Muskie Discussion Forums

Forums | Calendars | Albums | Quotes | Language | Blogs Search | Statistics | User Listing
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )
Moderators: Slamr

View previous thread :: View next thread
Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page]

Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Minnesota to ban FFS?
 
Message Subject: Minnesota to ban FFS?
jvlast15
Posted 5/12/2025 9:57 AM (#1033758 - in reply to #1033757)
Subject: Re: Minnesota to ban FFS?




Posts: 318


North of 8 - 5/12/2025 8:27 AM

I just thought it was interesting that Major League Fishing seems to have offered a compromise, at least for this tournament. FFS Ok the first day, but not the second. Wonder if other tournaments might follow suit.


I am being lazy here without wanting to look it up myself - but did the bag sizes change dramatically or was there a reduction in the number of fish caught if we compare day 1 to day 2? I understand that it could happen due to a variety of reasons. Just curious.
North of 8
Posted 5/12/2025 3:26 PM (#1033759 - in reply to #1033758)
Subject: Re: Minnesota to ban FFS?




The leader on day 1 increased his lead on day 2, without FFS. On day three he secured the victory. The story at the top of the forum indicated that many of his close competitors dropped back on day 2. Story does not attribute that to lack of FFS, but seems to make sense. Winner did 26 lbs on day one, 21lbs on day 2.
Winner was quite blunt in saying how FFS has helped his results. But still, 21 pounds on a tough reservoir without it speaks to some skill.


jvlast15
Posted 5/13/2025 1:40 PM (#1033789 - in reply to #1033759)
Subject: Re: Minnesota to ban FFS?




Posts: 318


North of 8 - 5/12/2025 3:26 PM

The leader on day 1 increased his lead on day 2, without FFS. On day three he secured the victory. The story at the top of the forum indicated that many of his close competitors dropped back on day 2. Story does not attribute that to lack of FFS, but seems to make sense. Winner did 26 lbs on day one, 21lbs on day 2.
Winner was quite blunt in saying how FFS has helped his results. But still, 21 pounds on a tough reservoir without it speaks to some skill.




If they saw consistent smaller bags from day to day, and the only significant change was the lack of FFS, that would be pretty d*mning evidence.
jamesb
Posted 5/13/2025 2:07 PM (#1033790 - in reply to #1033789)
Subject: Re: Minnesota to ban FFS?




Posts: 67


I don't think anyone needs evidence at this point. Common sense would tell you that you would catch less fish. People use it for a reason.
jvlast15
Posted 5/13/2025 2:25 PM (#1033791 - in reply to #1033790)
Subject: Re: Minnesota to ban FFS?




Posts: 318


jamesb - 5/13/2025 2:07 PM

I don't think anyone needs evidence at this point. Common sense would tell you that you would catch less fish. People use it for a reason.



"I don't think anyone needs evidence at this point" seems like something they said before the OJ trial.
Brian Hoffies
Posted 5/13/2025 2:57 PM (#1033793 - in reply to #1032208)
Subject: Re: Minnesota to ban FFS?





Posts: 1783


I'm guessing all the areas they found fish with FFS are marked on the GPS units. Would make for a good starting point for days without FFS. Horse if out of the barn, there is no going back now. Money wins again.
Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)