Fishing Forum
Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - Printable Version

+- Fishing Forum (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Utah Fishing Forum (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=386)
+--- Forum: Utah Contests (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=100)
+--- Thread: Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest (/showthread.php?tid=618216)



Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - tlspyder13 - 10-11-2010

Here is your chance to throw out any ideas for this years Ice fishing contest.

There have already been a couple on another post so I'm opening this one up to try and keep them all in one place.
[signature]


Re: [tlspyder13] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - Jacksonman - 10-11-2010

Good idea. Thanks tlspyder!

These are a few ideas I have. I will first preface it with why I think there should be a few changes:

1) The winners will have to catch musky, pike, or mac (or large catfish) which are species that very few anglers target, due to time, finances, knowledge, etc. Automatically, this removes a huge percentage of the potential contestants from competing if joining at all. One large musky and mac (with average of other species) can beat 5 huge different species trout and the 3 huge panfish almost every time.

2) Many anglers like to ice fish waters in other states, namely Idaho, Wyoming and Colorado. I feel that allowing fish caught in these states to count would provide more waters to fish for those who live close to the borders or who enjoy fishing out of the state. We could also invite BFT anglers from those states to join in the competition. The more waters to fish and the less restrictions, the more people who will join and compete in the tourny.



It would be nice to have more than 2 to 4 fishermen competing for position at the end of the season.

Proposed changes:
1) Fish that count towards total:

2 panfish (perch, crappie, bluegill, etc.) - instead of 3
1 bass or walleye (LM,SM, white, walleye) - takes the place of the third panfish
5 of any species but only 1 can be musky, pike or mack.
Also, allow up to 2 of any of the other species to count, so one can have two cutts, and/or two tiger trout count towards their totals. Every year the winner catches a large mack and or pike/musky. SO even if anglers tear up with huge cutts, bows, tiger trout or browns, they are quickly surpassed by one large mack and pike/musky. Only allowing one of these bigger species would at least allow the hardcore trout ice fishermen to compete.


2) Open up fish caught in other states to the competition and invite anglers from other states to join. I don't see how opening up Idaho, Wyoming or Colorado could distract from the competition, but would and new waters, new species and some more fun. I know there could be a problem with cutt-bows but most are obvious depending on where they are caught and if it is difficult deciding, count it as a bow or a cutt, whatever it resembles more. I hate feeling that I have to stay in Utah to fish and I know many anglers feel the same way. I see nothing but positive from this change.

I have greatly enjoyed the competitions in the past but change and mixing things up can be fun.
[signature]


Re: [Jacksonman] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - hookngrinin - 10-12-2010

I agree that in order to win the Challenge with the current rules you will need to catch a fish over 30" which pretty much means a musky or lake trout. I also agree that there are many anglers that enjoy icefishing out of state and that allowing waters from out of state to be included in the Challenge would make it more interesting and allow anglers living next to the State borders more waters to fish within reasonable driving distance.

That being said, here is an idea and what I agree with to change things up a little without making things too complicated.

1) give 5 bonus points to contestants who post five fish over 20"

2) allow a smallmouth or largemouth bass to count as one of the panfish.

3) allow waters from adjacent neighboring states

I don't agree with allowing two fish of the same specie. We should keep it at eight different species. Getting eight different species is a big part of the challenge.


[fishin] [cool]
[signature]


Re: [hookngrinin] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - Jacksonman - 10-12-2010

So it sounds like we agree on allowing a bass as a panfish and allowing fish from waters from adjoining states.

I would still like to see either:
1) only allowing one fish to count from musky, pike and macks
or
2) creating a point system that factors in the average size of that species. For example, bluegill and brook trout you get 2x the length, all other trout, catfish and panfish and bass get 1.5X the lengtht and macs,pike and musky only the actual length, or something like that. It would be easy to set something up like this to keep it fair.

I would also still like to allow for an angler to count a second fish from the same species. If someone catches two huge fish of the same species, you should be able to count both (but can only do this once).

I also wouldn't mind reducing the amount of panfish to 2 with a bass counting as one of them and increasing the number of other game fish to 6.

Another idea is to only allow 8 -12 fishing days to catch your entries and you have to announce your fishing day at least the day before you go (and if bad weather or some other event prevents you from fishing, too bad). This would be a way to make the tournament more fair by requiring equal fishing time. This would change the tournament to the best fisherman per hour rather than the most dedicated fisherman.

