So we have some saying they are, and others saying they are not. Anyone care to try to clarify this?

If the mortality rate is alot better with these, rather than tip ups, i would much rather use them for that limited purpose. (not that i tip up fish very often, if ever) My concern is that we may not be getting the whole story on these "automatic" systems, if the supporters are not even being honest about the arguments they make, ie, downriggers. Not assuming they are not being honest, but someone is wrong here and im trying to learn what these downriggers actually do. Do they simple take the slack out of the line, to allow the rigging system to work, or are they infact loading the pole, making it a spring that does infact auto set the hook when a stike happens.

I am very familiar with planer boards, and they do not in anyway use a spring system to set the hook. They do have a spring on the indicator flag, but that has nothing to do with setting the hook or assisting in the hook set. they are basically big bobbers with an indicator flag that keep the line away from the boat. I thought down riggers basically do the same thing but rather than "out" from the boat, they do it "down" from the boat. if the pole is "loaded" creating a spring, and a fish hits the lure, the downrigger releases the line and the stpring of the pole takes out some of the slack. How that could be construde as "setting the hook" is beyond me, but i dont know if my assumption of the rig is even close to acurate.

[Transporter]

Ok, I will try to make this clear since I actually use this device and have for several years. I will first clarify about the Ontario MNR's decision to allow Jaw Jackers in a province that has equal if not more stringent restrictions than the Minnesota DNR. They looked at the device and came to the conclusion that is not anything spring loaded and thus decided it's use did not violate exsisting laws.

While this device is not really a downrigger, which was described in detail earlier, the principles are the same. Thie line is lowered to the desired depth, the rod is then bent down to the hole and a loop fastened on the rod tip is slipped over a plastic part on the device, this part is held down by another plastic part that the line runs over. When the fish takes the bait as it swims away the resulting tension on the line pivots the plastic part allowing the other plastic part to release the loop fastened to the rod tip. The rod tip then pops up and if the hook is in the mouth, it is driven into the jaw of the fish, if the fish did not have the hook in it's mouth, it swims away with the bait. While the released tension of the bent rod drives the hook into the mouth, the fish does not have the opportunity to swallow the bait resulting in a hook that is deep into the gut or gills of the fish causing greater harm.

I have caught numerous walleyes, salmon, trout, perch and even large northerns on light tackle. All hooked in the corner or top of the mouth, even 15# class pike can't bite the line off because only the hook is in the mouth.

The person at the DNR who deemed this device illegal obviously has a very jaded opinion of using anything that can drive a hook into a mouth, be it on the ice or open water. And then solely used his/her opinion to determine legality. I think if the device was actually in the hands of various DNR officials to inspect and ultimately understand the operation it would likely be deemed legal. I find it hard to believe that Minnesota and only Minnesota sees this as illegal while every other state and province where ice fishing occurs show total disregard for the resource.

Hope this sheds some light on the device for you.

[DTro]

I like the idea of everyone just using them and going on with their lives.

Challenge it in court when the time comes.

Aren't spring bobbers......springs? LOL

[Chad Holst]

I'll leave with this:

The law, in my opinion, is not designed to tell me what i can do. it is designed to tell me what i can NOT due, and only when there is a good reason for banning that action.

In this case the law says you may not use a spring to "take a fish". You can use it in your bobber, your reel, your indicators, your everything. You just cant use a spring "contraption" to actually take fish. If thats a coiled piece of metal or a bent over piece of fiberglass, you can not use it to "take" the fish.

Topics like this are frustrating because people want to argue if it is like a downrigger, or if a rod is a spring, or if it gives a cleaner hook set, or if you can catch more finikie steel head with it. None of this should really matter to us. What should matter is "why can we not use this device"? The law clearly says we can not, but the question is WHY? I think we need to ask that question rather than argue about springs and loaded energy in fiber glass rods or pretend that we will all have some "Perry Mason" court moment if we ever got caught using one.

My concern would be if the verbage of the law was changed so that this item wasnt banned, then what other items would that open the door for? I for one dont think auto reelers should be used, and if someone can win the "auto hook set" argument, then i dont think it would be too far to allow "auto reelers" as well. Honestly i wouldnt even care about auto reelers, but i would worry about the use of those items to over fish an area via using multiple lines and unattended lines.(auto-reelers used to be very popular in ice houses that fished illegal numbers of extra lines, as they could be zipped up between the time a DNR got off his sled and made it to the house door)

[Scott M]

You know guys, I've been seeing these threads pop up for years. Slammer Tip ups, automatic fishermen, jaw jackers, etc. As I see it, there's two ways of getting this changed, and my acquaintance Anthony that started the petition is arguably choosing the harder of the two.

The DNR has limited law-making powers. They have special emergency rule-making powers and they have "conservation clause" rule-making...it's best described on their own page.

Basically, one needs to choose one of the two ways to see this rule changed.

You can ask the DNR to change it, as the OP and others are doing, through petition or unsolicited comment. Asking a conservation organization to liberalize fishing regulations is definitely going against the grain. Quite honestly I don't see it going very far. And if there aren't a lot of people rocking the boat, it won't get done. I've watched this post get 3,000 views in one week and 88 people have signed the petition at the time of this posting. Pretty typical - people just don't get involved, don't care, or assume others will do so on their behalf. If they aren't very motivated to change it or don't feel strongly about it, they will sit idly.

The others means is to find a legislator that is willing to change it on the behalf of anglers. Your best bets are anyone that will listen to you on the Game and Fish committee of the respective elected representative house.

The history of the statute in question shows it originated in the 1986 Fish and Wildlife Omnibus bill. The next omnibus bill could just as easily strike out the language about spring devices. Make a compelling case, give testimony, bring up downriggers, whatever you want, and you can probably get things changed. Those of you that feel strongest about it decide. As for me, in the words of Abigail Hawkey, "I don't care"

[Chad Holst]

Scott,

You are exactly right on this. You make my point about removing verbage in the law very clear and the exact reason i would NOT support this. Not that i wouldnt support the product in question, but the change of the rule that covers a wide range of items that most would NOT want to be allowed. I'm going to trust that the legislaters are not going to know or really care what the difference between an auto reeler and a "automatic fisherman" are. So the question will simply become "should we illiminate the 'no springs to take fish'" part. IMO this would not be good.

I would imagine some people wouldnt have a problem with the entire "spring thing" going away. But lets keep in mind fishing is a sport. not because we work out and must be great athletes to participate, it is a sport because we do it in a "sporting way". When you elliminate the challanges or the "sport" of it, its not called fishing its called TAKING or gathering. If you want to gather fish, go to the store and buy them. This is why we cant shock/net/snag/use 100 lines, etc...

Sure the rules may make it harder to catch fish, but my sport of choice is not "catching" it is "fishing". I would be OK with this product being used in MN as i dont see it taking the "sporting" part away, but i can see this leading down the road that could. Until i am convinced a representitive understands that before suggesting a law change, i couldnt support them.