Sorry... Another QS Rig Question

[hanson]

Alrighty guys...

After fishing QS rigs for years under tip-ups for Pike, I am now seriously concerned about using them THIS YEAR.

A couple of us were on a local lake fishing walleyes on Friday night when we were checked by a conservation officer. We ended up talking to him about this and that for what seamed like nearly a half hour.

Talk then turned to tip-ups and he informed us that enforcement had been instructed by fisheries to write citations to people using QS rigs this winter. I know, I know... the little spinner makes it legal right? This CO was definitely clear about what he was talking about and said that the spinner is not enough to make a QS rig legal. Apparently, there was some sort of regulation change that clearly makes QS rigs illegal. He went on to say that they are already in the process of changing it again next year so that they are perfectly legal.

I don't know what to do anymore?? What I do know is that there is a CO working the Metro area who WILL write citations to anyone using any form of a QS rig. I would never have believed it if I didn't get it from the horses mouth.

Has anyone else heard of this? Did I just not search back far enough to find previous chatter about this?

[RK]

Hiya -

The CO is out to lunch, and if it was in the East Metro, I'm not shocked.

I've had long discussions about QS rigs with both fisheries and enforcement people, up to and including Col. Hamm. I've gotten the complete opposite answer from the one you received right from the folks inside fisheries that handle the rules process. My howling about the QS rig being illegal without a spinner under current rules is part of why it's being changed (sometimes it pays to buy ink by the barrel). If a quick strike rig with a spinner blade isn't legal, neither is a crawler harness with a spinner for walleyes. Neither is a jig with a stinger hook for that matter.

I'm going to be at a meeting later this week and both the main Fisheries rules person and the head of fisheries will be there. I'll ask them. But if this is the case, it's a complete reversal of their policy over the last 20 years on QS rigs. I'd be surprised if it were the case.

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[hanson]

Hey Rob-

When we were talking with the guy, he just absolutely caught me off guard when he said that. He was definitely clear that if you had 2 treble hooks on a line, with or without a spinner, he would be writing you a citation for it.

I explained to him that pretty much everyone in the pike/muskie community including Muskies, Inc. supports the use of QS rigs over other methods. He even agreed with me but said he was instructed to cite people for using them.

He just really caught me off guard as it went against everything I had previously known about QS rigs.

If you fish Calhoun/Harriet, you'll probably bump into him.

[Big Fish Hunter247]

So if you do have the spinners on the they are not legal?? I thought they were?

[RK]

Hiya -

I'm going to call the enforcement folks today and see if I can get clarification on whether or not they've given out any new instructions on this... I'll get back to you all with what I find out.

If this is the case, I think I have the topic for my next ODN column... This is dead opposite of what's been the party line for years.

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[cjac]

Rob is going the high road, so I took the low road.

I put myself in Hanson's shoes (Chris Hanson/Chris Haider, close enough) and paraphrased your scenario and sent a brief email to the DNR. I asked two questions:

1) Clarification on the law, I used Rob's crawler harness example.

2) Should we take the name of the CO in these cases to identify to source of mis-information, not to be confrontational, but purely for seeing the law enforced as written.

I'll see what I get for a reply. I'm curious and it's also frustrating to hear.

Chris

[RK]

Hiya -

Update on this -

Boy did I open a can of worms

I started calling around at the DNR about this, and am still working my way through the question with fisheries and enforcement.

Here's the deal with QS rigs as it stands now.

For the past several years there has been a guidance from the Department to COs on interpretation of the 'one hook' rule as it is currently written.

As you know, the guidance has been that if a rig like a QS rig has a spinner blade, it is interpreted as a lure, so therefore legal. (a treble hook that isn't part of a lure is considered three hooks and so isn't legal alone, but a 'lure' is considered one hook.)

The crux of the issue is this: the statute states that lures are legal, but provides no definition of what a 'lure' is. (They have the same issue with the same statute regarding flies. In the past, if it had a lead head it was a jig, not a fly. But what is a bead-head nymph - a jig or a fly? So it's not just us...heh). Thus the need for guidance on interpretation.

Recently though, as a result of a completely unrelated issue, it was determined that the DNR didn't have legal standing to make the kind of interpretation of the statute (in this case the regulation is by statute, not part of the rule process, which is a totally different process from a legal standpoint) that they'd made in issuing the guidance on things like QS rigs.

So, right now there are two things happening...

- The rule around multiple hooks and what's a 'lure' is being re-written so it's clearer and more sensible. Nobody in the DNR - either in Fisheries or Enforcement - disagrees with the fact that what's there now is impossibly vague. Quick Strike rigs are a big part of that discussion within the DNR. They're well aware that QS rigs are better for the fishery and they want to see them used and defined legally as compliant. These rules will likely go into effect in 07. (Arrogant SOB that I am, I'm going to take a little credit for this...I've been squawking very loudly about this in print and directly to the Department for the last 3-4 years.)

- For THIS year, the DNR is working with their legal eagles to figure out what kind of guidance they CAN issue. I've spoken with several different enforcement people over the last few days, and Maj Al Heidebrink is meeting with some of the legal people there today to get some answers for me. It really is a tangled mess though - the statute is impossibly vague.

Sooo...it's as clear as the summer sun, eh?

