Walleye Discussion Forums
| ||
| View previous thread :: View next thread | |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] Walleye Fishing -> General Discussion -> Tournament Impact in WI ie. Culling study Results |
| Message Subject: Tournament Impact in WI ie. Culling study Results | |||
tyee |
| ||
Member Posts: 1406 | http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/fishingtournaments/Tournament%20Pilot%20Prog... A good read and very interesting. Good Luck Tyee | ||
| |||
| butch |
| ||
Member Posts: 701 Location: upper michigan | It sounds to me that there pens where set up in the wrong places with such high mortality on the control fish. I dont see how they can conclude anything with this data other than the fact that any fish handled might suffer mortality weather released imidiatly, detained, or brought to weigh in. | ||
| |||
| hgmeyer |
| ||
Member Posts: 794 Location: Elgin, Illinois | Can you say "ka-ka"? Sounds like a very poor "science" project by high schoolers... Have any serious scientist candidly evaluate this whole experiment... small pens in poor water conditions... muskrats eating through pens... extremely small "culling" experiments... driven results... opinion surveys... in plain language... sounds and looks almost amateurish... Edited by hgmeyer 3/18/2007 3:13 PM | ||
| |||
| hgmeyer |
| ||
Member Posts: 794 Location: Elgin, Illinois | Also, let's study "pen" mortality... | ||
| |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Location: Rhinelander | hg, you are probably somewhat correct in this case with 'pen mortality'. | ||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
Member Posts: 617 Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | My understanding on the pens is that protocol called for them to be set up near the release point of the fish. Further, I don't believe the pens or the pen locatations were the reason the bass died, but that it had more to do with the warmer water temperatures combined with the LMBV (largemouth bass virus). Having spoke with one of the DNR officials that worked on this, I can guarentee you that they were serious about getting this done the right way. There was nothing "amateurish" about it. How do you study the effects of culling as the DNR was told to do? A fish that is release can not be studied, so what are you left to study? The DNR received a fair amount of input from many different sources and tried to come up with the best plan they could to examine the initial mortality of fish caught in tournaments, the delayed mortality of fish caught in tournmants, the financial impact of larger tournaments on a community, and a barometer of the publics willingness to accept culling in bass tournaments. Where the DNR errored (in my opinion) was using this opportunity to try to force a lot of unnecessary new conditions on ALL tournament anglers when this process started because of something a small group (WSBF) started. | ||
| |||
| butch |
| ||
Member Posts: 701 Location: upper michigan | Like I said to start with the only conclusion that they could really come up with out of this data is that any fish caught and handled weather put in a live well, culled or released could be subject to high mortality. But like you said it was probably caused by haveing so many fish in close proximaty of each other and the LMBV caused the majority of the deaths. With that said all the data the got from this should be considered null because they dont have any good solid answers from this. | ||
| |||
| hgmeyer |
| ||
Member Posts: 794 Location: Elgin, Illinois | Brad, There are already small studies about the effects of various types of nets on released fish mortality... Since they have concluded from those small studies that the net material "may" have a significant impact on the fish survival rate... It follows that these "pens" may have in and of themselves a significant negative impact. That is what I was referring to when I mention "pen mortality". And, while the DNR may have had a difficult task (studying mortality of culled fish), it is no excuse for an amateurish study... This entire report is next to worthless. There are some useable facts about the economic impact of big tournaments that "trend" to a value of "X" dollars. However, none of the survey questions have been published so there is no way to independently evaluate the study/answers. A great deal may have been lost... One notable exception for a small measure is did they have a question about recreational use by tournament anglers separate from the tournaments... in other words do these tournaments bring the tournament anglers back for recreational use. Did they add in prefishing days/dollars? And, where is the secondary impact dollars..boat purchases by tournament anglers... Mercury Motors, Lund, Tuffy Boats.... It just appears to be a very "shoddy" and half an effort type of "study"... They may have had the best of intentions... but biologists and fisheries people do not know how to develop an economic study... And, the fisheries side was incredibly small to have any validity... and incredibly badly done at that. I am sorry, but I cannot sugar coat this and will not stand silent when I "know" much is going to be "shouted out" by the anti-tournament people about the (so called) "facts and conclusions). My scientific protocols and methodology experience is old and mostly forgotten I am sure. But, I know others who will look at this will see the gaping errors and omissions in the methods and also see the wide latitude given in assumptions and therefore conclusions. This is just more junk science masquerading as real science... | ||
