Livescope/FF sonar ban from tournaments

The cost? If you have enough money to pay to enter the PMTT, drive who knows how far with todays gas prices, pay for lodging, buy a boat, outfit your boat with motors, electronics, rods, reels and musky baits (none of which are cheap by any means), a $2,500 livescope isn’t holding you back. Give me a break. You dang well know, all these guys have 10’s of thousands of dollars invested in to muskie fishing and fishing the PMTT. Most of them have large screen side imaging graphs that cost about the same as a livescope.

sure, there are lots of guys fishing the PMTT for whom cost is not issue. lots of big new boats with all the latest gadgets.

at the same time, it’s not true that “all these guys” are loaded, not even close. there are lots of old boats without any of that, and the trail also relies on many local anglers to fill out their fields. the issue for the PMTT comes from the risk of losing the economic bottom of their trail, the guys who stretch to make it work. there’s not exactly waiting lists to get in. if a portion of their contestants start they feel like they can’t keep up, you lose them and you lose the trail.

It was actually one day. They put 8 in the boat on day 1. Other boats beat them on day 2. How in the world did they get beat on day 2 with this unstoppable technology?? Must be terrible anglers.

Since when has any fishing tournament been about being fair? It’s the best of the best competing for a bunch of money.

Long story short, life isn’t fair!
If these guys figured out how to run 7 livescope transducers, good for them. Their method worked this time. It likely won’t work next time and hasn’t worked the past few times.

Everyone who is upset about Forward Facing sonar should just stick to 2D sonar.

Put your energy towards getting fish limits reduced. That will be the real problem.

rjthehunter wrote:

Since when has any fishing tournament been about being fair? It’s the best of the best competing for a bunch of money.

Long story short, life isn’t fair!
If these guys figured out how to run 7 livescope transducers, good for them. Their method worked this time. It likely won’t work next time and hasn’t worked the past few times.

Everyone who is upset about Forward Facing sonar should just stick to 2D sonar.

Put your energy towards getting fish limits reduced. That will be the real problem.

This post made me want to yell this. GET OFF MY LAWN! LOL

This is an interesting topic. A guy in our walleye league was talking about this on Tuesday night. He was saying a well known muskie guide on Vermillion has changed his approach to fishing and is using 3 livescopes facing different directions. He won’t wet a lure until he sees a fish. He claims his success rate has increased 70% since changing to this approach. I wasn’t sure if I believed him when he was saying this. After reading this about the PMTT, I guess I do believe it. Now I not only have to figure out how to pay for 1 Livescope but 8? SMH.

grubson wrote:

I think it’s a good thing. Fishing used to be about fishing. Now it’s about catching and keeping up with the Jone’s.
I think this technology will ultimately lead to over harvest and poor fishing. I think it will also create a generation of poor anglers who will know how to watch their graph and that’s it.
These electronic companies could be shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. If there’s no fish left nobody will buy the products they’re selling.
It could take a generation or two to really see the damage being done on large lakes. We’re already seeing it on the smaller lakes though.
I’ll agree that sometimes fish won’t bite but overall the biggest challenge in fishing is finding the fish. It’s also a hell of a lot easier to catch the fish when you can watch their reactions to your bait and make changes on the fly.

One hundred fricking percent agree. Some people will only deal in absolutes, whereas I have a tough time understanding how you can’t see the benefit/advantage of being able to much more easily locate fish with pinpoint accuracy. Locating is a huge part of catching.

tswoboda wrote:

It was actually one day. They put 8 in the boat on day 1. Other boats beat them on day 2. How in the world did they get beat on day 2 with this unstoppable technology?? Must be terrible anglers.

Well, they were tied for 3rd most inches on day 2 (which is a partial day).
So only 2 boats (out of 125) beat them that day.
And of course, they could have stayed in bed and still won the tournament.

LabDaddy1 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>grubson wrote:</div>
I think it’s a good thing. Fishing used to be about fishing. Now it’s about catching and keeping up with the Jone’s.
I think this technology will ultimately lead to over harvest and poor fishing. I think it will also create a generation of poor anglers who will know how to watch their graph and that’s it.
These electronic companies could be shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. If there’s no fish left nobody will buy the products they’re selling.
It could take a generation or two to really see the damage being done on large lakes. We’re already seeing it on the smaller lakes though.
I’ll agree that sometimes fish won’t bite but overall the biggest challenge in fishing is finding the fish. It’s also a hell of a lot easier to catch the fish when you can watch their reactions to your bait and make changes on the fly.

One hundred fricking percent agree. Some people will only deal in absolutes, whereas I have a tough time understanding how you can’t see the benefit/advantage of being able to much more easily locate fish with pinpoint accuracy. Locating is a huge part of catching.

