January Austackle ROTM Roll Over

[Davo_Dinkum]

i think people complaining and arguing about it ,is bad for the site and the sponsors etc .

a decision had to be made and it was .

hope this thread dose not turn into a dog chasing its tail,good input so far with many valid points.

i find it hard to have a opinion on this as there are so many valid points from both sides .

[Bommie]

rules are rules(in rotm) Rod, great catch and great report, I have fished with you a few times before and your a good bloke, com'on please don't be one of those who gets the craps and takes his footy from the game and goes home sulking,

isn't it all about the capture?,,, not the recognition

[ellicat]

I've no problem with that Brian, anything illegal should be discouraged by whatever means.

My point is that I don't believe that I did anything illegal.

Had I been fishing on a well known barra hotspot...problem

If I'd kept or harmed the fish out of season...problem

As I was did neither of the above...how can that be a problem?

Where was the crime?

Sorry Rocket Rod, That last post was not intended for you but a response to max pwr's question. My comment about the percentages does question the 5 ruling the 95 assertion, although not 100% statistically correct I would imagine.

I wish the posts that aussie123 made quoting the Act directly had not been lost. It would have shown you that immediately means immediately and not after you've taken some time to get the perfect shots. Would most of us (if not all) have done the same thing ? - you betcha !

Is the judges decision final ? - well, it usually is lol

Your response is up to you, Rod.

Stop posting and be a lurker with perpetual angst against the site or

Have a grizzle, express your feelings, start getting over it and wait for the wounds to heal and seek the joy the place has brought you to date or

whatever else you can make up.

[Orca]

As the Sponsor i have a vote along with with several other people.

A precedent was set in November (i think) when Dan Young was not consideered as his fish was caught during a closed season for that species. The precedent was set. It is how case law has developed over centuries. I had no option but to vote against the report being the winner.

Rod's report was excellent as was Dan's but i believe my hands were tied by precedent.

[pancakes_and_haggis]

Its a hard one that one!

BUT, Instead of everyone making a song and dance about it, how about we just go down there and pull the bastard out again, that way, we can photograph it as much as we like, write an absolutely awesome report, and eat it for tea! Save me eating more tilapia from NPD :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Rocket75]

Doing something because that’s how it’s always been done in the past does not necessarily make it right.

Where circumstances are different from case to case it seems unfair to judge with a blanket rule.

It makes no allowing for intent, character or circumstantial evidence.

If we are comparing my report with previous reports that have been excluded from ROTM I think that we need to look not only at the similarities, but at the differences.

They key difference that I can see between my report and the now infamous “Cod Report†was that the other report was based purely on a session that TARGETTED an out of season species.

Had I been doing that, or if I thought anyone could possibly believe I was, I would be quite willing to agree with the decision made.

I believe Precedent is only a valid method for a ruling until such times as it is proved to be inaccurate or inapplicable to a case.

Taken from the ever faithful source of Wikipedia: … a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so…

I feel that I have given AFO a strong reason to overturn this precedent and judge my (and further cases) on their individual merits.

[Surfingant]

What if a species subject to a closed season was caught in open season but the report not put up til after close? Would that still fall under the set precedent?

Personally I think Rod's report was worthy of rotm, it was an extraordinary capture not only the fish but the gear it was taken on. I do understand afo's and the sponsor's position and the reason it was not given but believe under the circumstances the rules could have been relaxed a little. If the fish was not removed from the water and a photo taken of Rod swimming it beside the yak would that have been allowed? Because as far as I can understand that is within the rules.

Rod I hope you keep posting reports mate, I always enjoy reading them as I am sure the rest of the community does.

[shortie]

A precident which is in practice is however not formally binding on all future applications of the law. New precedents maybe set or overturned.

Where the case is not absolutelly identical in its application it should be judged on its own merits.

Rocket Rod your have more recognition now for your report than you would of if you had officially won the comp.

Only thing you dont have to show is some lures.

