Tournament Fishing Participation - How do you decide?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dana Steiner on January 19, 2016 at 6:31pm

Don,

I agree that we need to change our past mentality, myself included. Your opinion is important and has my respect.

Don Hogue said:

Personally, I see the off limits rules as one of the big reasons why participation is down.  I know there are several events coming up this year that I won't fish because of the off limits restrictions.  For example, in any given month you may have 2-4 tournaments that are available.  If each of them has off limits period for the week prior then you just aren't able to put any time on the water preparing for upcoming tournaments, or you are looking at doing so 3-4 weeks prior and most of the time that is useless practice.  Having to dedicate 2 weekends for one tournament is difficult on anyone.  If you have to travel, then that's probably 3 days for travel/prefish and another 3 days for the travel/tournament.  This is what makes it hard on finances and relationships.  

So why the off limits?  Here's what I typically hear and why I don't think it's a good argument.  

It levels the playing field

Not at all.  It insulates the top, most experienced fishermen who can tap into prior experiences and make adjustments more quickly.  Sometimes they get caught up in fishing memories, but most of the better ones are able to apply past experiences to the current situation.  Imagine any other situation in life, sports or otherwise in which you are relatively new and inexperienced.  Then imagine being told you are limited in the time you are allowed to get better.  Off limits is an advantage to those who have experience on a body of water at a certain time of year and disadvantage to those who don't.  This keeps participation down.  Trying to learn about bass fishing while competing in tournaments and limiting your ability to get on the water and learn is a recipe for donating money.  If you've ever found it difficult to try and compete in an event based on a day or two or knowledge that was a week ago and felt like you got burned by trying to fish what you found during practice, well this is my point.  Newer anglers put a lot of stock into what happens in prefish because that's all they have to go on. 

It discourages cheating

Similar to the whole gun control debate, making rules that restrict the law-abiding does not discourage those who don't care about the rules from suddenly following them.  Hard to imagine someone who is made up their mind they are going to cheat and then deciding not to because the lake is off limits.  Never understood that logic.  A cheater would take advantage of not seeing any other tournament anglers during the off limits to set up their cage or whatever.  Off limits only encourages people to find others who will fish for them during the off limits time or lean on a buddy/relative that is in the know for a given body of water. 

It takes some pressure off the fish

There is some truth to this and each angler has to decide how not to educate their fish.  At the same time, I find it ironic how circuits can have an off limits in place and then suddenly not in place for the championships - either they have no off limits at all or not the day before the championship.  Doesn't that throw out any arguments for having the off limits in the other events?

In fact here is what having off limits does accomplish:

• causes anglers to travel more and spend more time away from home
• makes the learning curve steeper for those new to the sport, without a good mentor, most of these fisherman won't continue competing and a good number never get started.  
• makes "community" spots more crowded.  Many guys have to rely on what worked last year, where they saw boats last year, etc.  
• keeps the overall knowledge of our sport in check. What other sport limits your ability to practice/get better?  
• gives beginning anglers the idea that some guys have a mystical ability to catch bass cause _____ or ______ "always catches them"
• forces anglers to choose between circuit "A" and circuit "B" or "C".  

Off limits rules were born from a time when local clubs were worried about the "old retired guy" or "guide" having an unfair advantage.  It's time to get over that and take a hard look at the consequences the off limits rules are having.

Permalink Reply by Jake Anderson on January 21, 2016 at 9:09am

Don,

In my experience "no off limits" within the Federation provided me a benefit that few if any of my competitors could have had.

The result was 4 checks cashed out of 4 possible. The next leg of the qualifier I pre-fished up the reach, spent almost no time down river where my boat draws went. I got my ass kicked.

I cant agree that huge disadvantages wouldn't be created by a "no off limits" rule change. Those teams located in central washington who have jobs conducive to weekday fishing will have an advantage so obscene that I believe the less experienced anglers will have even less chance to compete, and it may even drive some long time supporters and success stories in NWB right out of competing. The core of NWB.

With boat incentives now decreasing, who sees the financial value in competing against a stacked deck for less and less payout? Yet entry stays the same?