Do you both currently fish with LS or have used it in the past?

Use it for a week and I’ll bet you’ll feel differently about it.

You’ll be amazed at how many fish you just can’t catch and you’ll waste hours trying to get just one to bite.

Finding doesn’t equal catching. You can find fish way faster with SI/DI/2D anyway. Seeing doesn’t equal harvest.

Over a million anglers in MN and probably less then .5% of anglers that are already absolute hammers/sticks will greatly benefit.

So it’s statistically irrelevant what 5,000 of the best will do to fish populations in MN.

It’s the same reason why walleye limits stay at 6. The vast majority of anglers can’t go out and catch limits every outing. It’s irrelevant.

The hammers get even better. LS doesn’t improve the vast majority.

Michael C. Winther wrote:

Well, they were tied for 3rd most inches on day 2 (which is a partial day).
So only 2 boats (out of 125) beat them that day.
And of course, they could have stayed in bed and still won the tournament.

Doesn’t change the fact they were outliers for only 1 day and the PMTT immediately changed the rules.

I really do appreciate your points about the PMTT doing this to save their own bacon. I guess I’m more disgusted with the anglers pressuring them to do it then. It all just reeks of participation trophy mentality. “They’re too good so I’m quitting unless you kick them out”

I posted this on a similar thread, but is relevant here as well.

This is a complicated subject. It really does not have anything to do with new technology, but everything to do with reaching people’s limits. Most, but not all, people become more self limiting the older they get. We all get “set in our ways”, and think “that’s enough, we’ve gone far enough”. How many guys are fine with 2D sonar, but livescope- no way, that is too far. Well, 2D pretty cutting edge in it’s day. People can get set in their ways due to reaching their financial limits- now thinking everything they can not afford is too much and should not be allowed. Most tend to turn off the learning process the older they get, just reaching a point and doing the same old thing- hitting the rev limiter. Most guys complaining on this topic are either: 1) older or 2) financially unable or unwilling. Technology will always march forward, and it’s up to the individual to keep up with the changes. If we would have lived with self-imposed limits of “that’s far enough”, we would have never put a man on the moon. Like it or not, tournament fishing is a rich mans sport on all levels- freshwater and way elevated in saltwater. Look at how many guys now jump into the NWT events just because they can afford to do so but really could not catch a cold in a room full of 1st graders! This is a good question, but it’s not life’s job to make things fair. One thing for sure, limiting technology in most anything typically is a final nail in the coffin.

Regardless if you are going around looking with sonar, or making 10 million casts, you are still technically looking for fish. Searching with sonar is just another way of fishing. Many types of saltwater fishing (tuna for example), they do not put baits down until fish are seen on sonar.
In a sense, technology erases luck – but will never erase skill.

docfrigo wrote:

One thing for sure, limiting technology in most anything typically is a final nail in the coffin.

docfrigo – I take your general point. I am against it, below 30, and finances are not the driving force behind my views.

Your statement above is just incorrect, basically every sport puts limits on technology.

– Baseball still uses wood bats
– Golf limits both club and ball technology
– Every sport limits PED’s
– NASCAR does not allow certain computer tech in the cars
– Hunting (already hit on this in one of my previous posts, but the examples are endless: infrared, radio, limited rounds for ducks etc.)

There are many more examples, but the general point is most competitive sports put limits on technology, I don’t see how this is any different. As said in my earlier post, the question is just where you draw the line.

Seems like folks on both sides of the argument here are mixing their own opinions of LS into this.

I truly believe if you look at this from a business standpoint one can see why they had to do what they did. Pretty sure they knew it would ruffle alot of freaking feathers which noone in business ever wants.

Have not fished a Musky tournament in many years. I have LS now, would it help to win , maybe ? Maybe not ? It will not make them bite .

Deuces wrote:

Seems like folks on both sides of the argument here are mixing their own opinions of LS into this.

I truly believe if you look at this from a business standpoint one can see why they had to do what they did. Pretty sure they knew it would ruffle alot of freaking feathers which noone in business ever wants.

I looked at it from a pure competition standpoint. We could not beat them so ban them.
I think 7 ducers or whatever it was is a bit ridiculous, but not like it’s new tech. May have wanted to make this rule before or after season.

No one said anything or had any problems until they won… Let that sink in.

rjthehunter wrote:

No one said anything or had any problems until they won… Let that sink in.

Nothing to sink in, some concepts arent realized until later, and the effects only come to the mind at that point.

I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of those making decisions on this quite frankly. This will set the bar for many formats, I’d imagine these “good ol boys” are getting input from many other freshwater tourney “good ol boys”. Alot of factors to consider and weigh, musky fisherman have always held the bar high for the care they take to their fish and I’ve always respected that. But the fact is with the new tech on a prime day with 400 LS systems pulling out potentially a few hundred muskies in a couple days could have real consequences.