Well done mate, keep up the reports.

I've got 4 eco gear lures here that i will gladly give to you as a peoples choice prize for a deserved REPORT OF THE MONTH.

[tomca]

so no more undersize jew or threadfin, oversize sharks are going to be awarded prizes at the next BRC based on that precedent?

[fishingnut]

so no more undersize jew or threadfin, oversize sharks are going to be awarded prizes at the next BRC based on that precedent?

Lol now there is a can of worms right there !!!

[shortie]

Didnt BRC miscellanious prizes last comp go to an 3 undersized jewy when Tomcas legal cod missed out on everything.

I think the precident was set already

[kreel]

Username: Brisbane fishing online

Date Of Report: 22 February (or there-abouts)

URL Link: http://www.australianfishing.com.au/forum/98-report-of-the-month/399029-january-austackle-rotm-roll-over?limit=20&start=40

Reason for nomination: This is the funniest site on the web and it's even funnier when it takes itself so seriously that people start quoting legal precedent. The 2 reports mentioned were both great reads, thank you both. Keep this post open it could make report of the decade if someone actually engages legal representation and the guano actually does hit the rotating breeze making machine.

Rod you're a bigger man than this and an even better fisherman - I was pleased to see you catch a lungfish and take your photo, before you returned it to the water. I will be disappointed if you no longer report.

Please debit my account the sum of 2 cents.

[tomca]

.

Rod you're a bigger man than this

you must be thinking of a different Rod, this ones a near midget

[kreel]

.

Rod you're a bigger man than this

you must be thinking of a different Rod, this ones a near midget

Are we talking about the same guy Rod V - nice guy, buys his clothes at the same place as Frodo.

[bootyinblue]

I've no problem with that Brian, anything illegal should be discouraged by whatever means.

My point is that I don't believe that I did anything illegal.

Had I been fishing on a well known barra hotspot...problem

If I'd kept or harmed the fish out of season...problem

As I was did neither of the above...how can that be a problem?

Where was the crime?

I wish the posts that aussie123 made quoting the Act directly had not been lost. It would have shown you that immediately means immediately and not after you've taken some time to get the perfect shots. Would most of us (if not all) have done the same thing ? - you betcha !

Is the judges decision final ? - well, it usually is lol

You know I love a bit of Acts and Regulations and will look it up when I have some time, but in the interim here is a link to the 'Quick Guide' for the QLD Recreational Fishing Regulations which is an easy guide to understanding the Act.

Interesting to note that on Page 3 it states

What if you catch an undersized fish?

If you unintentionally take a fish (including fin fish or crustaceans) that is not legal size, return it to the water immediately, taking as much care as possible to avoid causing any injury to the fish.

So that means no photos, no brag mat, no unique items present.

I am almost certain that if its in the 'Quick Guide' then it will be written just as concisely (if not more) in the Act.

Are we back to comparing apples to apples?

/>http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Fisheries_RecreationalFishing/Rec-fishing-regs.pdf

[Bommie]

yep,,,because of the brc. and the kafuffull it cause, I guess that is why the decision was made????? yes/no??????

[Angus]

Fair call booty we always look to improve the running of things so this (like most points raised here) will and have been closely followed for future consideration bit will not change the outcome of previous events (concerning under size or out of season fish).

Angus

[bootyinblue]

Fair call booty we always look to improve the running of things so this (like most points raised here) will and have been closely followed for future consideration bit will not change the outcome of previous events (concerning under size or out of season fish).

Angus

To be applauded Gus, if it is to be considered. It was exactly my point when the Jews (as in fish) won prizes whilst being undersized in the recent BRC.

Whats done is done, but we get up, dust ourselves off, shake hands and learn and thats the important bit.

[aussie123]

I've no problem with that Brian, anything illegal should be discouraged by whatever means.

My point is that I don't believe that I did anything illegal.

