so it has been my thoughts, much like the minimum size for a blue marlin in the gov cup series, that if the legal redfish limit maximum is 23", then maybe it should be considered to make the tournament limit at 22" so that IF you were to be disqualified by a fish going 1/16 of an inch over…you would at least not be breaking state law by possessing an oversized red.I have posed this question to many customers who fish these events and with lots and lots of support towards the idea. posed the such question to another customer who fishes these events and he promptly called me a dumba** today in front of the store of customers, claiming nobody would want to fish a tournament if a winning 2fish weight was only 6lbs, etc etc. to me, and just imo, but winning 20k for a 6lb bag instead of a 7.5lb bag would be a mute point. Still an even playing field for all participants and again IMO might help the “icing” of live fish to attempt to shrink them below the legal 23" and so forth…
what is everyone elses take? curious for everyones opinions and what should be an important topic for our most economically valuable inshore fish.
I didn’t call you a dumb###. I just said it would not draw enough boats to allow a $20,000 payout. Big events need large turnouts, or they don’t come back. I.e the Oakley Redfish tour, or HT series. No team has gotten a ticket at any event in Charleston this year. IFA or LCRC.
2 customers came to me and said ya called me that as you walked out the door sir, maybe they were confused but I can assure no sleep lost here. Regardless, Looking forward to hearing everyone’s opinions!!
I will be sure to tell customers and employees to do so! thanks, glad to know this
To the contrary I think it COULD benefit tournaments and turnout, as well as the fishery. I have honestly had those come in and no longer fish the tournaments bc of the promotion of “stretching the law” as far as you possibly can in order to try and win $$. Now that is only a select few that have voiced this to us thus far.
All in all you should know my only concern is for the fishery as a whole, as personally I will leave an epic redfish bite to go find a decent trout bite as I do not personally care to fish for reds over other species.
Some vote Republican, some vote democrat, some dont vote…point being we all have opinions and ideas of what is most beneficial for something and have different interests in that subject. My interest is in both the fishery first and followed by the actual $ and tournament. I think your opinion lies solely on the $$ side that draws the biggest interest for you.
Seems to me if you are in a tournament the max number is arbitrary. Having it agree with the legal limit would maybe be more of a deterrent to pushing the limit, especially if DNR is present? Maybe I don’t understand but how would making it 22" be better for the fishery, since the fish are live released anyway. I don’t think you are a dumass whatsoever by the way! Should be a good discussion. I’ve only fished the LCRC once by the way, I’m not much into big tourneys.
By the way I’m not naive enough to think folks don’t cheat. And that’s one of the reasons I don’t fish these tourneys.
There is mortality on fish in these tournaments, typically around only 15-20% though, by many studies. To my point,the max number IS arbitrary imo Optiker, which is why I think 22" should be of no difference to participants.
I just know I have heard from more than one tourney contestant about “icing” fish that are 23 and 1/8" to attempt to get them to shrink to make legal size (cant be a healthy practice) and from one particular tournament winner that plainly admitted trimming tails in a fashion that DNR could not tell it was done.
Or the complaints from customers and participants that saw fish get DQ’d for being over 23" but no ticket issued, yet the weekend warrior with a 23.15" red in their livewell gets a ticket. ?Double standard that could be easily avoided? Again these are just my observations over 16yrs of management in the tackle industry, and I do not fish these events so it is solely my unbiased opinion.
Good question! In fact, one of SCDNR’s finest actually suggested this very same procedure to me, while writing a ticket for a fish that did if fact cross the 23" mark. I was happy to pay the ticket, and thank you SCDNR for doing your job. I considered it a small contribution to help our fishery.
I serve on the LCRC committee, and we did discuss changing the length as you are suggesting. We choose not to. Sometimes, catching two legal redfish is a chore during the Summer months. We apply for a Marine Event from SCDNR, and we stress to our contestants that SCDNR may be present during weigh-in, and you may receive a ticket for an over-sized fish. This puts the ball in each individual’s court, allows the angler to push the length limit if he or she chooses, and also allows SCDNR to do their work. As long as everyone is aware of the rules, and the results if rules are broken, there should be no griping if a ticket is issued.