Enough ideas yet?
[signature]


Re: [Jacksonman] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - tlspyder13 - 10-12-2010

The multi state sounds fun but Idaho is the only other board with a contest and this is their first year with it. There aren't even any rules yet for them. Getting past each states laws could be a problem. We can have 49 people without a permit here in Utah and Idaho I'm told can only have something like 25. I have no idea what Colorado and Wyoming's laws are. Also I don't know what if any Federal laws might kick in with a multi state contest.

Who knows. You figure out all the hoops to jump through and someone just might do it.
[signature]


Re: [tlspyder13] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - Jacksonman - 10-12-2010

Do you think if it was a Utah tournament but allowed fish from other state to count that we would have to get permission from the other states or the feds? I understand that if we allow anglers from other states that more permission would need to be sought out. But if we kept it to under the 50 anglers in Utah and the 25 anglers in Idaho, it seems like we would be within the rules, and as long as everyone followed the laws when fishing (especially out of state), I couldn't imagine getting in any trouble, especially over $5 entry fees.

I also vote that we donate the winnings to a charity. No one really cares about winning the money as it cost 10x the first place money in gas and equipment to catch big fish.
[signature]


Re: [Jacksonman] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - FOD - 10-12-2010

I think any changes would just complicate things that area already in place. If you dont like the rules, or the contest limits you fishing in other states, or limits what you fish for then why don't you just not enter? I think all the "new"proposed rules are more or less things that would make it better for you and help give you an advantage from other years. I wished I could have targeted the pike and musky too, but I just don't live that close to those waters. I just excepet that fact. I can tell your a very competative guy.
You could always just start your own icefishing competition with all the rules in place that you think are fair or make sence or are logical to you.
I like the rules we have, if they change I wont be entering the next contest.

One more little opinion from me. Its a $5 contest nothing to loose sleep over. [fishin]
[signature]


Re: [FOD] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - Jacksonman - 10-12-2010

Wow some people are sure abrasive and tough while sitting behind a computer. I thought this was a request for ideas? I will probably not enter if the rules stay the same. And as I suggested, I enjoy the competition and it is not about the money so donate it to chariy. I.have feeling you are going to have a hard time getting more than 15 people to join. The current format gives those who enjoy fishing for macks pike and musky and those who live close to those waters and those who can manage to fish three times a week a huge advantage. If you were to make the competition more fair to all anglers,than we would see more competitors and more of a compeition to the end. When catching lots of huge trout become irrelevant in a utah competition than there is a problem.

Maybe having a competition for each of several different species would be fun too.
[signature]


Re: [Jacksonman] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - FOD - 10-12-2010

Quote:Wow some people are sure abrasive and tough while sitting behind a computer.
Wow, some people sure do like to jump to point out the fact that they felt in some way threatened by what my ideas and opinions are.
Sorry Jacksonman I will make sure to sugar coat all my responses for you from now on.[unimpressed]

Quote: When catching lots of huge trout become irrelevant in a utah competition than there is a problem.
What is the problem with wanting to enter a multi-species contest in the state of Utah. Although it is true that the state spends most of its money set aside for fish and game on trout does not mean that they are the only species and hold the only relevance to ice fishing contest in Utah.

Quote:Maybe having a competition for each of several different species would be fun too.
I feel that this was the best sentence in your post.
That would solve everything. You hold a "trout" ice fishing contest. I would enter, and it would be fun.

What it sounds like to me is that your large trout catching ability is far superior to catching large pan fish and other game fish. I think for you, a trout only ice fishing contest sounds like a great idea.
You gonna start it up? and run it?
[signature]


Re: [tlspyder13] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - tlspyder13 - 10-12-2010

Deep breath everyone. Ice is still a few days away.
[signature]


Re: [tlspyder13] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - tlspyder13 - 10-12-2010

The Idaho board borrowed some ideas so I don't think they would mind if we borrow one of theirs. What would people think of the winner receiving some kind of little trophy or something and donating the entry money to a charity of some kind?
[signature]


Re: [FOD] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - Jacksonman - 10-12-2010

I prefer brown sugar just FYI.