I envision Priester being pressured/forced to spread his venues across the state in the name of fairness. Can/should he have to do that? Will anglers want to fish the columbia at Vancouver or 2 west side tournies per year? Brownlee reservoir and CDA are now in play in fairness to Idaho anglers? Will this reduce travel?

What I'm hearing is that a "no off limits rule" grows the sport by giving new anglers a better chance, and it allows anglers to fish multiple circuits.

Im not sure that new anglers shouldnt be fishing club and federation in order to step up when ready to fully compete. If they skipped steps, off limits rules will not change the outcome for them.

Im not convinced that the new guys chances go up at all. In fact I think that a fortunate few would become insanely rich beyond belief, and some that used to be rich fish for scraps. The poor stay poor and will always be poor until they figure it out and do things different.

I think the number of people who may quit NWB is VASTLY higher than the incremental increase of tourney anglers who might now fish multiple circuits... Because most of those guys that can do that... Will anyway!

Priester is urged to spread the local advantage, making him not see the value in running a circuit at all...

I could see "no off limits" being counterproductive, and could single handedly destroy the circuit.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I am theorizing and suggesting that I have seen a lack of off limits exponentially benefit those who were positioned to eat it up. The unintended consequences of that could be catastrophic. Or maybe not...

Permalink Reply by Ben Hanes on January 21, 2016 at 9:25am

Jake,

NWB had a NO OFF LIMITS when I first started fishing it and it was drawing more boats than ever back then...It was the middle of the first or second season I fished it, like in the 2006 season or so, that they set up the off limits...I think primarily because of some cheaters who were caging fish at Potholes.

Getting rid of off-limits wouldn't destroy the circuit, in my opinion.  It's already been tested.

Permalink Reply by Ben Hanes on January 21, 2016 at 10:34am

Here are some interesting facts from last year, in NWB and ABA....These statistics are only from last year, in 2015...

The following list of 20 teams, which are probably the top twenty teams in the Pacific Northwest, occupied the Top 20 spots in Northwest Bass 54% percent of the time.  Basically, that means that, on average, 11 of the TOP 20 teams in each event were from the list of the teams below....ABA 47.5% of the time in the TOP 10!!.....Now something even more interesting....These individuals WON 100% of the Northwest Bass tournaments.  They won 67% percent of the ABA tournaments.  A few of the top teams won multiple events.  So here's your list of the best in the Northwest, in 2015 (sorry if I butcher spelling):

McBroom

Jensen/Smith

Tripp

Bryan/Boomer

Flowers/Abbott

Scmitz

Hogue/Brown

Hall

Ratchford Boys  :)

Wolsky/Hobbs

Percifield

Lippincott/Treffrey

Gemmill

McConville/Mace

Echternkamp/Kromm

Gutsalo

Lind

Doucet

Campbell

Batey/Ratchford

I past up writing several names of guys/teams that are deadly, because they either didn't perform well last year, or only did well in 1 or so, but there are definitely some honorable mentions that are not in the above list.

If we narrow down, Jensen and Smith WON 3 out of the 7 events they fished from these circuits in WA.  Bryan and Boomer WON 2.  Lippincott and Treffrey only WON 1, but they finished in the top 20 and 10 EVERY SINGLE TOURNAMENT besides 2.  Hobbs and Wolsky WON 1 but they finished in the top every tournament besides 4.

So that means we have 4 teams that WON 7 out of 12 events.  These top 4 teams also won BOTH championships.

It seems to me the top 20-30 teams are competing against eachother (or they have learned to MASTERFULLY compete against only the fish), so what is the incentive for the new guy to come in and fish these big circuits when they cost thousands of dollars, payouts do not pay for costs, they are competing against a few guys who win ALL of the tournaments, and pre-fishing doesn't even afford them relevant time on the water?

It's also my understanding that there are guys at the very top who aren't even making enough $$ to cover their costs.

Permalink Reply by Don Hogue on January 21, 2016 at 11:12am

Jake, 

I appreciate your devil's advocate and contrarian nature, but...

I think you already made my point earlier...

