Thoughts on MN/WI, Savik, Lindner

I’m not real sure why we haven’t already commented on Al Lindner’s open letter about tourney rules (first published on BassFan, and not directly about the whole WI/MN/Savik thing), but here are a few thoughts prompted by Al’s letter and the Karen Savik debacle.

[Did you read it? If not, it’s below.]

To me, the bottom line is this:

> The rule(s) at question in the whole Savik debacle are stupid. Culling is not a bad thing biologically and bass anglers take care of their fish better than anyone, even trout fishermen. The states should change the stupid rules, which are clearly doing more harm than good. A few fish here and there aren’t important compared to a person’s reputation. They are fish, for crying out loud, and last I checked they don’t have a hard time reproducing in MN.

> A LOT of people fish, including tourneys, in Minnesota. For there to be such a rule in a state that should be sophisticated about tourneys is nuts. Plus lots of people do cull up there, maybe everyone: Culling outside of the boat (so a fish is not “in possession”) is still culling.

> If you want to DQ one person for culling and you are a tourney organization, polygraph the next 10 people in line and then maybe some random folks from elsewhere in the field. Otherwise forget it.

> Totally agree with Al’s philosophy of only having rules you can enforce, and always enforcing them (zero tolerance). I happen to think BASS’s complete transparency about rule violations is the way to go.

> As fishermen, allow tourney directors to make calls with a little bit of leeway. For example, the unengaged killswitch example below. The TD’s like a referee on the field. You may not agree, but hey, it’s his field.

> Last but not least, if you think a rule sucks, try to get it changed – maybe through the PAA.

Al Lindner’s Open Letter

Since time immemorial, there have always been some folks who live by the spirit of the law, and others who live strictly by the letter. From the very onset of competitive tournament fishing, even in those events that only paid in bragging rights, there were problems – not to mention those events where there was a monetary payoff. Early on, the necessity of dealing with that sticky thing called human nature immediately became apparent. Thus, the necessity of rules and regulations.

Today, however, “our” sport, just like football, cycling, baseball, and other competitions, must deal with new realities. New realities that demand continuing adjustments of the rules, regulations and the ways we conduct tournaments.

During the years of 1990–98 when Ron and I ran the Professional Walleye Trail (PWT) along with our tournament-director team of Mark Dorn and Jim Kalkofen, we made the decision that we would try not to make any rules or regulations that were unenforceable, arbitrary, extremely difficult to obey, downright impracticable or silly. On the other hand, trying to depend on some kind of ill-defined sportsman’s ethic simply wouldn’t work. We already knew that.

So we decided to try to live by the rules, and once a rule is made, try to make sure we enforce it. We even discussed, but didn’t adapt, the concept of zero tolerance. In other words, no excuses – period! Break a rule, and it’s a DQ. Looking back, perhaps we should have done so. Today I know I would have.

Experience shows that there’s always someone, in someway, trying to gain “a leg up” over the rest of the competition. These are actions that go beyond what’s been previously agreed upon in order to keep a level playing field.

Advanced sonar and mapping technology, new lures, special lines and the like usually don’t fall into this category. In fact, today these items and their use are usually part of the game. So limiting or banning certain forms of equipment is seldom of major concern anymore. Instead, it’s the formation, interpretation, implementation and enforcement of the rules where things have the potential to go awry.

Regardless of the rule or regulation, most all dictums are basically there A) for safety, B) for adherence and compliance with local and state ordinances, C) to try to keep the playing field as level as possible, D) to keep the game moving in an orderly manner, E) for protection from lawsuits, and F) to keep cheating or unfair advantage out of the game.

Today, as a sport, we’re faced with an array of things to deal with that we never imagined 50, 40, 30, even 20 years ago: A) slot limits, B) no-culling rules, C) space-age methods of illegally storing fish, D) on-the-spot, real-time inside information. Let me give you a simple example of how this last item can be used wrongly.

