"classic" From Lake To Weigh-In

[senile1]

It is that time of year again when many of us are excited about the Bassmaster Classic.  The locations for all of the events prompted me to think about the distances involved in moving bass to the weigh-in and back to the lake for some of our tournaments. 

 

Oklahoma's travel guide states that Tulsa is 65 miles from Grand Lake o' the Cherokees.  According to information for the "Classic" the weigh-in will be at the BOK center in Tulsa.  I can't imagine that the distance involved in transporting these fish to the weigh-in is the most conducive for bass survival.  The information in the article below seems to indicate otherwise, however.  I was just curious what everyone else thought. 

 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/article.aspx?subjectid=25&articleid=20130217_25_BC12_CUTLIN401398

[PABASS]

While they expect a 100% survival rate I am not a biologist but in my mind that is lots of stress, but to expect 100% hopefully means they know what they are doing which from the article it does sound like they do.

[aharris]

yeah, I think with the livewells they have today, I honestly dont think the fish will have a problem. I just hope the roads arent icy bc that could make for an interesting ride back.

[J Francho]

Pros generally run their wells in recirc mode, and are treated with something like: http://www.sure-life.com/.

 

I use the Sure Life products, and they work. The main thing will be keeping the temperature somewhat consistent.

[buckeye12]

Didnt realize it was that far from the lake to the weigh-in. Wow! They seem pretty confident though. Shouldn't be a problem.

[wnybassman]

Really not much different than a one or two hour run from a fishing spot back to the ramp.  They do that all the time.

[gripnrip]

When they first announced the Classic was going to be in Tulsa, they had originally planned to take the anglers and fish to the BOK by helicopter.  I guess they scrapped this idea.

[Bluebasser86]

I think in every tournament you can expect to lose a few fish, it's just going to happen. Grand has hundreds of tournaments on it every year, including all through the summer months when it's toughest to keep fish alive, and it still continues to be one of the best bass lakes in Oklahoma. I'm sure they lose way more bass in all those tournaments than they will in the Classic over the 3 days.

The thing I'm really curious about is are they going to have someone checking the livewells at take out for dead fish? I'd be really upset if I got off the water and all my fish were alive and then get penalized for a dead fish after an hour and half drive. I would imagine that could start some serious controversy if the tournament is close like I expect it to be. 

Google maps shows the driving distance from Wolf Creek Ramp to the BOK Center in Tulsa to be 90.9 miles, that's a long haul with a livewell full of fish. 

[PondBoss]

I heard that at this classic there will be no penalty for dead fish due to the long drive to weigh in.

[jeb2]

I heard that at this classic there will be no penalty for dead fish due to the long drive to weigh in.

Wow. While I can understand that being a good thing from the competitors point of view, I can't imagine them suspending the rules because of a problem they themselves caused. Pick lakes closer to large convention centers!

[gripnrip]

That's totally unacceptable to me. Like bluebasser said I hope someone checks that they are alive before transporting. If one's dead before loading the boat then a penalty needs to be enforced.

[senile1]

Really not much different than a one or two hour run from a fishing spot back to the ramp.  They do that all the time.

 

In this case it is somewhat different.  The fish will be in the livewell for whatever amount of time it takes to get back to the ramp, plus the amount of time to remove the boat from the water, drive to Tulsa, and remove the fish for display.  Then you add the time to place the fish in the truck (or trucks) that will transport the fish back to the lake.  Those trucks won't leave until the weigh-in is completed.  I don't know how much time this will be but it will easily exceed two hours, and I suspect would be more in the neighborhood of 3 - 5 hours. 

[J Francho]

They could just as well catch and keep their legal limits.  Certainly this effort is better than that.

[senile1]

They could just as well catch and keep their legal limits.  Certainly this effort is better than that.

 

Any effort is better than automatically killing the fish.  The question in my mind is, "Is this effort good enough?"  Maybe it is.  I just would like to know the survival rate.  We all know that some fish die from any tournament and that is just a part of the sport, but, considering the distance involved here I think this is a valid question.  I'm sure someone involved in the event probably has a statistic indicating the expected survival rate of fish that are returned to the lake.  I would like to know what that expectation is.

 

If the survival rate is not what it should be, then I would say the Classic should be planned in a way and at a lake where the weigh-in can be as close as possible to the lake.  And in that case, having the Expo and weigh-in at Grove or Miami, OK might not support the crowds attending the event.  If that were the case Grand Lake would have to be ruled out as a "Classic" location because of the distance to a large enough arena.

[J Francho]

Bass have been transported alive as far as Hawaii, Africa, Australia, and Japan after being caught. They were transported west of the Mississippi in metal milk jugs via railway in the 1800's.  I think a couple hours in holding tank, and then a truck designed for carrying fish will be fine.

