632 largemouth

  • Buzz
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts: 1814
    #1215502

    Can someone explain where or how the 632 figure was arrived at? The article talks about 99 reference fish, 34 at weigh-in and 39 on shoreline.

    Jeremiah Shaver
    La Crosse, WI
    Posts: 4941
    #380032

    According to the data in front of me…

    There was a control pen of 132 bass, 99 of which died.

    There were X number of pens containing 953 bass, of which 532 died.

    532+99 = 631….

    I found an error on Pen #4 of their data. They’ve got 59 LMB dead + 8 SMB dead equaling 68. It’s actually 67. But with their math error it equals out to 632.
    Just another example of how sloppy this was done.

    scottsteil
    Central MN
    Posts: 3817
    #380034

    I read the entire Study, that was the biggest piece of garbage I have ever read. That study will get zero credibility and the only thing will come of it is to make the locals mad that do not understand anything. I am suprised any of the fish lived.

    duckilr
    Mississippi River
    Posts: 997
    #380037

    Anyone have a link to the study? Or the article?

    blue-fleck
    Dresbach, MN
    Posts: 7872
    #380051

    I can all but guarantee you not see an article pointing out how poorly this study was conducted.

    glenn-walker
    Shakopee, MN
    Posts: 858
    #380074

    Just wondering if anyone has contacted FLW outdoors about this article? A press release from them to the paper, might be a good idea.

    grubby
    Fennimore Wisconsin
    Posts: 12
    #380098

    I called the tournement director yesterday and they were fully aware of the findings, and the artical. He told me that they were waiting for the DNR to comment and that they had a written release but was not sure when or where they would post. I beleive he quoted 13 dead fish from the actual tournement, 9 that were weighed in and 4 more on the release boat, all of which were donated to a nursing home? I expressed my concern that the FLW needed to do something. Sounded like it was a political issue to me.

    SLee
    Crystal,MN
    Posts: 168
    #380163

    LL they have to point out is that 75% of the bass in the control group died. I think that says it all!

    brovarney
    Posts: 662
    #380189

    Scott, so what your saying is that if the DNR wanted to widen the gap between the Tourney guys and the non tourney guys and gain support for their no culling stance then the study was a complete success.

    duckilr
    Mississippi River
    Posts: 997
    #380196

    Welcome Grubby!! Have you or anyone contacted the DNR to see when they will be releasing a statement?

    heitda
    Eau Claire, WI
    Posts: 272
    #380226

    Sounds to me like a lot of misinformation from both camps. I would like to know how many dead bass resulted from the tournament. It would also be helpful to know how the bass were cared for after the weigh-ins.

    Yeah, I’ve read both so far but am having a tough time believing it with all the spin.

    mikem
    SE Minnesota
    Posts: 200
    #380231

    Leading up the weigh in,they gave out a limited number of bags.Each angler in line to weigh in, had a bubbler to put into his bag,while moving through a series of plastic tanks full of water.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.