"Who wasn't at the big bass tourney and how'd they do the following week at NWBass? I cant recall if Vern Malensky, or if Marc Lippincott fished big bass or not, but I know Hogue/Brown, and boomer/bryan, cox/schilling were pre fishing the river and their teams combined for 60lbs.."

I know we would have participated in the Big Bass event if we didn't have the off limits of the next event to deal with.  As it was, we had to make a decision.  I'm guessing others participated in the Big Bass event and as such didn't want to donate to the NWBass event on the Columbia without any prefish or quickly regretted hoping what had worked before would pan out again.  

And, uh, hate to tell you this but nobody is getting "insanely rich beyond belief" in this game.  

I just don't see Tom Brady or Peyton Manning hanging up their cleats because you don't restrict the practice time that Russell Wilson gets.  What happened to open markets and competition?  Where is your capitalist spirit?  No off limits will help drive innovation and competition.  

I just don't see how restricting the ability to put time on the water, the one thing we all agree is most important, is beneficial to the growth of the sport.   It's a rule that doesn't benefit anyone, it simply puts arbitrary restrictions on practicing.  It says, "if I'm not willing to get better, I don't want you to either" Can't have this rule and then show up for the ball game and ask "where did everybody go?"

Don't make me correct anymore of your "half-truths" again!

Permalink Reply by Ben Hanes on January 21, 2016 at 12:34pm

I think rather than continuing to point out problems, I'll propose a solution or two that I believe would drastically increase participation in these larger circuits.  I’ve mentioned a few solutions earlier, but I’ll elaborate:

 

-Eliminate OFF LIMITS.  Nowhere else in the nation, in a large tournament circuit, am I aware that there is an off limits period that goes all week.  That ALONE will increase tournament turn-out.

-Boat Dealers/Manufacturers need to collaborate, rather than fight, and support the largest circuit(s) in the state as a whole.  They need to DRAMATICALLY up their support (sponsorships) of the top, elite anglers.  They need to increase their support of the entire circuit(s). 

-Considering that circuits are the ONLY thing basically that drives the boat business, payouts should increase to 90%+.

-NWB, or whatever circuit, should create 3 leagues.  Amateur, Semi-Pro, and Pro, which all compete in the same tournament.  The determination of where a team/angler would compete would be determined either by an algorithm, or an individual’s desire to pay the larger entry fee if they don’t meet the algorithm standard (in which case they will likely be donating 90%+ of the time).  Individuals who meet the elite algorithm standard would be unable to compete in the lower levels.

-Pro entries would be the top 25-30 teams or so, and they would pay a large entry fee, like $1,000 per tournament.  Payouts would be huge in this elite division, at 100%+.  1^st place in every tournament would be in excess of $25,000.

-Semi-Pro entries would be the next set of 25-40 teams, entry fees would be modest.  Payouts would be 80%, and 10% would go to the elite payout.

-Amateur entries would be the rest.  Entry fees would be small.  Payouts would be 60%. 10% would go to the Semi Pro’s, 20% would go the elites.

 

I think a format like this would appeal to a lot of guys.  A lot of new guys would jump in and try and move up the ranks, or at least compete with others who are on a similar level, and the elite guys would actually make quite a bit of money.

But who knows?  I am sure everyone has their own idea of what needs to be done differently, but the simple fact of the matter that we can’t deny is some circuits are shrinking …I have clearly delineated my reasons for leaving, and I know a lot of guys who have left feel pretty similar.

Permalink Reply by Jake Boomer on January 21, 2016 at 12:39pm

Ben….

"so what is the incentive for the new guy to come in and fish these big circuits when they cost thousands of dollars, payouts do not pay for costs, they are competing against a few guys"

 

What is the incentive for a new guy to fish in a tournament????  Uh, to win...  or how about, to beat the guys listed above.  What would you propose, participation trophies?  Every one of those teams started at the bottom, and had to work hard to be competitive.

 

I would bet the average field size for all those tournaments you counted couldn't be higher than 35-40 boats.  So you're saying that approximately 50% of the time, half of the 40 boat field, is the same 20 teams…  That would suggest that the other 50% of the time it’s the other 20 teams. 