Lake Mille Lacs in Minnesota hosts a number of walleye tournaments every year. Many of these are partner events, yet can pay good 1st-place money. It’s also a lake with tough slot limits. The trick is to get two “overs” (big slot fish) and four “unders” (smaller slot fish) each day. Never an easy game. Most times if you get the overs, it’s a struggle to get the unders, or vice versa. This lake’s also heavily used by guides all year long who potentially can fish in every one of its 132,000 acres.

In our example, let’s assume it’s the last day of a 3-day event, and that you and your partner are contenders. You have your two overs, yet need some unders to fill out your limit and are having a hard time finding them. (This is quite common.) It’s possible for a guide buddy or “team” buddy, who you split the winnings with, to simply text you with the exact coordinates of the tip of a mud flat where they’re currently fishing a school of the right-sized slot fish, where the fish are biting right now. Solutions like CRR (catch, record, release) can’t erase this kind of problem.

The potential for sticklers of this kind and more should be obvious. It can also be extrapolated to bass or redfish tourneys, or any other events. It can even apply to top pro tours where deterrents like a co-angler, observer or cameraman can be right there in the boat, yet might never realize what’s going on, because of the way modern technology can be manipulated.

I also can remember one tourney where I had an observer. At one juncture, when going from one spot to another, I forgot to replace my kill-switch loop. My observer never saw it, yet I was technically in violation. If I were to win the event and had to take a lie-detector test – well, you do the math. These things happen, and many more just like them.

Today, prizes of $20,000, $50,000 or $100,000 aren’t rare, and half-million-dollar payouts can tempt a lot of folks to bend or break the rules. Yet because of costs, polygraph tests obviously can’t be given in all levels of all events. But the big ones – those with big payoffs, perhaps – must start to seriously consider this very strong additional line of defense.

Yes, co-anglers, observers and cameramen can and do help keep competitors honest. But these deterrents, by themselves, can never know what happened before the cutoff period, during pre-practice or during some other deviation of the rules.

Recently, my son Troy and his partner Bill Siemantel won an American Bass
championship on Clear Lake in California, and had to take a polygraph. In certain events, this is simply mandatory in order to take the win. Over the years, my brother Ron and nephew and co-host James have all taken polygraphs. While not fun, most are not too difficult if you’re simply honest and didn’t break any rules.

Today, the FLW circuit (both bass and walleye) has a mandatory on-the-spot polygraph at all events. So does the PAA. As far as I know, BASS and WON to date do not. Nor do AIM or MWC (the other major walleye circuits) require a polygraph to take a win.

Certain big one-time events like the KBI and FFBC in Canada also demand one, and certainly there are others that do as well. But by and large, because of costs ($500 per session is common), most tournament circuits, especially those of limited size, don’t and cannot be expected to do so. If there are no protests or pressing post-tourney questions, most events require no further form of validation, other than personal honor.

If they do require a polygraph, it usually works like this: The winner and a random pick out of the Top 10 finishers are probed. Also, if a protest was made or something questionable happened, that too might be examined. On the other hand, one wonders if the recent Mike Hart scandal with WON, out west, would have been avoided if Mike had just thought he might have to face a polygraph. Or, in another case, if the “don’t ask, don’t tell” unwritten rule on culling in some Wisconsin events had to face a lie test prior to a tournament payout, might that affect the outcome?

I believe a test or even the threat of one would cure a lot of abuse. For those circuits where cost is a big factor, maybe surprise polygraphs even once in a while, as an implied threat, can be enough to at least help keep things straight.

Today, on the pro walleye side, you have a lot of “teaming” – primarily because of economic considerations. Although teaming occurs to a lesser extent in bass and redfish tourneys, it’s becoming nonetheless more and more prevalent.

Teaming’s a practice where numbers of individuals or two-man teams get together and share information, fishing patterns and locations, lures and methods, and sometimes even purse money. In one form or another, some of this is relatively benign, especially in the pre-practice phase. Where it becomes lethal is when the money’s split, due to tournament-day insider “stuff.”

When you combine teaming with GPS positioning, precise contour maps and texting abilities, you have a potential noxious brew for ill. Contestants that do not make a 20-, 10-, or 5-cut, but were on some number of fish during the competition, can give exact spots to teammates. This, along with other practices like hole-sitting and planting or altering structure in advance, as well as a host of other activities, are things that only a polygraph can help deter.

