Tournament Series Part 2: Mouths Open vs. Mouths Closed

The second stop in the Tournament Trail Series takes us to a place where tournaments across the country cannot seem to agree:  Mouth open or mouth closed?

This bump-board issue has valid arguments on both sides.  Let's take a look at each position, along with some gray areas in-between to clarify the argument.

Methods and Arguments for Mouths Open:

Methods
1. Bottom line of a "mouths open" tournament: Maximize the length of the fish.  This means you can open your fish's mouth, thus extending its lower jaw to meet the bump board. Some may even try to open the fish's mouth wider than its natural position to gain extra inches.  Other anglers will use fish grips, which do not allow the fish's mouth to close completely, but would still be considered "mouths open."  I have not personally witnessed, but have heard that some tournament trails even allow anglers to put rubber bands around the fish, securing it flat on the board as they snap a photo to gain more length. Finally, pinching its tail might give you an extra quarter of an inch.

Arguments For
1. By doing this, you are taking all subjectivity out of the equation.  The fish is as long as it can possibly be.  Period.  It is the easiest way to run a tournament as it takes all judgement calls out of the tournament director's hands.
2.  By taking subjectivity out of the equation, it takes out any possibility of legal repercussions for the tournament trail.  For example, if one angler placed second with their mouths closed, but another angler won who had their mouths open, thus adding length to a fish, a question of validity could be raised.

Arguments Against
1.  When many people hear about a "mouths open" tournament, they think of the well-being of the fish.  Some anglers go out of their way to open the jaws of fish too much as they try to maximize the length of the fish back farther on the board, possibly causing harm.  Some anglers even put rubber bands around the fish in order to push down its body, thus straightening it out.
2. Others may keep the fish out the the water far too long as they try to snap the picture of the fish with its mouth open.

3. When talking about a smallmouth/largemouth/spotted bass tournament, a largemouth bass will always have a distinct advantage in a "mouths open" tournament.

You can see in this photo, that I have the mouth of the largemouth bass wide open.  This added about 1/4 inch to the fish's length.  Is it an unfair advantage?  Is it an ethical tournament practice?

Methods and Arguments for Mouths Closed


Methods
Place the fish on the bump board and force its mouth to shut.  Sometimes, you may have to manually close the fish's mouth and keep slight pressure forward to keep it from opening back up on the board as you take the picture. 


Arguments For
1. You take the advantage of catching various species of black bass out of the equation.  This essentially means that whether you catch a smallmouth, or a largemouth bass, you will not gain any advantage.
2. By not stressing the fish by manipulating it on the bump board, the mortality rate of fish and harmful effects of the catch, photo, and release will hopefully be minimized.

Arguments Against
1.  What does "mouths closed" mean?  Does that mean completely closed?  Does it mean the width of your thumb or a coin can still be open?  Who interprets this decision, and how do they come to this conclusion?
2. Pushing the fish and forcing its mouth shut is still unnatural and stressing to the fish as well, thus invalidating the previous argument "for" closing the mouth.
3. The negative impact of the subjectivity of a "mouths closed" tournament is a threat tournament directors will either accept or steer far away from.  The effects could surely be devastating, especially as more and more tournaments grow and have larger payouts on the line.

Notice how this smallmouth bass' mouth is completely shut and pushed up against the bump board.  It was certainly easier to ensure its mouth was shut, but it was still stressing the fish as you can see from its flared gills.  What is the best solution?

Possible Solutions
1. The first solution in tournaments could be "natural lay."  "Natural lay" can mean two things:
 a.  The fish is "free" and  completely left alone on the bump board.  This means that no hand contact can be made and however the fish's mouth and tail lay on the board is how they will be measured.
        

This is the free "natural lay" method described above and is the least invasive of all methods to measure a fish.  However, the fish tend to flop, and thus can harm themselves or you while in the kayak.  Also the fish can easily be lost using this method.

b. The fish can be measured "natural lay" but one hand can be placed behind the gill plate, as to not effect the fish's jaw in any way.

This fish's mouth was actually shut during the "natural lay" method.  Being able to secure the fish on the board is essential in a tournament situation. However, in this photo my hand was touching the gill plate.  Possibly hand behind the jaw-hinge would be a better option.

In conclusion, there are arguments for and against "Mouths Open" and "Mouths Closed."  Please share your thoughts, solutions, and your club interpretations of this controversial CPR issue in kayak tournament fishing.

Tight lines and be safe-

Aaron Stiger

Tournament Series Part 1: Should 100% Payout Continue to be the Golden Standard in Kayak Fishing Tournaments?

Walking outside on a cool September morning and being greeted by a a deep breath of the mist-filled air, I approached this morning differently than I had so many times in recent weeks.  This weekend, I decided to take a tournament off, and spend the day relaxing, watching Ohio State play on the television.  As my fellow anglers were competing on the water, I couldn't help but contemplate the various reasons fishermen participate in a tournament setting.  Some fish for the glory, others the camaraderie.  One explanation continued to invade my thoughts, however, and this was about the money.

It is undeniable that some anglers choose to do kayak fishing tournaments for the money.  As a seasoned tournament-fisherman myself, I understand the potential benefits and certain pressures of a large-scale competition.  In the past, I have collected my $200 in cash, along with a small token of a trophy, loaded up my kayak, and went home happy.  The fact is, while the general population of anglers benefit monetarily or tangibly from tournaments, many tournament directors find themselves burnt out, tired, and jaded about the great sport of kayak fishing after only a few years of running a successful trail.  Unfortunately, many receive nothing but an "atta boy" and pat on the back from fellow anglers, while those anglers walk home with a wad of cash in their pockets and a brand new spinning rod they won for "Big Fish."

In the past few years 100% payout tournaments have become the golden standard.  After talking with tournament directors across the country, it is interesting to see the differing perspectives on this practice.  Some tournament directors feel 100% payout is a necessary practice to drive attendance at events through advertisement of enormous payouts.  Other tournament directors believe 100% is an expectation of the tournament anglers, and therefore doing otherwise would push people away as they would not know, or simply not believe, that their money would be going to good use otherwise.  Other tournament directors oppose 100% payout vehemently due to the fact that they are paying for many of the conveniences anglers take for granted at a local tournament.  From permits, to insurance, from cookouts, to trophies, trade shows to live scoring software, many of these items cost tournament directors out of pocket if sponsors are unable to be found or unwilling to give up cash to an unknown fishing trail. 

It is noble and an obvious notion to say that someone who puts in dozens of hours per week for free should not have to actually pay to run tournaments.  However, in reality, that is what ends up happening to many fishermen who decide to take on a tournament trail to give back to the angling community.

So, my question is-  what is the solution to this issue?  Is it better sponsorship?  Could it be only 75% payout?  What about membership fees to cover costs?  I am afraid that if we continue the practice of 100% payouts, the kayak fishing community will have a eclectic patchwork of poorly-run local tournament trails sometime in the future- possibly sooner than later. 

Feel free to share your thoughts, opinions, and solutions to this issue!

Tight lines and be safe,

Aaron Stiger