 

Yeah, I know that not every team competes in every circuit, but your list above shows the teams that fish the most often.  But there are many competitive teams that get checks, win tournaments and aren’t on that list.  (To name a few:  Eidson, Steiner, Doucet, Ferry, Berto, Lesher, Lebsack, Mcconville….)

 

Most those guys that love this sport want to see it grow.  The idea that new-comers will be fleeced for their entry fee by the same 20 teams, then kicked down the road with their thumb in their mouth is one I don’t agree with.  I have seen numerous times, Hobbs giving tons of advice and coaching to anybody who’d ask.  On the surface of pure competition, he has nothing to gain by helping his competitors, so obviously his priorities are closer to growing the sport.  Hogue is the same way.  What he could tell you about fluke fishing, you couldn’t write down in a decade,  but he’ll try.

 

The reason that Stiles removed the Friday-Only prefish from Northwest bass years ago, had nothing to do with the “unfair” argument.  He was tired of anglers who would drive all the way to the lake, practice on Friday, then pass him on their way home, because they didn’t find the “winning” fish.  It was hurting his boat numbers, so he removed the rule.  The boat numbers back then were much higher, because there were far fewer circuits competing for anglers. 

 

Maybe a Friday prefish, requiring an entry fee deposit is the answer to reducing travel requirements.  Maybe, the anglers are going to have to decide if they want 40 – 20 boat events a season, or collectively support a couple circuits to grow the boat count. 

 

One thing that’s not going away is the work necessary to be competitive.  It’s absolutely necessary, probably a little unfair, and costs lots of money.  You just need to decide if the juice is worth the squeeze.

Permalink Reply by Ben Hanes on January 21, 2016 at 1:05pm

Jake,

-Actually, the field size in NWB was 60 teams.  In ABA, yes the average was around 30-40, except for the championship where it was higher.  It indicates exactly what I said, that 11 of the top 20, or around 5 of the top 10, in ABA are comprised of the top 20 anglers listed.  So what that would mean is there's 40+ other anglers fighting over 9 spots in NWB, and 30+ anglers fighting over 5 spots in ABA.

-Jake, I can list a number of OTHER tournaments that were ALSO won by those 20 teams listed if we want to get technical, take for example the Nixons Open, won by the same top teams every year.   I already said there were notables that I didn't include. 

-Jake, I interviewed many anglers when I wrote for NWB several years ago.  It wasn't until years later I found out that some had deliberately mislead me, so that I was reporting false information.  Most guys are extremely secretive, hence why the northwest loves teams, because guys don't want to give up their spots or techniques.  Lots of guys deliberately lie to you; it's part of the game, part of the competition.  Like Don said, if you don't have a good mentor, a new guy can get discouraged fishing the bigger circuits really fast.  Thumbs up to Ron Hobbs and Don Hogue.  I think what they do is awesome.  Many aren't like them.

-I remember they changed the off-limits after the cage was discovered on Potholes in 2005.  I am sure there were other reasons, but that was one of them.  I think your deposit idea is a freakin' awesome idea, though!!

-I understand you guys all worked hard, as did I.  I know I worked just as hard as the top guys.  I used to run into Taylor and Jensen all the freakin' time.  It was awesome!  The bottom line is some guys are just BETTER. Period.

Permalink Reply by Jake Boomer on January 21, 2016 at 1:32pm

Just did the math, the average field size between ABA East/West and NWBass for 2015 was 34.36 boats (to be exact.)

 

No intentional pissing match, just proving a point...  20 specific teams making the top 20, half of the time isn't that oppressive.  There is always a chance at winning, for everyone, unless you run an Etec...  (now that's funny.)

 

The Hogue argument is one a valid one.  We tend to argue the "unfair" position, using past results to justify reasoning.  But in this sport, only so much is predictable.  I love my Vern and Zach story, cause they beat the hometown team, and all their "unfair" advantages, like wisdom, time on the water, home field advantage, experience, nicer shirts, blah, blah, blah, blah.   Do they beat them all the time? No, but they won't win anything if they don't compete.