Mark Fisher, director of field promotions for Rapala, personally told me that on more than one occasion he’s sat down and told his pro staff that he strongly disapproves of full-fledged teaming. Other big-time sponsor companies I’ve spoken with have voiced like sentiments.

To sum up, with all these factors, and indeed more in play, it’s probably time that we as a sport take a long hard look at the way we’re doing things. Remember, too, that a polygraph is only as good as the quality of the questions asked and the clarity of the rules it’s meant to enforce. Therefore, the rules must try to get rid of most ambiguities, especially those rules that pertain to information gathering.

So we need to recognize the new realities and decide what we are willing to accept or reject in terms of new technology, and the regulations to govern their use. Today, many tourneys allow the sharing of information if it’s in the public domain. Offhand, I can think of two ways this rule can be subverted to a personal advantage, yet still possibly pass a lie-detector test. I’ll bet others can come up with additional ways as well.

In the end, effective deterrents and mandatory enforcement are critical to the future growth and success of tournament fishing. If practices like full-fledged teaming and all that goes with it are acceptable or impossible to regulate, simply say so. If not, then perhaps a polygraph might be a primary big step to control things, and a zero-tolerance stance the only way to go.

The same can be said for all rules and regulations. Don’t be ambiguous or have some sort of don’t ask, don’t tell system anywhere in place. Yet make such rules without overly punishing innocent, common mistakes like unzipped lifejackets and forgotten kill-switch links, which may need to be addressed differently. Mistakes are one thing, intent is quite another, and a sharp distinction must be made between them.

To close, in the 47 years I’ve been fishing tournaments, I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I’ve found that to “say what you mean” and “mean what you say” is still the best practice to employ, and makes for the best-run events.



  1. Tom

    November 9, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    There seems to be confusion in these “No Cull” posts.

    Wisconsin has the “No Culling” law. MN has a 6 bass possession limit, and culling is allowed until you put that 6th fish in the livewell. The controversial WI regulations are spelled out here:

  2. AlexV

    November 9, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    The Wisconsin DNR are hardcore. Grandpa, veteran, 64, fishing with his grandson., makes a cast for him and BIIINGO!! Here is your $265 ticket (and confiscation of the Mickey Pole)….. Oh they’ll take your tourist dollars no problem, but heaven forbid they embrace the people that care FAR more about a resource than the people that live right there……

  3. BryanT

    November 9, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Aw jeeze not this crap again. Culling is dumb, that is it. It has no impact on the fishery or resource. WI will repeal this law before I am 35. I don’t how I’m getting it done yet, but I will. I think a well distributed survey and petition can at least get put in from the Madison house. We’ll see after that.

  4. chris

    November 9, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    the issue at hand isn’t whether or not culling is good or bad, rather, did she break the rules. apparently she has already admitted to culling through her interview. if the tournament rules state anywhere that all local and state regulations must be obeyed, and culling is illegal where she fished, then she broke the rules.

  5. BryanT

    November 9, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Like Jay said though. Run that poly down the line and see where it stands. She made a mix of words that cost her. It just sucks.

  6. Buzz

    November 10, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Look, I don’t know what a Blog really is suppose to be. Maybe it’s like Talk Radio except in writing and posted on a Website. And like Talk Radio it lets the blogger express opinions that sound good in “sound bite’s” . Often conventional wisdom, that sounds like a new revelation when spoken on the radio.

    So, let me give it a shot on the Culling thing. We tend to think its a dumb rule. And we seem to think that if more then a few break the rule, then everyone should get a free pass. No harm, No foul. But we all live by rules that differ slightly form State to State. Bag limits is the most common. And we all know that bag limits really don’t do much from a fish management perspective. The only time they really come into play is when someone really gets carried away and takes home 100-200 fish over the limit.

