Catch Tounament Results??

[FishinMagician]

Cowsrfuny - 3/17/2008 10:19 AM
I along with CATCHMAN (our TX director) made the call that the fish was a spot instead of a smallmouth. The stinking thing had a tooth patch and it was very distinguishable. We took pictures of it so there would be no question that it was there. The state is in the middle and there is no easy solution. However, momma says that if it looks like a duck it is a duck. That fish had all the markings of a smallmouth. To see a green spot that was over five lbs was awesome too. .

This is unbelievable!! You say that the fish that won the $5,000 for biggest spot over 3 lbs. looked like a smallmouth but had a toothpatch. Less than 1% of smallmouth have an actual toothpatch. Nearly every smallmouth has a discolored raised up area that everyone is assuming is a tooth patch. It is not even close to what a tooth patch looks like on a true spot. If the fish that had won the $5,000 had not been 18" long and a game warden had caught you with it you would have been fined.

 

[FishinMagician]

Someone from this tournament needs to call me and explain to me why a smallmouth won the biggest spot over 3lbs. in your tournament because I am having a hard time understanding how and why someone could let this happen. Chris Coleman

 

[WHATASPOT]

It is simple. They read this forum too much. toothpatch = spot. I think this is the easy way out. The biologists of all people should know better. There is a picture on TWRA itself that has a largemouth and in the bottom right hand corner it says, "tooth patch rare". This sounds to me like even a largemouth can have a tooth patch. Maybe that fish was a largemouth? I didn't see the fish, so I don't know.

Maybe it is time to have a fourth black bass species "hybrid black bass".

Or maybe it is time to go back to just one big fish pot!!!

 

[fisherpal2k]

Whataspot and Fishinmagician, I do not think that the Catch results would have been altered in any way form or fashion. It was ran by the book. In case you have not heard or read it. It plainly states in the new rules set forth by the TWRA that "any black bass with a tooth patch is to be considered a spot". </p>

 Whataspot, as far as reading the forum and getting bad ideas from it, that is totally up to the person involved. How you interpret the rules may be different than how someone else thinks it should be or could have been. Its in the new rules and regulation booklet for all to see.</p>

 The TWRA may have made a mistake in the way that they have set this forth. If that is the case, please give them time to work it out before burying the hatchet in someone. </p>

 This is a subject that can be discussed intelligently and can be used as a tool for upcoming reference to this subject. Please do not foul it up by making rash remarks or casting critcisms either way.</p>

 After all we have <u>ALL</u> made mistakes.Some we have tried to eliminate and some we try to hide. But the best way is to try to work this out together and show our support for the TWRA and its findings. I am sure that this will be brought up again and again so please be patient and lets see what happens.</p>

 

[Guest]

Fishinmagician, we, the catch ministry board discussed this issue.By twra rules it plainly stated that any black bass with a tooth patch will be considered a spotted bass.We,as a group,came together and said we will follow the book on this.Not everyone agrees with the law that twra has put into place.Everyone at the pre-tx meeting new this.If there are any issues,then twra needs to be contacted.I hope you and everyone else enjoyed the tx.Hope to everyone next year.

 

[WHATASPOT]

fisher, sorry man. You could be right. Actually, I would like to know for sure exactly the difference in last year's fishing regulations vs. this year's specifically pertaining to black bass identification in Tennessee. Does someone know off the top of their head? I guess I'm too ignorant or lazy to look it up myself. HA

I guess I haven't actually made any friends since I have had my first post removed and already ticked you off here.

I have caught "smallmouth" in the past with a distinctive tooth patch. I have caught a few "largemouth" with same. I put them in quotes because if what I am hearing is true, maybe I have caught more spots than I thought. I can understand how it may be difficult to tell a largemouth from a spot, but dog gone a smallmouth looks a lot different than either if you ask me. Now there is that true hybrid "meanmouth" which probably should not be considered either. I've caught a few of those, too.

 

[Guest]

FISHEROFMEN, TWRA has been contacted. Matt Majors, Greg Atchley, Bill Reeves. THEY ALL SAID THIS FISH IF BROWN (AND IT WAS)WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A TICKET IF UNDER 18 INCHES> SO, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU IF WE WERE GOING ON STATE GUIDELINES.? I CAN ANSWER IF YOU CANT $5,000.00 DOLLARS. YOU SHOULD OF HAD A TWRA OFFICIAL PRESENT AT WEIGH IN TIME.

 

[dec1]

TWRA needs to fix this REAL bad. There's going to be alot of brown 12+ inch spots weighed in this year. Thanks Bprice, I found my answer.

 

[Bprice]

DEC1,</p>

Here is what the regs say...</p>

 

[WHATASPOT]

If I were the TWRA I would change this:

http://www.tnfish.org/FishIdentificationID_TWRA/TWRA_BlackBass_Identification_Key.htm

No need for the "rarely has tooth patch on tongue" for the largemouth and "Usually has a tooth patch on tongue" for the spot.

 

[fisherpal2k]

Gentlemen, again I ask that you please refrain from taking aim at those of the tourny and those of the TWRA.  I sure do hate to see another post locked on here. I have been on here a long time compared to a few on here. there has only been three posts locked in the last two years. Lets keep it clean and try to enjoy the site without starting a bashing match about what should or should not be done. </p>

 The directors called it by the book and it stands. </p>

 The TWRA knows what is going on and I am sure are having second thoughts about it. Let a dead dog lie and lets move on.</p>

 

[Guest]

Bprice, I agree with what you said. I have read that and was told by TWRA that it is only one of the factors in a spot. I have said it once and I will say it again TWRA has more than that guideline on deternining a spot.

Fisher, I dont think I have bashed TWRA once,why would I they are with me on this! I am just saying one of the state guidelines were followed to call the brown fish a spot, not all of them. AND THATS A FACT.

 

[FishinMagician]

Bprice - 3/19/2008 1:54 PM



DEC1,</p>

Here is what the regs say...</p>

This is what I am talking about. The rule does not say that any Black Bass with a toothpatch IS to be considered a Spotted Bass. It says that any Black Bass with a toothpatch to be considered a Spotted Bass that there is a five fish creel limit and no lenght limit. Everyone has been misinterpreting this rule. There is also an identifying chart in TWRA's rules and regulations that shows the other identifying characteristics of each of these species. This is what every game warden that I have talked with will be going by.

 

[FishinMagician]

Is any one catching my point look at the regulation that BPrice posted above. It does not state that every black bass with a tooth patch is a spot. Never was the word "IS" used in this regulation. All that this regulation states is that if a fish that is considered to be a a spot with a toothpatch that there is a five fish creel limit with no length limit. How hard is this for yall to understand. Never does it say that every fish with a toothpatch is a spot.

 

[Buoy-Master]

I can see what they are saying. Its not that big of a deal to me being I struggle to get a 3 lb Spot anyways..LOL! Ok...bad joke here...just trying to break the flow a bit. </p>

They "could have" worded that alttle better in the book though..

</p>

Since some are getting a bit ill over all this, I think its time to bring this thread to an end. Im sure we've all learned a thing or two. </p>

Catch , thanks for the results ! </p>

Tight Lines Anglers!</p>