Sometimes a fish will lengthen, or shrink while in a live well during the day’s competition. I have witnessed it many times.
The thought was that SCDNR allows for a 23" fish, and so should we.
RH, I can see where making the tx limit 22" would help as far as cutting down on the possibility of anyone possessing an Ilegal fish, but how does it help the fishery?
Wouldn’t the same cheaters be clipping tails and icing down 22 1/8" fish?
Now that DNR pinches the tail to its fullest and longest length, this has become more of an issue. DNR was there in Georgetown for both tournaments, and they went by the weigh master’s measurements; although, these fish were measured on a 45 degree slanted board with a 3" tail slide which would be different if you were checked randomly on the water. Also, if the fish in a tournament is slightly over, the fish is flipped to see if it will measure on its other side. Sounds silly, but reds will DEFINITELY measure longer on one side vs. the other. We are talking millimeters usually, not 1/8 inch. Measuring with a pinched tail can be very subjective, but both tournament circuits have done a great job IMO getting it right since I have fished them. I’m against lowering the size limit in tournaments as it’s up to the individual (recreational or tournament angler) to make a responsible decision on what to keep per the law. If it’s over, suffer the consequences.
I have never had a fish shrink or grow in the well more than a few millimeters. Taking scissors to the tail or dropping the fish on its nose to break its nasal cavity is a whole different ball of wax. I HAVE witnessed some fish during the years that I am certain were altered in length, but thankfully, those folks did not place in the money. It doesn’t matter what the length is set at, you will always have the chance for cheaters. That is the reason for the polygraph. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s the best we can do I think.
quote:Originally posted by ReelHunter
There is mortality on fish in these tournaments, typically around only 15-20% though, by many studies. To my point,the max number IS arbitrary imo Optiker, which is why I think 22" should be of no difference to participants.
I just know I have heard from more than one tourney contestant about “icing” fish that are 23 and 1/8" to attempt to get them to shrink to make legal size (cant be a healthy practice) and from one particular tournament winner that plainly admitted trimming tails in a fashion that DNR could not tell it was done.
Or the complaints from customers and participants that saw fish get DQ’d for being over 23" but no ticket issued, yet the weekend warrior with a 23.15" red in their livewell gets a ticket. ?Double standard that could be easily avoided? Again these are just my observations over 16yrs of management in the tackle industry, and I do not fish these events so it is solely my unbiased opinion.
I agree ReealHunter…so what’s the big deal in 1 inch. I do, however, think that the max fish limit should be 3 and the winner should be for total weight.
Good question! In fact, one of SCDNR’s finest actually suggested this very same procedure to me, while writing a ticket for a fish that did if fact cross the 23" mark. I was happy to pay the ticket, and thank you SCDNR for doing your job. I considered it a small contribution to help our fishery.
I serve on the LCRC committee, and we did discuss changing the length as you are suggesting. We choose not to. Sometimes, catching two legal redfish is a chore during the Summer months. We apply for a Marine Event from SCDNR, and we stress to our contestants that SCDNR may be present during weigh-in, and you may receive a ticket for an over-sized fish. This puts the ball in each individual’s court, allows the angler to push the length limit if he or she chooses, and also allows SCDNR to do their work. As long as everyone is aware of the rules, and the results if rules are broken, there should be no griping if a ticket is issued.
Sometimes a fish will lengthen, or shrink while in a live well during the day’s competition. I have witnessed it many times.
The thought was that SCDNR allows for a 23" fish, and so should we.
Thanks
Best post in this thread, imo.
I’ve never fished saltwater tournaments but I’ve fished bass tournaments since I was 16 and the angler has always been held responsible for knowing and adhering to legal size limits. If the angler(s) can’t read a ruler, then they probably shouldn’t be operating a boat. Yes, fish DO “shrink/grow” in the livewell sometimes but not in big increments.
Now as far as “helping the fishery” or somehow impacting the mortality rate at the tournament, I’m going to have to fly the BS flag on that one. Tournaments don’t look at the size of the fish when factoring their mortality rate. They simply look at how many dead