Just my 2 cents

How many teams had FF sonar on their boat and didn’t win?

I’m going to guess half the field, minimum…

This hurts the PMTT more than helps.

Do you both currently fish with LS or have used it in the past?

Use it for a week and I’ll bet you’ll feel differently about it.

You’ll be amazed at how many fish you just can’t catch and you’ll waste hours trying to get just one to bite.

Finding doesn’t equal catching. You can find fish way faster with SI/DI/2D anyway. Seeing doesn’t equal harvest.

Over a million anglers in MN and probably less then .5% of anglers that are already absolute hammers/sticks will greatly benefit.

So it’s statistically irrelevant what 5,000 of the best will do to fish populations in MN.

It’s the same reason why <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye limits stay at 6. The vast majority of anglers can’t go out and catch limits every outing. It’s irrelevant.

The hammers get even better. LS doesn’t improve the vast majority.

[/quote]

I’ve used it once ice fishing when a friend brought one on an ice fishing trip to SD. We made a mockery of the sport catching limits of walleyes and perch 3 days in a row.

Waste hours getting 1 fish to bite? Maybe you would do that, it’s probably a carp.

Sure you can find fish with SI and the others. What you can’t do is see the fish’s live reaction to your presentation. With FF sonar you get so much more data than with the other technologies. Some people may not even realize just how beneficial that really is.

If you think .5% of anglers are using FF sonar you need to get out and look around more. They’re everywhere. On big fancy boats to little boats worth half the cost of their electronics. Its certainly well over .5%.

You really think 5,000 anglers cant impact fish populations? Think about that. 5,000 anglers, you must think fish come from a bottomless well or something.

The hammers with this tech might catch lots of fish but in my opinion they’ll be worse anglers in the long run. Being diverse and versatile and knowing multiple techniques and presentations and knowing how and when to adapt is one of the funnest most rewarding of parts of fishing. These guys see fish, hit spot lock and go.
Personally I think I’d give it up if that’s what I had to do to catch fish.

rjthehunter wrote:

Since when has any fishing tournament been about being fair? It’s the best of the best competing for a bunch of money.

Long story short, life isn’t fair!
If these guys figured out how to run 7 livescope transducers, good for them. Their method worked this time. It likely won’t work next time and hasn’t worked the past few times.

Everyone who is upset about Forward Facing sonar should just stick to 2D sonar.

Put your energy towards getting fish limits reduced. That will be the real problem.

Defends the technology and then admits the real problem will be fish limits. SMH

Mnfishermam, with thought I see your point. But, in defense, it seems you, and the other fisherman in the pmtt have reached a subjective limit. Their is no proof yet of livescope hurting fishing or tournaments, just some guys perceiving it gave some sort of advantage because one team cleaned clock and majority of the field had egg on their face. Most will be “unwilling”, as it is easier to stay in one place rather than grow or progress. Your point is valid on PEDs and the such, but until this actually, objectively, proves to be harmful it sure smells like some guys just don’t like being left behind.

grubson wrote:

The hammers with this tech might catch lots of fish but in my opinion they’ll be worse anglers in the long run.

Disagree… I’ve used FFS for three years now, fishing 200+ days a year with the unit both on ice and open water. If you took FFS away from me today, I’m a much better angler for having had that experience. I probably learned more about fish behavior, location, and predator/prey relationships in those three years with FFS than my previous 30 years combined. FFS has corrected so many long-held myths and mis-information it’s comical to look back and think about them.

grubson wrote:

The hammers with this tech might catch lots of fish but in my opinion they’ll be worse anglers in the long run. Being diverse and versatile and knowing multiple techniques and presentations and knowing how and when to adapt is one of the funnest most rewarding of parts of fishing. These guys see fish, hit spot lock and go.
Personally I think I’d give it up if that’s what I had to do to catch fish.

Attachments:

1. 

   old.jpg
   

Just wait for 360 degree live imaging! Isn’t this what these guys did? I’m not sure what the “right” answer is, but reading people’s passionate replies is interesting and make me think.

So did they actually ban the team that won from the tour now, or did they simply ban the livescope/FFS technology for the remainder of the season?

Seems a little ridiculous to completely ban the team for the rest of the season. They should be able to continue to fish without that technology should they choose to do so.

grubson wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rjthehunter wrote:</div>
Since when has any fishing tournament been about being fair? It’s the best of the best competing for a bunch of money.

Long story short, life isn’t fair!
If these guys figured out how to run 7 livescope transducers, good for them. Their method worked this time. It likely won’t work next time and hasn’t worked the past few times.