| |||
| tyee unlogged |
| ||
| HG, There is extensive data to support this "summary" which really supports many of the other studies that have been done in the past. It has proven that warm water months in WI have a greater impact on the fish than any other months. This should be of concern to anyone fishing in July and August and their handling of fish. The Economic data was done by profesionals in that field and not the Biologists, As well the sociological part done by experts also. Both of these topics were well researched and show significant data, the questionair was very detailed. Remember the report is a "summary" and only highlights portions of the data collected. Regarding the Nets, They understand and took into consideration the problem they had with them in Winneconne, mother nature whooped up a storm and those fish could not be considered as they were moved downstream and put under undo stress. "Pen" mortality MN is in the middle of or completing a study of hooked fish mortality, I believe it was being held on Mille Lacs regarding Walleye. Does anyone know if this study is complete yet. The "Pens" were huge. Good Luck Tyee | |||
| |||
| Gordy |
| ||
| On Mille Lacs it was done for "other" reasons. The DNR during their data surveys were counting all fish caught throughout the day and using a % of what would survive. The %, to the best of my knowledge was "BUNK", being that the lergest numbers of fish were taken in the 1st month and a half of the open water season. The fish during this cold water period have a much better chance at living than in the warm weather months. Mille Lacs has a "poundage" per year or safe harvest guideline. This is because of the Bands that net the lake. Some great bite years the DNR would take a large % of released fish and count them towards the years total poundage. So this study showed that they were way off on the mortality rate they were using. It showed that released fish were a live and well. Remember these fish were caught and released NOT boxed and ran all over the lake all day then released. I'm sure JLD has the up-dated study results, he goes to all those meetings of the minds about Mille Lacs. One thing about these studies thats not covered is: the fish are caught and NOT drug around and beat all day in a livewell, they are caught ~ put in a well~ and brought to a pen. These fish would have even less stress if they were release right back into the water were caught. The problem with "culling" is they have no control over how a fish was handled throughout the day, someone could have beat the fish to death before they released it. I understand that tournament fishermen would love to catch and box fish all day, up- grading as they go. However part of tournament fishing is taking the fish needed to win, and if the State laws prevent "culling" thats how the game is played! They don't need "speical" regs just for (us)! Take Green Bay: most people know what it takes there to do well, they know that catching 20" will not get it done. So what is the advantage of culling? There isn't one, if you box it and you reach the limit your done and that should be fine with every angler fishing an event. | |||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
Member Posts: 617 Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | No offense Mr. Meyer, but the more you talk about this, the more it is obvious you do not know what happened. The effects of pen mortality don't matter - that's why you have a control group. Biologists didn't develop the economic impact study - that was don't through the university. The DNR reviewed as much information as they could find trying to make sure the mortality testing was done per established protocol. They were given a short time line, no funding, and no project scope of what to accomplish. If you can develop a better plan, I encourage you to do so. I know for a fact that our DNR would love to have a better tool to use in studies like this. Trying to poke holes in a study from the backside of an internet site - that's about as close to sitting by silently as one can get without actually sitting by silently. Some of us (Tyee and I for example) have been following this process for the last 3 years and have been making sure our voices are heard. Its great that you feel passionately about this and I encourage you to get involved and make your voice heard as well. Just please make sure that you do a little homework so that you help instead of hinder the effort. It was short-sightedness and implusive judgement that got us in the mess in the first place. Last but not least, insulting those that you need help from to fix this (DNR) seems like a counter-productive measure. Its certainly OK to question and disagree with the process, but it should be done with respect. | ||
| |||
| Guest |
| ||