Last I checked this was a post asking for ideas and changes and you come on and bash all the ideas and tell me not to join if I don't like it and that all the changes were just for me. So instead of attacking, how about you come onto a thread asking for ideas and actually share some ideas to make this tournament better. And if I don't join, who loves ice fishing, tries to gout at least once a week and usually is in the running until the end, who the heck will. An 8 person tournament with only 2 or 3 people posting fish would be a shame considering what this tournament could be.

My thoughts are that under the current format, there is only 2 to 4 fishermen every year competing to place while the other 30 that join stop posting fish. How fun would it be to have 20 or 30 anglers every year competing?. Under the current format, that just won't happen.

As much as I would enjoy a trout only tournament, I enjoy including a panfish or two. If bass and walleye (and maybe even a burbot or carp) could count as panfish, I wouldn't mind three.

I think the problem with the current format is twofold:
1) Musky, Pike and Macs are too big, or in other words, they dominate the competition. No matter the quality of other fish caught, a 36" musky and a 32" mac are going to blow all the other fish out of the water. And most fishermen don't have the money or the time or the desire to target these fish on their days off.
2) Amount of fishing - it is common sense that an angler who fishes three times as much as another is likely going to catch more and bigger fish. And the winners were fishing 2-4 times per week during most of the season.

The solutions I propose are very easy:
1) only 12 fishing days to catch fish for the tournament or one day per week. Before a trip, you post it on your tournament page. After the trip, you can post fish caught from that trip. I am least concerned about this rule change however as I know it is a little bit complicated and hard to enforce.

or

2) only one musky, mac or pike can count

or

3) a simple point system is created that allows for a huge panfish to count as much as a nice trout and a nice trout to count as much as a nice mac/pike/musky. An easy one would be to give panfish 1.5x the length, and trout/bass/walleye to count 1.25X the length. This would at least level the playing field somewhat.

But I do like the idea of allowing SMB/LMB/walleye to count as a panfish, allowing fish from other states to count and having the money go to charity of winners choice.
[signature]


Re: [Jacksonman] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - FOD - 10-13-2010

I was not bashing you buddy, just stating my opinions. Just like you. Just because I dont agree with you, does not mean that I am attacking you. I think we should do NO changes, that is my idea for this year. You want to change everything including how many days you have to fish. To me that is just plain(with lots of brown sugar added)"restricting". Again that is MY opinion. It may have nothing to do with you.

I have really nothing else to say about it. But if I do think of something I will chime back in.
Peace.
[Wink] [fishin]
[signature]


Re: [tlspyder13] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - 2fishon - 10-13-2010

I like the idea of having only one entry from the northern pike/tiger muskie/mackinaw group.
I wouldn't mind seeing the panfish group go to 2 species.
I would like to see the largest fish from each species get a bonus of some sort. Maybe a 2" bonus or something.
[signature]


Re: [FOD] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - Jacksonman - 10-13-2010

That was some high quality brown sugar. Having different a opinion is fine and encouraged, especially in a thread like this; but making assumptions about why I recommended changes and making some personal attacks wasn't so welcome.

It would be nice if a 26" tiger trout or cutt or brown, or 24" bow or 20" brook or bass, or 15" perch or crappie was somehow worth as much as a 32" mack or 36" musky. These are huge fish for there respective species, but someone could catch a 26" tiger trout, 26" cutt, 22" bow and 15" crappie and get beat by someone who catches a 30" mac and a 34" musky with an 18" bow, 11" crappie' 20" cutt, etc. But again, I prefer fishing for trout over musky and pike, and don't have as much time as I'd like to dedicate fishing trips for musky/pike (only could try one time last year).

I would like there to be some sort of equalizer by either limiting the amount of musky/pike/mack or creating a scale so that a trophy of each species are on an equal footing (a 26" cutt, bow, brown or tiger trout counting as much as a 36" musky or 32" mack).

I also like the idea of awarding 5-10 extra point for contestants with 5 species over 20" (if only one is a musky/pike/mack).
[signature]


Re: [tlspyder13] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - pookiebar - 10-13-2010

Just to pitch in my 2 cents I went with Jackson's suggestions because I thought they were good.

