2015 AOTY/DOTY suggestions

The mouth closed rule has caused issues in the past. The argument has been that this is the standard used by F&W, but nobody seems to care that this is because F&W usually only measures dead or electroshock fish.
In the interest of C&R, it might make better sense to relax this rule and round down 1/4"-1/2" on fish with open mouth.
This would eliminate some of the stressed caused by keeping/handling fish before a release.
Of course this only makes sense if we are concerned about the fish we enjoy perusing.

The mouth closed rule has caused issues in the past. The argument has been that this is the standard used by F&W, but nobody seems to care that this is because F&W usually only measures dead or electroshock fish.
In the interest of C&R, it might make better sense to relax this rule and round down 1/4"-1/2" on fish with open mouth.
This would eliminate some of the stressed caused by keeping/handling fish before a release.
Of course this only makes sense if we are concerned about the fish we enjoy perusing.

+1. Even when dead, some fish's mouth are still hard to shut. I suggest an OPTIONAL 1/2" to 1" deduction from the length of your fish should you decide to just measure it with its mouth open and not deal with the hassle. But if you want every points from your fish, then by all mean keep it's mouth shut. I guess this way, one can still enter their fish without the risk of disqualification.

I'd like to see some point adjustments made for DOTY. Copper rockfish seems to be pretty undervalued. Only three have ever been submitted that are larger than 14.25". The all time top three are 20" (2012), 17" (2014), and 15" (2014). If we're shooting for 200 point trophies, those freaks shouldn't count! Maybe 14 points per inch instead of 10? That would make a 14.25 fish around 200 points, which seems like a pretty good standard based on the other submissions.

Every year wsb are caught as far north as Tomales.
But pacbutts have never been caught south of Humboldt co...right? So I'd say remove pacbutts before wsb. 

+1

Mouth absolutely closed no matter what is the easiest to enforce and also do. Jam that sucker home and take the pic.

Mouth absolutely closed no matter what is the easiest to enforce and also do. Jam that sucker home and take the pic.

Man it's taken me a long time to finally agree with this since there is still some subjectivity involved but this rule needs to remain. Some fish mouths look slightly open even when closed but as far as I know BigJim has done a good job judging those fish & this rule coupled with the "no publicly bitching about other peoples entries" rule has resulted in a great drama free time for AOTY this year. So +1 on this.

But I want Pac Butts to stay! Down here we have Dinos & WSB that more than equals out the Pacs & I think we all like to see pictures & fish stories of the big flatties. jim

Thanks for posting this Jim.  I'll comment on a couple of the topics you posted.

1. Make Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout seperate species (AOTY)
I suggested this one.  Why?  Because we have separate divisions for the three primary black bass species in CA, yet we lump trout (minus mackinaw) into one group.  Smallmouth and spotted bass are so similar that they can actually hybridize with one another.  Rainbows and browns cannot hybridize; in fact, they didn't even evolve on the same continent.  Rainbows are spring spawners that tend to utilize the upper layers of the water column in a lake.  Meanwhile, browns are fall spawners that are often found closer to lake bottoms and they can often behave much like a bass by hugging tight to structure.  Browns are also more piscivorous than rainbows, and are often more difficult to catch than rainbows.  Brown trout are also more active than rainbows under extremely cold temperatures.  The disparities between the two species are much greater than those between smallmouth and spotted bass.  I've spent a lot of time targeting both so I've seen these disparities first-hand.

I found a thread from 2012 that mentions adding species to AOTY, including brown trout (http://www.norcalkayakanglers.com/index.php?topic=43260.15).  Seems the resistance against adding brown trout to the list includes 1) if you separate out browns, then we'd have to have categories for every individual trout species, 2) brown trout are too far away/isolated for AOTY participants to pursue, and 3) how would the point value be different for brown trout compared to other trout.  My opinion on #1: Have a brown trout and an "other trout" category (Bird suggested this in the 2012 thread), unless there was significant interest in adding a brook trout category (I wouldn't suggest adding cutts or goldens, as they're only available to kayakers in a few select locations in CA).  #2: Browns can be found closer than many people think.  Meanwhile, something like white seabass are practically on the other side of the world for someone in my location (northeastern CA).  Mackinaw are found in fewer locations in CA than brown trout, yet they're also on the AOTY list. #3: Bump down the point value for brown trout to 7 or 7.5 points, as they tend to grow larger and faster than rainbows.