    Why am I picking on Bag Limits? It’s because they really don’t fit every single lake in a State. Some lakes have a zillion Sunfish, but the bag limit is the same for all the lakes (unless a special regulation applies). So, should someone who over harvests, get a free pass – because the rule doesn’t make sense? Maybe on some other Planet, but here in the US we operate differently ( notice how I got some flag waving in my post?).

    And all these big fishing mucky mucks who make Open Letter pronouncements, when was the last time anyone saw you at a State legislature working on a rule change? Some folks think its a snap, just get a petition and run it down to the Capitol and wallah’ the rule gets changed (again on that other Planet).

    Wow, this blogging thing is great. I’ve just fixed the world. Karen, what you did – was what most other anglers do in every tournament. And you broke the “don’t advertise it rule”; didn’t they teach you the secret conspiracy of silence handshake? But look, it may turn out that your case will be the perfect storm to get the rule changed. WI has a new Governor who has gone on record about the WI DNR being heavy handed. Maybe with a ton of effort, the WI anglers who have been trying to overturn the No Culling rule for years can finally make some progress. Lets just hope that when they try, all these letter writers, bloggers and outdoors media types will be there to give support and encouragement.

    Oh, did I mention that there seems to be a lack of comment on the ABA dumping the MN/WI Bassmasters Weekend Series events in 2011. They announced the dates and locations at their last tournament in Winona MN, but guess what? Now its disappeared from the schedule. Talk about coincidence?

    • Tournament FISHERMAN

      November 11, 2010 at 7:30 pm

      I’ve read lots of comments on other sites, most all say ABA is the worst run tournaments they ever fished. They say BASS should take it back over. They can’t believe ABA told everyone they must cull and then DQ their angler for following their rules. They say alot more too, look at the Texas forum, or Dock talk culling conondrom, Most say they wouldn’t fish ABA after what they pulled.

  7. BryanT

    November 10, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Buzz you are absolutely correct that is why I am working with local state house rep to get this drawn up. Fortunately we have a new governor coming in that has a more de-regulatory stance and believes in bringing in innovation and education back to the outdoors. Once Walker is signed we have a chance. I do believe the house is still liberal controlled so we will see. Hopefully we can get more studies done if the law is not repealed. Because at this point with more studies and a conservative appointed DNR we do stand a much better chance at culling getting repealed over the regulatory Jim Doyle days and DNR. We as tournament fisherman should come together as a single voice, and our facts and get this going.

  8. Tournament FISHERMAN

    November 11, 2010 at 12:28 am

    If,Tom is right about MN. law “6 fish limit” then karen shouldn’t have gotten a ticket. Never having 6 fish in the well. But i don’t know if that’s the law or not. I’ve heard 6 fish, party boat 10 fish, most of MN is cull with two small areas no cull etc. ABA got three different answers they said, karen called the dnr and was told it was ok in MN. So there is alot of confusion. But ABA said you must cull at the tournament meeting. Karen was DQ’ed for following ABA rules. If you can be DQ’ed for following the tournament rules in ABA, what a joke. I have fished most every trail there is in 30 years. Never have i heard of a trail DQ’ing a fisherman for following there rules. NEVER! Every guy in this tournament should be outraged and should have backed karen, and questioned ABA’s ethics and how they run a tournament. Not talking the responsibility for their mistake and then DQ’ing their anglers for ABA’s negligence. OH BUZZ i don’t know anyone who heard Karen ever brag about culling, i was there, i did hear alot of my friends brag about culling threw as many as 50 fish that tournament. ABA asked the questions about culling at the post interview of Karen and Howie, they both said they culled in the interview. Why did ABA ask that question, they thought it was legal that’s why. Just like Karen and Howie and everyone else there. WHY didn’t ABA polygraphed the top ten or ask the CO’s of the top ten if they wanted the truth. Oh I forgot ABA told everyone to CULL.

  9. Tournament FISHERMAN

    November 11, 2010 at 12:45 am

    It was great to read Linders remarks, it’s sure easy to know those Gentlemen have been around and know the reality of most everything in fishing. They have my total respect. Also BASSFAN.COM. DOCK TALK, Culling conondrum,did a interview with Karen. More great reading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Gitcha Bassin' Fix

To Top