 

You're right, there are some guys that love to beat up the new kids, take their lunch money and leave.  They're usually arguing about "unfair" rules and situations that don't cater to their advantage.  In my opinion they are few and far between anymore, and generally the they're the ones complaining about falling boat numbers.

 

On the flip side, if a struggling angler wants instant relief in the form of "spot" or miracle bait, I don't think they'll get much help.  Hobbs is more like a Mr. Miyagi with his "paint the fence" approach to those who want to learn. 

 

I do like the Friday Prefish (Deposit) idea.  Maybe we can take that away from all this banter.  I know ABA is allowing that for their events. 

 

Here's the deal though.  If the event matters to the anglers, they will prefish the weekend before, drive home, and prefish on Friday as well.  It's all about priorities.

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Ben Hanes on January 21, 2016 at 1:58pm

Jake,

-If you want to talk numbers, which is fine because I'm an accountant LOL, the 34.36 isn't a correct representation because although it might be the average between the two circuits, NWB pays out to more spots, and ABA pays out to fewer spots, based on the field size.  That's why I did them separately.  ABA has a smaller field, but many of the top guys are still fishing it, so it's extremely difficult to squeeze into the money....Since NWB is twice the size of ABA just about, the Top 20 in NWB is about comparable to the Top 10 in ABA.  If you want I will send you a spreadsheet bro.

-Yes, there's always a chance of winning. HOWEVER....The top 3% of teams are winning 58% of the tournaments in NWB and ABA East.  That's pretty significant.  And, the top 1% are winning 100% of the championships.  Congratulations for being in that mix.  I know it takes a lot of sacrifice, skill, ability, and talent.

-I think this discussion board is just that, discussions.  We are discussing why tournament size is smaller.  Several guys have mentioned, and I know many more who agree, that are tired of the same 10 winning most of the tournaments.  I'm sorry that's hard for you to agree with.  But it's obvious if you look at the numbers.  People have also mentioned off limits, too much money, too many tournaments, too much time, payouts aren't enough. 

-Rather than insinuating that those in dissention are whining about it being unfair, and they are the ones taking kids' lunch money, maybe tournament directors should look at the angler as the customer, and listen to their complaints.  Because clearly, that is not happening in some cases, and clearly, tournament sizes are shrinking!

Permalink Reply by Don Hogue on January 21, 2016 at 2:04pm

Ben, 

In bass fishing, you are only as good as your last time on the water.  So while some are better than others (such is life), I don't believe that is a static situation and not without logical reasons no matter how hard they are to measure.  It changes some, every day, every event, every year.  While I can't speak to your experiences, having never been with you in a boat, I think it's very easy overall to confuse "going fishing", with "prefishing" with "tournament fishing".  All three require a different state of mind and a different approach and different standard of "success".  

So while I believe that off limits is unnecessary, unenforceable, and un-American, I can't agree with any idea that success is pre-ordained and those who are the "best" are just magically so and therefore since you are not one of the chosen ones, best to just take your ball and go home.  Making decisions based on economics is one thing, but bending it to where it is forever hopeless because you just don't have "IT" and won't ever have "IT" is just not how things work.  I hope I over-shot and that is NOT what you are saying.    

Permalink Reply by Ben Hanes on January 21, 2016 at 2:17pm

Don,

I think that's a good discussion.  A GREAT discussion as a matter of fact.  I think it's been talked about before, and maybe would be fun to bring it up again....That is, what separates Kevin Van Dam from Don Hogue from Ben Hanes, etc.  Is it believable to assume that ANYONE can be as good as Kevin Van Dam or Ron Hobbs?  Ron Hobbs was winning huge tournaments in his teenager years, after all, if my memory is correct...In summary, my personal opinion is God gave us each talents and abilities, and some of those talents and abilities line up with being a great fisherman.  Like, for example, attention to detail.  If you have a person who is an "otter" personality type, they do not get details.  They have to work 10x as hard to get details.  However, details are a requirement generally of being a successful bass fisherman.  Therefore, that "otter" person, generally speaking, has to work 10x as hard to become as good of fisherman as someone who already is detail-oriented......What a cool discussion.  I hear ya Don. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page