Everyone who is upset about Forward Facing sonar should just stick to 2D sonar.

Put your energy towards getting fish limits reduced. That will be the real problem.

Defends the technology and then admits the real problem will be fish limits. SMH

Do people keep fish in tournaments to eat? Not in any of the tournaments I fish or follow… Why would you ban technology when catch and release fishing???

Does it make fishermen as a whole more effective? Of course. Did I ever say it didn’t? I never “admitted” fish limits will be a problem, I stated they’ll be a problem. With fishing pressure, especially on smaller lakes, there’s no reason to have limits as high as they are with all the pressure some of these smaller lakes get that are extremely susceptible to overfishing.

Not sure how defending technology in a tournament scene where catch and release is the rules and fish limits correlate. Two separate conversations. One is an issue, the other isn’t.

tswoboda wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>grubson wrote:</div>
The hammers with this tech might catch lots of fish but in my opinion they’ll be worse anglers in the long run. Being diverse and versatile and knowing multiple techniques and presentations and knowing how and when to adapt is one of the funnest most rewarding of parts of fishing. These guys see fish, hit spot lock and go.
Personally I think I’d give it up if that’s what I had to do to catch fish.

Old man makes fun of a young man for being old. Right. Ok.
Let me know when you have an actual response to my comments or leave it alone.

BrianF wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>grubson wrote:</div>
The hammers with this tech might catch lots of fish but in my opinion they’ll be worse anglers in the long run.

Disagree… I’ve used FFS for three years now, fishing 200+ days a year with the unit both on ice and open water. If you took FFS away from me today, I’m a much better angler for having had that experience. I probably learned more about fish behavior, location, and predator/prey relationships in those three years with FFS than my previous 30 years combined. FFS has corrected so many long-held myths and mis-information it’s comical to look back and think about them.

I see your point about using FF sonar and learning more about fish behavior and location. I still think it’s creating a generation of one trick ponies though.

grubson wrote:

Let me know when you have an actual response to my comments or leave it alone.

Sure… The idea that anglers catching fish using LI somehow makes them worse anglers is laughable. But I get it, gotta protect that ego!

If you don’t wanna use it, then don’t use it – no one’s forcing you to do it. And I’m in that camp, I don’t have it on my boat and have no plan to add it. I don’t even have side/down imaging. And it’s not because of cost – I could go buy the 8 unit setup today but like you, it’s just not how I want to fish. But I do realize and accept that LI will make some anglers better than me who might not be without it. And as it gets more and more main stream I’ll be further behind the curve – just like these PMTT anglers who aren’t utilizing it. And I’m perfectly ok with that. I don’t feel the need to scrutinize anglers who do use it insinuating they are cheating or less skilled than myself.

Technology is more and more engrained into fishing every year – that’s just a fact and it’s not stopping. But the beauty is no one is forced to use it. So rather than tear down the guys who are using it, just watch your own bobber. I’m like a lot of others here and don’t like to fish staring at a screen. That’s why every year I spend more and more time in my waders and less time in my boat. No one is forcing you to keep up with new technology so quit pi$$ing on the anglers who do.

tswoboda wrote:

Sure… The idea that anglers catching fish using LI somehow makes them worse anglers is laughable. But I get it, gotta protect that ego!

This. It wasnt all that long ago when I got my first side and down imaging unit and while fishing in Canada I found a very specific set of rocks/gravel transition on this small point which led to a lot of over 24″ walleyes. The other boats in our group never fished this part of the shore, but once I spotted it I knew it was going to be good and we hammered them. Now the other guys in the group after seeing me and my buddy horse in all these bigger fish camp out on the spot that they never knew existed.
I am sure the two guys using the LI were not the only ones using it in the tourney they just had success using it vs the others.
Technology and if you know how to use it can make you a better/more successful fisherman, not worse. I dont have LI yet, but have been eyeing it up for a while now just havent pulled the trigger. I dont know if I’d use it much in open water, but ice fishing I think I would.

tswoboda wrote:

If you don’t wanna use it, then don’t use it – no one’s forcing you to do it…Technology is more and more engrained into fishing every year – that’s just a fact and it’s not stopping. But the beauty is no one is forced to use it.

That’s true for general fishing. However in a tournament situation (which this thread is about) anglers end up being “forced” to use a technology that gives a clear advantage. Otherwise they’re just donating money to the winners. By setting a limit against live imaging sonar, the PMTT is simply setting the rules of the competition.

NASCAR limits cars to ~550hp in order to focus their competition on racing with roughly equivalent cars to tighten up races, increase competition, and make things more exciting. It’s the same thing. “No one is forcing you to use a 800hp car.”

Should the PMTT have changed their rules mid-season? Probably not.