| I am with Gordy on this one. I don't see why we need to start culling fish. I fish tourneys and am quite content with knowing what I will need to do well and taking my chances throwing fish back. I can't see hauling fish around all day and then upgrading them. I think we will just be opening up a can of worms for the anti-tourney guys. I guess this is driven more by the bass contingency. Also, I wouldn't call the study amateurish. There are so many variables in a study like this, and to simulate what actually is going on after fish are released from weigh in can be darn near impossible. I think they did the best they could with the tools at hand. | |||
| |||
| Gordy |
| ||
| These studies should not mix how much money is brought into an area! When the tour is long gone . it's still about the fish and what a body of water can handle as well as what if any "speical" regs are put on it. Mille Lacs is a "poor" example of what should or should not be done on other lakes. FEW lakes in the upper Midwest get the pressure let alone have the numbers of fish taken from it (based on the size of the lake) Yet to this day it continues to put out fish like few other lakes. Overall each lake has it's own impacts from harvest, Mille Lacs have a set of rules to make it a catch and release lake as well as a catch and eat lake. FEW lakes have the size and numbers of fish that it has, this is fron STRICT regs to ensure it stays this way. I can tell you that it is very nice to live close to one of best walleye waters in the Midwest! I'm glad they have regs in place to keep it this way! I'm more about catching great fish than killing everything I catch, it's not that hard to catch them it's hard to catch trophy fish when people never give them a chance to reach that stage. So these regs effect the walley harvest and it should have nothing to due with the money or it's effect on an area. I know that it's in some folks best interest to have everything "wide open" cause it draws people to them, but is that any good for the fishery? | |||
| |||
| Sunshine |
| ||
Member Posts: 2393 Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Well, I believe that the study missed the mark. Shouldn't we be comparing culled fish with non-culled fish? What is the impact of catching 4 fish on Green Bay by 11 am and keeping them in your livewell all day while you drive around to other spots versus culled fish? What is the mortality rate of those fish caught at 2 pm and kept? If you culled, what was the mortality rate of the fish you released from your livewell when you upgraded? Isn't this what we are supposed to be comparing? Will the study compare the rates of tournaments that do not cull versus those that did? They say: “Mortality associated with the culling of bass was estimated by simulating the conditions experienced by bass during a tournament day. This was accomplished using controlled angling and culling activities by volunteer anglers simulating culling that occurs during a real tournament. Actual tournaments were not used in this experiment so as to not interfere with the tournament proper.” They do not go into greater detail to see if they compare culled versus non-culled fish. I guess I’ll need to see the full version to make that assessment. Does catching a fish and then transporting it to a pen do a good job representing the released fish on the lake/river location? They also say: “Given the limited data, culling appeared to have a lesser impact on bass tournament mortality compared to the impacts of water temperature and LMBV.” Does this mean that the real culprit is LMBV and water temps over 80 degrees? If so, why would culling be denied? It looks like the biggest reason to deny culling is because people do not like it. Since when does the DNR create rules by popular opinion? I thought that making DNR rules/laws was supposed be done by scientific evidence not popular opinion? Leave that to the politicians. / | ||
| |||
| Gordy |
| ||
| While I understand some of the things you are saying, I missed a lot of them. 1) if culling fish had zero impact then it would'nt even be an issue. Each fish caught many vary so much as to place,time,depth and how they were handled as well as how hard they were driven or beat up in a livewell. 2) The amount of money to study each fish caught would break the bank! Where would all this money come from? They can't even get enough money for staff and stocking programs. 3) The DNR could just set tour events for only a few lakes and only during a time that will ensure the best release results, however we know thats not what this is about. This is about making everyone happy, and it is and always will be political. DNR funding comes from everyone, not just tour anglers. For every tour angler there are 10,000 anglers. I have learned to live with the facts, that most people don't care if you fish a lake. They care if you get speical treatments or if they see harmful effects from a tournament. You can educate the public and even show them how little of an impact an event may have, but they only see one thing. Studies like these are rare and can only break the surface as to what really happens. There are reasons we have closed seasons and limits and even no-cull laws. I don't consider it a big deal to play on the safe side and keep these laws in place. I think that fishing is good as of late and most of that is due to the fact that people are using CPR. For the very small tournament world culling is ideal, but remember it's just a small part of the anglers in the country. Also it's the "pro" culling groups that are or started making this political, using economic impacts and everything else. Rather than just a simple impact of culling, yet they don't have the funds to prove it one way or the other, either. | |||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