Out of the 200 (~250) or so trout entries on AOTY, only ~10 of them are non-Rainbow.  Most of them (which I can confirm) are from Almanor & 3 of them are from Clayman.  If this is your way of inviting others to Almanor, I’m in!!!  But I think some people will have problems IDing trout species, if we start breaking down more species (Cutthroat, Sea-run Brown etc…) and I do not want to give more work for the AOTY committee.  Because of that, I disagree with adding more trout species (we have already divided steelhead & trout). Even if we decided to add Brown, I don't think it's necessary to change the points, since there are lots of bigger Rainbows entered in AOTY. 
 I have said from the beginning (when bsteves & PapaBill wanted to add more species)  that I really think we should combine SMB & Spot because of same reason...

1.  Add flounder back on the species list! Like Clayman said, WSB are on the other side of the world and they don't always come in thick enough for people to have a good chance of catching one.  Also add a shark species

A non-halibut flatfish category would be pretty cool.  And they're all along the CA coast, so it's not like accessibility would be an issue.

The shark category would be cool too.  At first I wasn't too fond of it since to measure any decent-sized shark would mean you'd have to kill it, and some people are averse to killing sharks.  But then I remembered sturgeon are on the AOTY list .

I do not mind bringing back flounders, even though the entries were low.  There are some Starrys all the way up to Rio Vista (lots of them in the bay too), so lots of people have a chance to catch them.
I would like to keep the WSB & Pacific Halibut as a dream fish.
PapaBill did not want to add sharks, because he did not want to see people killing them just to measure and end up wasting them (& low fecundity fish too)... but the recent catches of thresher were cool!

The mouth closed rule has caused issues in the past. The argument has been that this is the standard used by F&W, but nobody seems to care that this is because F&W usually only measures dead or electroshock fish.
In the interest of C&R, it might make better sense to relax this rule and round down 1/4"-1/2" on fish with open mouth.
This would eliminate some of the stressed caused by keeping/handling fish before a release.
Of course this only makes sense if we are concerned about the fish we enjoy perusing.

+1. Even when dead, some fish's mouth are still hard to shut. I suggest an OPTIONAL 1/2" to 1" deduction from the length of your fish should you decide to just measure it with its mouth open and not deal with the hassle. But if you want every points from your fish, then by all mean keep it's mouth shut. I guess this way, one can still enter their fish without the risk of disqualification.

I do measure fish for a living, so I try to do it the right way.  I totally understand C&R and rounding down might be good way to do it, except it might be more work for the AOTY committee.

I haven’t played DOTY, but I think the best 10 species format will help people strategize and increase the skill aspect more.
Jr. division will be nice & let Raydon win!!!

These are just my humble opinions.
Whatever the committee decides, I will play and follow the rules.

Naoaki

Also, I don't want DOTY changed to best of 10. Each species has its own habitat and IDing and finding them is half the fun. Actually, I'd like to see Gopher/China/ B&Y broken up into three different species!

Out of the 200 (~250) or so trout entries on AOTY, only ~10 of them are non-Rainbow.  Most of them (which I can confirm) are from Almanor & 3 of them are from Clayman.  If this is your way of inviting others to Almanor, I’m in!!!  But I think some people will have problems IDing trout species, if we start breaking down more species (Cutthroat, Sea-run Brown etc…) and I do not want to give more work for the AOTY committee.  Because of that, I disagree with adding more trout species (we have already divided steelhead & trout). Even if we decided to add Brown, I don't think it's necessary to change the points, since there are lots of bigger Rainbows entered in AOTY. 
 I have said from the beginning (when bsteves & PapaBill wanted to add more species)  that I really think we should combine SMB & Spot because of same reason...