[BasskingKeith]

Bass have been transported alive as far as Hawaii, Africa, Australia, and Japan after being caught. They were transported west of the Mississippi in metal milk jugs via railway in the 1800's.  I think a couple hours in holding tank, and then a truck designed for carrying fish will be fine.

Sweet historical facts.

[senile1]

Bass have been transported alive as far as Hawaii, Africa, Australia, and Japan after being caught. They were transported west of the Mississippi in metal milk jugs via railway in the 1800's.  I think a couple hours in holding tank, and then a truck designed for carrying fish will be fine.

I have read about this, but to me, these are anecdotal facts, not scientific facts.  To be scientific, the percentage of fish that died in the transports noted above should be included as well.  To just say that fish have been transported and survived does not answer the question.

 

Everyone has a right to his or her opinion.  I just want to know what the expected rate of survival is, and again, I think that is a valid question.  Some of you may accept any rate of survival while others may expect a more stringent requirement. 

[J Francho]

The expectation is 100% - it was in the article. What "statistic" are looking for?  The event hasn't happened yet, so there's nothing to measure.  If it the losses are great, I'm sure they will reevaluate their processes.  That's how processes are improved.

[SPEEDBEAD.]

I say donate the fish to a local homeless shelter.

[jeb2]

The expectation is 100% - it was in the article. What "statistic" are looking for?  The event hasn't happened yet, so there's nothing to measure.  If it the losses are great, I'm sure they will reevaluate their processes.  That's how processes are improved.

You'd hope. But what bothers me the most, if it's true, is them waving the dead fish penalty. That should be enforced no matter what the outcome is.

[J Francho]

I am on the fence with that.  I get the idea of a dead fish penalty, and without it, smaller circuits and clubs will just have guys going back to buckets or stringers.  Another part of me gets irritated when something completely out of my control results in a dead fish.  Things like a tongue hooking, or a big smallie killing s smaller largemouth in a mixed bag.  It's as if we're not just testing the best fishermen, but also the best livewellers.  I know, it's part of being a steward of the water, and holding yourself to a higher standard.  Just bugs me that I could have legally chucked them all in a bucket, but at least tried to keep them alive, and still get a penalty.

[senile1]

The expectation is 100% - it was in the article. What "statistic" are looking for?  The event hasn't happened yet, so there's nothing to measure.  If it the losses are great, I'm sure they will reevaluate their processes.  That's how processes are improved.

 

That settles it, then.  One guy in the article I posted says that 100 percent will survive the return to the lake. I see no reason for anyone to seek more information to support that statement. 

 

 

 

You'd hope. But what bothers me the most, if it's true, is them waving the dead fish penalty. That should be enforced no matter what the outcome is.

 

That is an excellent question.  I have never really concerned myself with the distances or methods involved in protecting the resource before because I was never aware of anything like the distance factor where Tulsa and Grand Lake are concerned.  In most cases, I think the chemicals used and the temperature control in the livewells is more than enough to protect the fish.  In this case, however, an angler could do everything in his power to keep the fish alive and, possibly through factors he can't control, the fish could still end up dead at the podium. 

[J Francho]

That settles it, then.  One guy in the article I posted says that 100

percent will survive the return to the lake. I see no reason for anyone

to seek more information to support that statement.

 

Well, maybe they will consult a psychic.  There's nothing you can do except wait for the results.  The expectation is 100%.  That's their stated target.  I'm sure they have a "real" expectation.  I think the average stated survival rate is around 90%, so that would be a good pass/fail benchmark.  But outside of that, what information could you possibly be provided?  The event hasn't happened yet.  I guess I'm struggling to understand what special magic bullet of info you are looking for.  They have aerated, sometimes oxygen injected live-wells.  There are chemicals like Sure Life that help reduce stress on the fish.  There is a recuperating tank.  There are trucks with fish hauling tanks.  I can't think of anything else you could want, or anything else they could do?

 

Or maybe you're simply against this type of tournament altogether, and are using this as a sticking point?

[J Francho]

That sounds snotty, sorry about that.  I really don't think it's as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be.  Certainly not as big a deal as the losses on Falcon a couple years ago.  They were totally unprepared, and that was disgraceful.

[jeb2]

I am on the fence with that.  I get the idea of a dead fish penalty, and without it, smaller circuits and clubs will just have guys going back to buckets or stringers.  Another part of me gets irritated when something completely out of my control results in a dead fish. 

 

I understand. But from my point of view, if the pros get hammered with the penalties, that'll be another voice for a change to this kind of long haul to the venue format. If they are actually suspending the penalty, it also tells me they are expecting a lot of loss, despite whatever they may be saying publically.