[#0000ff]1) Fish that count towards total:
2 panfish (perch, crappie, bluegill, etc.) - instead of 3
1 bass or walleye (LM,SM, white, walleye) - takes the place of the third panfish
5 of any species but only 1 can be musky, pike or mack.
Also, allow up to 2 of any of the other species to count, so one can have two cutts, and/or two tiger trout count towards their totals. Every year the winner catches a large mack and or pike/musky. SO even if anglers tear up with huge cutts, bows, tiger trout or browns, they are quickly surpassed by one large mack and pike/musky. Only allowing one of these bigger species would at least allow the hardcore trout ice fishermen to compete.


2) Open up fish caught in other states to the competition and invite anglers from other states to join. I don't see how opening up Idaho, Wyoming or Colorado could distract from the competition, but would and new waters, new species and some more fun. I know there could be a problem with cutt-bows but most are obvious depending on where they are caught and if it is difficult deciding, count it as a bow or a cutt, whatever it resembles more. I hate feeling that I have to stay in Utah to fish and I know many anglers feel the same way. I see nothing but positive from this change. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][#000000][/#000000][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][#000000]I like the above mentioned changes except I would add the following. [/#000000][/#0000ff]

[#0000ff][#000000]Bass, Walleye, Panfish or Wiper for the "3rd" pan fish place ( this promotes the Willard south entrance use and hopefully will keep it open in the future [smile])[/#000000][/#0000ff]

5 of any species needs to stay at 8 of any species but only 1 of those can be a musky/pike/mak.

We add a slot as "Biggest fish of the season" This biggest fish can be ANY species. Therefore you could have 2 cutts, 2 Tiger Trout, or 2 maks/pike/musky, or 1 of each of those etc. But the 2nd fish of that species/trifecta is your "Biggest fish of the season"
[#0000ff][#000000][/#000000][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][#000000]Just my thinking on it.[/#000000]


[/#0000ff]
[signature]


Re: [Jacksonman] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - FOD - 10-13-2010

Quote:
That was some high quality brown sugar. Having different a opinion is fine and encouraged, especially in a thread like this; but making assumptions about why I recommended changes and making some personal attacks wasn't so welcome.
I might need you to clarify how I attacked you. Also wondering what assumptions I made. Maybe a PM is better because this back and forth crap is probably annoying other members. I know it is annoying me. I just want to be clear on what and how I am doing anything wrong with my comments. Only thing I said that is even possibly considered an attack is the fact that I think your a pretty competitive guy. So am I. So am I attacking myself for admitting that? It is not even a negative quality in my opinion. I have a hard time believing that your going to understand what I am trying to say. You might actually be as stubborn as I am as well.....LOL[:p]
[signature]


Re: [FOD] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - Jacksonman - 10-14-2010

Dude its all good. No worries. It just came off to me that you were attacking my ideas as being just personally motivated and that I just shouldn't enter. But no harm no foul.

Let's keep the ideas coming. There have been some good ones. Hopefully we can get the full amount of people to enter and we have a close competition for several months.
[signature]


Re: [Jacksonman] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - kentofnsl - 10-15-2010

Only allowing one musky, pike or mack may not have the impact that is being desired. None of the winners this year had more than one large fish from these three species.
[signature]


Re: [tlspyder13] Ideas for the 2010 -2011 Contest - tmas - 10-16-2010

I don't really like the idea of only one of the pike/musky/mac group. the funnest part of the ice challenge to me was that i had to travel all over the state to target bigger fish of all different species. I've never fished so many waters in one season. If someone is going to enter a big fish of ANY of those species means they are putting in some serious time and dedication. Anyway, I hope the rules don't get all complicated with the 1.5x points for certain species and even more species regulations, i think that will deter more people away, including myself. Lets keep it simple and fun!

I'm not too fond of the trophy idea, save the money and put it somewhere else, I think a trophy is sorta pointless.
As for the rules, i guess what i'm saying is that i think we've got a pretty fair and fun system figured out let's make small tweaks to it if any.
I also think we should keep it local, let's fish Utah waters and keep it Utah fishermen. If we could travel between states I think the guys who could afford to travel even farther would be putting up some BIG fish, I know i've caught a ton of bigger fish in Id, Wy, and Co back when I was single and would make trips just for fish and it wouldn't be too fair to the guys who can't get away that far.
Can't wait to put up a fight again, i know i've never had so many suspensful days on the ice waiting to see if that next 'bow or perch might be 1/2 inch longer or if I could EVER get a big brown to bite haha!
[signature]