The reason only ten out of 200+ entries were not rainbow trout is because there was no incentive for AOTY participants to go out searching for browns.  Rainbows are everywhere and there are plenty of places to catch big ones all across NorCal, whether it be tailwater fisheries or pay-to-play lakes stocked with monster rainbows.  Brown trout are more well-distributed than some other fishes on the AOTY list.  It’s not like they’re only found in Lake Almanor.  Honestly, if I wanted a monster brown trout I’d rather head to Tahoe, or Stampede, or Bowman.  Places like Tahoe have browns and they’re closer to most NCKA members than Almanor.

The only species I’d like to see parsed out from the “trout” category is brown trout.  So there’d be a “trout” category that included all trout/char species except mackinaw and brown trout, and a “brown trout” category.  As for mistaking rainbows for browns or vise-versa: wouldn’t it be the same as having to differentiate between a coho and a Chinook, or a smallmouth and a spot, or a landlocked Chinook and a kokanee?  I have faith in AOTY participants’ identification skills.  And if there was a questionable ID, then we could put it out in the open for people to discuss on the board.  I believe with our NCKA powers combined, we could come to a successful ID  .  Yes, even if someone submits an entry of a chrome sea-run brown trout from the Trinity River.

Sure there are a lot of larger rainbows entered into AOTY.  That’s because nobody was given the incentive to go after large brown trout.  Browns weren’t a separate category in AOTY, and rainbows are everywhere.  It’s not like I’m proposing Sacramento perch or some obscure species of sucker.  Brown trout have a wide range.

Then there’s the differences in techniques when targeting browns compared to rainbows.  An angler soaking a ball of Powerbait can tempt a big stocker rainbow, but that method is unlikely to catch a large brown trout’s attention.  Similarly, ripping a 7 inch minnow plug in early spring is more likely to net you a big brown instead of a rainbow.  I believe these differences in technique merit listing brown trout in their own category even more.

There could even be something said about parsing out crappie from other sunfish…

Ok ,now I'm mad. Don't mess with da Crappie! 

Awesome! Thank you all for you input!!

The species adding/removing issue is one I think we can do pretty easily....off the top of my head I would think additions are "better" than substractions unless there is a REALLY good reason for taking a species off...

I think Clayman makes some great points for adding in the different species of trout for sure....

Maybe we can start a poll later on this year to see what folks feel? My only concern with that approach is, not to sound like a jerk, but I really don't think the opinions/input of folks who aren't active participants in AOTY/DOTY should "count"...or at least count as much...

Mouth absolutely closed no matter what is the easiest to enforce and also do. Jam that sucker home and take the pic.

Man it's taken me a long time to finally agree with this since there is still some subjectivity involved but this rule needs to remain. Some fish mouths look slightly open even when closed but as far as I know BigJim has done a good job judging those fish & this rule coupled with the "no publicly bitching about other peoples entries" rule has resulted in a great drama free time for AOTY this year. So +1 on this.

I agree 100% with Craig and Jim on this one....it can be real heartbreaking to reject an entry for mouth not closed, but there was sooooo much drama and negative stuff when that rule was relaxed that I really don't think it would be smart to backslide on this one...

I know this really bums some folks out-primarily guys who practice mostly CPR, but it really does get way too subjective if we start saying "ok, this one gets 1/4 inch deduction, this one doesn't etc, etc"...especially if we have mutiple people verifying entries...which hopefully we will have...

Right now entries are verified by me, bwodun, sailfish, rob102 and ATD does SMBs...but, to be honest I'd say 99% are verified by me because I had bsteves set me up with an email alert system that lets me know every time there is a new AOTY/DOTY entry posted so I can try and verify them ASAP so folks can see their scores updated...I sometimes lag a day or so if I'm offline on a diving trip or with the family but usually I'd say within 24 hours I get the entry verified or ID a problem with it and send the person a PM asking for more pics etc and/or ask the other committe members their opinion...