Member Posts: 617 Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "Shouldn't we be comparing culled fish with non-culled fish?" Good point, but how do you do that? If I release a fish, its gone and no one will ever know what happened to it. Personally, I don't have a problem with culling. I don't believe it would have an impact on our fisheries in the vast majority of situations and it might actually improve the release rate at some tournaments. | ||
| |||
| tyee |
| ||
Member Posts: 1406 | You are right Dennis but untill RFID tags become common place and cheap these types of studies are not afordable. Lets take a step back in time and imagine that there were NO laws and No one fished. All of a sudden you get dropped into todays opportunities and had to develop these laws for the masses. Lets assume these laws would be for everyone, and all species. The control would be bag and posession limits. Would you allow culling? I know I wouldn't! I have known more than my share of idiots in my lifetime and many of them would be throwing back dead fish for larger ones. Am I really the only one to know people like that or are the rest of you lost in your little world? Maybe I need to start hanging with the a different crowd? Good Luck Tyee | ||
| |||
| Jim Ordway |
| ||
Member Posts: 538 | I am reading some very interesting comments regarding the culling issue. This is an issue with hight visibility in the public eye and the studies I run across are about bass, which have there own pecularities vs other species. There is enough fodder and open ended questions arising out of the Wiscosnin Bass Study to argue about for years. For me, it is simple. No Culling: The possesion bag limits are such, that a legal livewell of fish should be enough for anyone to find their fish. For live release tournaments, limits, when applied to all, are fair for all. All the slot tourneys around the country do not seem to stop the PWT and others from having their tourneys at those locations. Does and will everyone abide by the rules: I can only say anecdotally that some will cheat, the same as the non-tourney angler may cull or overbag. Bottom line is we have a great fishery and the DNR seems to be doing a fine job. B.A.S.S and others like it will come and play by our rules or go elsewhere. That is their call. FLW and PWT walleye forums seem to do just find under our system. It ain't broken, so why waste time fixing it. Take care, Jim O | ||
| |||
| hgmeyer |
| ||
Member Posts: 794 Location: Elgin, Illinois | For those of you who feel compelled to support this study and report and to argue or criticize my “harsh” characterization, I will draw your attention to the very study itself. First, scientific studies and experiments need to have samples and data bases large enough to ensure that conclusions are not drawn based on anomalous data (one time or small samplings). Control groups and test groups and blind parallel test need to be conducted. That is what makes the results of a study believeable and therefore valuable and useful. Next, “assumptions” must be at least “anecdotally" sound or better yet statistically developed (in other words not a “guesstimate”). Also, conclusions must emanate from the data not from further guesses or estimates. I refer you to page 5 of the report. They DNR chose seven tournaments to study to obtain data. So, some support for relying on more than one study can de drawn from that choice. However, the study did not generate relaible data from seven, six, or even five tournaments. From the report, I quote; “In this study initial mortality rates were very low and delayed mortality rates were quite variable. Mortality appeared to be related to water temperature. In three tournaments held when water temperatures were low, mortalities were very low resulting in estimated total mortality of less than 1%. In three tournaments held when water temperatures were high, …initial, delayed and reference mortalities were substantially higher. Due to high reference mortality in two of the three warm water tournaments…it was not possible to reliably estimate tournament-associated delayed mortality. LaCrosse 2006 provided the only reliable estimate of tournament-associated mortality.” Let’s dissect that statement, these are after all the DNR’s own “statements”. 1) Let’s examine “delayed mortality rates were quite variable”…At page 4 the study reveals that delayed mortality data for LMB ranged from 0-75% and 0-52.2% for SMB… I would agree that that was quite a range. Of course, then there is the “reference mortality… which is also stated at page four to have been 0-86.8% for LMB and 0-26.9% for SMB. In the one particular case you will see that the mortality rates from the reference group of fish was higher than the tournament held fish. In other words, over 85% of the non-handled (reference) fish died while in the DNR pens and ony 55% of the tournament handled fish died. Does that not justify some skepticism about methodology. The DNR “handled” this circumstance by simply ignoring the results from that tournament. Who is to say that their handling of the tournament associated fish in another location at another time did not have some effect on the fish mortality. If they killed