I get pretty involved with the Fisheries folks at the DNR from time to time and always come away with two thoughts. A.) They really have a nearly impossible job sometimes, and B.) They really do want to do the right thing by the resource, even when they have to work with one hand tied behind their back by things like this.

Stay tuned... I should be hearing back from Major Heidebrink today or tomorrow on what he's found out.

cheers,

Rob Kimm

[MuskieJunkie]

Thanks all the info and leg work RK, we all appreciate it.

[RK]

Hiya -

Another update...

I heard back from Al H. on Friday. Right now the Dept. is working on an updated guidance to COs, which is going to be issued as a Commissioner's Memo (I think that's what it was called - I was in the fishhouse so I didn't have anything to write on ), as a bridge until the new re-written rule takes effect. Basically, the new guidance will be a combination of the old and new rules... It sounds like it will be issued in a week or so.

I also spoke with Linda Erickson-Eastwood from Fisheries, and she's working on the new rule right now. They got the authorization to re-write it from the legislature last session. There's a lot going into this issue - the lure definition business, etc., - but they hope they can make it a much more straight-forward and enforcable regulation as a result of the re-writing.

In the meantime, COs are basically enforcing the rules as they have in the past. I didn't get checked this weekend so I didn't have a chance to test that their first-hand.

I'm supposed to get word from Major Heidebrink when the memo comes out, and I'll post it here when I do.

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[juggs]

Leave it to the state of MN to make such a big issue out of something as minor as how to define a lure. Good grief!! If you drop one lure tied to one line into the water, what could possibly be the problem?? How many fish do you think an angler could catch on this at one time?

[10,000 Casts]

The rule that says that a plain treble hook is not a lure but it is 3 hooks is rediculous. It just give people an excuse to use sweedish pike hooks instead and we all know the mortality rate of those. Also, something interesting that a guy told me is that on a tip up rig of any kind, the treble has to be at least 3 inches from the snap.

A CO would have to be having a pretty bad day in order to hand out a citation on a QS rig. We've been checked while using tip-ups and they never asked us to see the hooks.

Just some thoughts.

John

[cjac]

Here is the reply I received from the DNR this morning regarding my email question sent of Hanson's scenario.

Below is the guidance that was sent to all COs last week. Point #2 outlines the QS concept and makes no mention of needing a spinner to make it legal. So, I sent back that question and was told that Item #4 addresses QS rigs as long as they are in accordance with items #2 & #3. Little confusing......felt like I needed to stand on my head and read it in a mirror backwards! Point is that the multiple hooks are legal provided they meet the criteria in point #2. Here's what I'm going to do.....print this out and stick in my my gear bag, any questions I'll read this to the CO.

RK.....Is my intrepretation correct? Here it is....

First of all, please let me apologize for the length of time it has taken to respond to your email. Our Information Center Staff had originally forwarded your email to our Fisheries staff, Fisheries in turn forwarded your email to Enforcement. Following is the guidance that was developed over the last several weeks and was forwarded to all Conservation Officers last week:

Minnesota Statutes, Section 97C.315, subdivision 2 provides that anglers may not have more than one hook on a line, except when using a single artificial bait or while using three artificial flies on a line to take specified pan fish. A permanent rule package is in process that will, when adopted, clarify what types of multiple hook arrangements can be used by anglers.

Until those permanent rules are adopted, the following guidance will

prevail:

1. Angling with bare multiple hooks (including treble hooks) is

unlawful.

2. An angler may have up to three single or multiple hooks on a

line that are either inserted into the live bait or within three inches of the live bait, and only one live bait may be used on a line. Live bait includes bait that is alive, dead, or preserved.

3. An angler may have one additional single or multiple hook on a

line with an artificial bait as long as the additional hook is within three inches of the artificial bait. Artificial bait includes jigs, artificial flies, and flashing spoons.

4. Quick strike rigs and stinger hook arrangements meeting the

requirements described in items 2 and 3 above may be used.

Minnesota Rule 6264.0050, subpart 1 provides that on designated trout

lakes:

1. An angler may only use one line with a single artificial bait

or

three artificial flies; and

2. No live minnows may be possessed or used as bait, except live

leeches and processed minnows in a dried, frozen, or pickled condition may be used.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions, and again I apologize for the delay in responding to your questions.

Pat Watts, DNR Enforcement Division

[hanson]

Dang... do I have a headache.

Good to see they are making headway on this issue.

I even see it got some print in the Outdoor News too.

[DTro]

Looking at the 2007 regs, I noticed that they mention this, along with another Musky reg:

Regulation Changes That Could be Implemented

• Opening lakes to winter trout fishing in Aitkin and Hubbard Counties.

• Discontinue minnow harvest except by permit in the Cedar River

watershed to protect slender madtom.

• Night bowfishing allowed on selected water bodies from June 1 to

August 31.

• Allow larger bullheads to be used as bait in certain areas of the state.

• Additional transportation and packing requirements.

• Legalize some multiple hook configurations.

• Discontinue muskie fishing in December.

• Changes in opening dates for South Dakota border waters.

• Change northern pike bag limit on Canadian border waters.

• Change Basswood Lake on Canadian border to all inland season and

limits.

[Jorgie]

Any recent news on this subject? I've been using a treble hook with a spinner above it, but would like to be able to use two trebles.