But, ideally, next year and in the future I can turn some of that verifying responsibility over to other folks....and then it will be especially important to have a set of rules that is straightforward and easy to enforce by any judge...

Also, I don't want DOTY changed to best of 10. Each species has its own habitat and IDing and finding them is half the fun. Actually, I'd like to see Gopher/China/ B&Y broken up into three different species!

I agree with you personally on keeping all DOTY species count (don't agree on the gopher/china/bny though  )...one of the COOLEST things about DOTY IMO is that it really challenges divers to push themselves outside their comfort zone...and I think it would totally SUCK to have a diver get their first halibut, sheephead, verm etc and not have it even make a difference in their score or show up on their list of fish...

I'd like to see some point adjustments made for DOTY. Copper rockfish seems to be pretty undervalued. Only three have ever been submitted that are larger than 14.25". The all time top three are 20" (2012), 17" (2014), and 15" (2014). If we're shooting for 200 point trophies, those freaks shouldn't count! Maybe 14 points per inch instead of 10? That would make a 14.25 fish around 200 points, which seems like a pretty good standard based on the other submissions.

I hear what you're saying, but fuzz has sent me multiple pics of 20 inch coppers these past few years that he has been two lazy to enter...all taken in waters and depths that are accessible to us...those would be 280 point fish if we raised the point value as high as you suggest....

One thing that I have been thinking about, especially in regards to DOTY since it is a much newer comp and one I have spent a lot more time working on, is that it is important to realize that any time we make changes we change the game...and the "value" of fish, points, finishers etc....

For example...in DOTY's first year we had calico as a species...in the 2nd year we took out calico....in the third year we changed the rules so that you couldn't point out fish to other divers...

I think all of those have been good changes, but ideally I would like to see some consistency from year to year so that players can really look back and compare their score/ranking historically....so unless a change really makes sense then I think it would be better to leave the rules etc as is...

But if something is broken or can be improved we for sure should try and fix it...

Not sure if that makes snese to anyone but me... 

Thanks again everyone for their input!

 

Sincerely,

Jim

Alos, so far I have gotten PMs from Rbark, Salty., and bones volunteering to help out in 2015, along with Rider and BigBuoy for the Junior AOTY comp.

 

THNAK YOU guys!!

I think we NEED enthusiastic folks working on AOTY/DOTY to keep the game "alive" and fun for everyone...the last thing we want is a committee of people that don't have time or desire to keep up with entries, prizes/sponsors, concerns etc....and while I am still super jazzed on AOTY/DOTY I would like to be able to cut back a little on the amount of time I am dedicating to it...

Thanks again fellas and I will get back to you soon so we can discuss!

 

Sincerely,

Jim

I made a recommendation a couple years ago that mouth not closed would be a straight and rather punitive point deduction.  That would allow people to still get the fish counted since it's obvious that they caught it,  but at the same time disincentivize people from open mouth submissions that increase fish value.  Something like 25 points. 

Looks like its better to kill fish for a competition sake, than there will be no question about size. This was my (and a few others) reason for not participating in 2014.
Just an FYI,
After bailing on AOTY, I received a few comments about not supporting NCKA, even though I donated over 20 items to PIF.
Hope this isn't the trend going forward as it is very obvious that I can't enter knowing that I might do more harm to a fishery I'm trying to preserve.

Looks like its better to kill fish for a competition sake, than there will be no question about size. This was my (and a few others) reason for not participating in 2014.
Just an FYI,
After bailing on AOTY, I received a few comments about not supporting NCKA, even though I donated over 20 items to PIF.
Hope this isn't the trend going forward as it is very obvious that I can't enter knowing that I might do more harm to a fishery I'm trying to preserve.

Starting in 2014, AOTY $ goes to PIF not NCKA so not sure why any one would say that....you have always been a HUGE supporter of PIF and your donations and support are always VERY much appreciated and looked forward to!!

I respect your opinion and decision not to participate 100%.

 

Sincerely,

Jim