over 85% of the non-handled fish by their study methods how many of the handled fish at any one given site were killed by their handling of them. 2)Here is what the DNR said of their own study…. From seven opportunities to gather date…“Due to the high reference mortality in two of the three warm water tournaments…it was not possible to reliably estimate tournament-associated delayed mortality. LaCrosse 2006 provided the only reliable estimate of tournament-associated mortality.” In other words, as they stated, “LaCrosse 2006 provided the only reliable estimate of tournament-associated mortality” One tournament … one set of “selected” data (Why was it selected… maybe because it “fit” a preconceived result. (There is support for this supposition in earlier statements about this study being in line with other studies…so it could be that the one data set that “fit” other studies was selected). 3) With regard to the simulated culling, at page six the data is discussed… they had 0% mortality of handled and non-handled bass at one location and an “adjusted” mortality of 16% at the other. So, again, two widely different results, but only two data sets were relied on to draw conclusions… When one or two data sets, no “blind” separate data sets (that is where two or more teams are independently conducting the same experiments for control and test circumstances), simulations, and assumptions are the basis for conclusions, yes, I am justified in calling the whole thing amateurish. Go back and re-read pages four through six. Tell me what I have missed or misstated. Then, if after that you are not somewhat less than convinced that this is not all that “scientific”… let me know and I will let you talk to some real “scientists” who do real world testing every day. Maybe they can convince you that this is “voodoo” not science. As well meaning and sincere as the participants may have been…it does not alter the stark reality of their own statement… the reults were drawn from “only” one tournament. And, their own admissions of wildly variable results…. Reference groups with higher mortality than test groups…all of it taken as a whole call their methodology into question beyond any doubt in my mind. | ||
| |||
| Gordy |
| ||
| I guess I'm still trying to figure out what your gripe here is? I understand that any data based from a one year study would not be "the benchmark" of all data. The early season events, for bass atleast have guys beating docks and catching fish in cool to cold water in less than 10' of water. The Summer events have fish taken in all depths at different times of the day. These fish are then put into wells drawing water based on surface temps. So I guess I'm not sure what the problem is? Is it that they don't allow culling or the fact they don't have enough data from a 1 year study of a few events? Or is it that based on the little knowledge they have come up with they would'nt change the laws for a few bass tournaments? I guess I'm missing your motive as to what exactly you want them to do and why. I guess I don't understand what your solution would be? I'm sure no matter what they come up with, some group or tour will not be happy. Just who are they really supposed to please? | |||
| |||
| hgmeyer |
| ||
Member Posts: 794 Location: Elgin, Illinois | Gordy, They (the DNR) are not supposed to "please" anybody... That is a separate issue...a "bias" may or may not exist. My point is very clear... Do not try to tell us that they have results from a scientific study... They don't. It was not "scientific". They have some "conclusions" that they put forth... But, those conclusions are not supported by any scientific data worth referencing. The big picture is this... The DNR should propose rules based on science or at least be intellectually honest and say that the rule is not based on science but is rather an appeasement to "reactions" or "prejudice". Would you want your Doctor to select treatments or pharmaceuticals baseds on sales pitches or rather based on clinical trials that somewhat assure a likely result. This is the same thing. Right now I see this as touting a "position paper", buttressing up an agenda while trying to sell the big lie that it is a scientific report. If the DNR wants to take a position against culling, say so and say that it is because of negative opinions against culling. But, do not shake this study in my face and say that the results are scientific proof that culling is bad for the fish. Read again, what I posted and analyzed. This was a "study" that actually consists of the published data from one isolated tournament being used as proof of facts that could be stated as "scientifically supported conclusions" Lets say this is somewhat analogous.... Set up seven tests... measure the time it takes for a determined amount of water to evaporate... Now, each time you measure the time, have the container be shaped differently so that the surface area is never the same, sometimes have the container out in the sun... and sometimes have it it in the shade... Then look at your "results"... throw six of the seven results away because... well one time you forgot to watch the container and so you forgot to stop the timer... another time you put out hot water so that may have affected the results so ignore that test... get down to one test where you "think" all the conditions were "average" (nothing "goofy" happened) and then publish the results of that one test as proof thatg water evaporates... every time... at the same rate as that one experiment. Now, some other scientist will come along and if your tests were scientific he should be able to duplicate your results... Except he won't except by accident since he won't know whether you used a tall skinny bottle or big flat pie pan to hold the water... he won't know what the air temperature and relaitive humidity on the day you did your test so he won't be able to duplicate that either.. in total he will not be able to validate your data so he will conclude that your test was not scientifically done. Now, I know that that is an over simplification but it is the heart of my harsh criticism. The "study" was not scientific, so therefore the displayed data and by implication, the results and conclusions are not "proven". If it isn't scientific it is junk! Period! It might be "great" in your opinion because the authors conclude that they agree with you that culling is bad.. Or, if you hope that culling will be allowed you won't like the study. Those are emotional reactions. But, those emotional reactions do not influence the cold hard truth that the study is not worth anything as a "scientific" study. That is my point. | ||
| |||
| tyee |
| ||
Member Posts: 1406 | HG, I beg to differ, your not seeing all the data! Although they were forced to do a study of something that couldn't be done. (regarding your item 1) The collection methods were the same, mother nature had an affect and some bodies of water showed results of LMBV. These are all factors that were not known and delt with accordingly. Had mother nature not whipped up a big storm or LMBV not been a factor more similar data might have been obtained. If you followed each study as it took place you might understand the data that was gathered. They used 7 events, (were supposed to use 8) and remember they were forced to analize these tourneys by the legislature, and develop their own plan. The data collection was discussed by various people from many agencies/companies/groups. The data is available so feel free to review it! You might come to the same conclusions. But unless someone is going to fork over another 100k to do 8 more we won't be able to compare that data to anything else! I understand you being skeptical but calling it amatureish is wrong. Good Luck Tyee | ||
| |||
| hgmeyer |
| ||
Member Posts: 794 Location: Elgin, Illinois | Tyee... I read the report summary... The DNR discarded every study but one... Their own words. One sample does not make a study. As I said, the best of intentions do not alter the true facts. They draw their conclusions from one tournament. Otherwise, what does the language on the page I quote mean. The word "only" is the word they use. If you do not like "amateurish" try "incomplete", "inconclusive", or some other indication of a study that did not succeed. Maybe a "failed" good faith attempt. But then I do not believe they intended to do a complete study. I believe they intended to conclude a result and wrote a repiort to that goal. That is how skeptical I am. Edited by hgmeyer 3/20/2007 11:46 PM | ||
| |||
| Sunshine |
| ||
Member Posts: 2393 Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Stick to your guns Greg. You're doing a great job. IMHO, amateurish is not too strong of a word. I waited patiently for this report with an open mind. I'm in favor of what is best for the fish. My gut feeling told me that culling may actually decrease mortality. Green Bay was involved with my thought process because of the long runs in big waves. Having a fish in the livewell all day beats it up. I would think that culling would allow the opportunity to spend less time in the livewell. I believe that most tournament-associated mortality occurs because of how the fish are handled by the tournament organization or long runs. I believe that my fish are healthy when released from my livewell after spending a short time there. I wanted to see the scientific evidence of either supporting or rejecting this gut feeling. After reading this report, I have more questions not less. That's not how it is supposed to work after a study. | ||
| |||
| Sunshine |
| ||
Member Posts: 2393 Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Tyee: I wanted to reply to your concern about meat hogs. You state: I have known more than my share of idiots in my lifetime and many of them would be throwing back dead fish for larger ones. Am I really the only one to know people like that or are the rest of you lost in your little world? Maybe I need to start hanging with the a different crowd? I would have been very worried about this mentality 10-15 years ago. But with the education on catch and release and the health risks associated with eating big fish, I believe that most people enjoy their day on the water and take what they can eat for one meal. Are there meat hogs out there, of course. But they are the minority now and some of these people are already breaking the law. I may be naive but if people had a choice at culling, I believe that many would choose smaller fish for eating, not larger. Wouldn’t this help the fishery by keeping the important spawners in the system? | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2026 OutdoorsFIRST Media | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's