Had I been fishing on a well known barra hotspot...problem

If I'd kept or harmed the fish out of season...problem

As I was did neither of the above...how can that be a problem?

Where was the crime?

I wish the posts that aussie123 made quoting the Act directly had not been lost. It would have shown you that immediately means immediately and not after you've taken some time to get the perfect shots. Would most of us (if not all) have done the same thing ? - you betcha !

Is the judges decision final ? - well, it usually is lol

You know I love a bit of Acts and Regulations and will look it up when I have some time, but in the interim here is a link to the 'Quick Guide' for the QLD Recreational Fishing Regulations which is an easy guide to understanding the Act.

Interesting to note that on Page 3 it states

What if you catch an undersized fish?

If you unintentionally take a fish (including fin fish or crustaceans) that is not legal size, return it to the water immediately, taking as much care as possible to avoid causing any injury to the fish.

So that means no photos, no brag mat, no unique items present.

I am almost certain that if its in the 'Quick Guide' then it will be written just as concisely (if not more) in the Act.

Are we back to comparing apples to apples?

/>http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Fisheries_RecreationalFishing/Rec-fishing-regs.pdf

In the eyes of the law and the fisheries act Rods Barra would not be deemed to be an illegal capture unless he kept the fish or he harmed the fish and then released it.

The act works with 3 key words and they are Take, Immediately and Unharmed.

Immediately does not have the same meaning under the fisheries act as it says in a dictionary as you do need and are given the opportunity to measure a fish to see if it is deemed to be undersized or legal to keep.

Unharmed means the fish must be released as quickly as possible so the fish is not harmed and given every chance for survival.

If you deliberately TAKE a regulated fish or fish in a regulated waterway you are in breach of the law.

You are also allowed to remove a regulated fish from the water by means of a landing net or gaff for the purpose of removing the hooks.

You are also allowed to measure and record the details of a regulated or undersized fish for the purpose of tagging and you are also allowed to take photos of any fish as long as the fish is treated properly and quickly returned to the water UNHARMED.

The awarding of prizes to what could be deemed an illegal capture has and always will always be a major issue for many comps and organizations .

The fisheries act is based on the taking of fish or in other words the killing and taking fish for consumption therefore over the years many clubs have adopted the idea that if a fish is deemed illegal to keep by law it is not a valid entry.

I think this is the fairest and easiest way to go for any organization and something that every angler can understand.

[Gad]

I've no problem with that Brian, anything illegal should be discouraged by whatever means.

My point is that I don't believe that I did anything illegal.....quote]

I wish the posts that aussie123 made quoting the Act directly had not been lost. It would have shown you that immediately means immediately and not after you've taken some time to get the perfect shots. Would most of us (if not all) have done the same thing ? - you betcha !

Is the judges decision final ? - well, it usually is lol

here is a link to the 'Quick Guide' for the QLD Recreational Fishing Regulations which is an easy guide to understanding the Act.

Interesting to note that on Page 3 it states

What if you catch an undersized fish?

If you unintentionally take a fish (including fin fish or crustaceans) that is not legal size, return it to the water immediately, taking as much care as possible to avoid causing any injury to the fish.

So that means no photos, no brag mat, no unique items present.

I am almost certain that if its in the 'Quick Guide' then it will be written just as concisely (if not more) in the Act.

Are we back to comparing apples to apples?

/>http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Fisheries_RecreationalFishing/Rec-fishing-regs.pdf

going by that definition all dusky flathead over the 40cm-75cm legal size limit fall under the return it to the water immediately, taking as much care as possible to avoid causing any injury to the fish.

So that means no photos, no brag mat.???

Some times clarification of so-called "gray areas" can sometimes turn black & white

Editthanks to booty I shall edit mms (i like the peanut ones) to cms in the above size limits :pinch:

[bootyinblue]

I trust you mean 40cm to 75cm length as only I catch fish that are 40mm long.

But yes, there will be a dilemma with oversize fish, I think undersize should be cut and dried, but what do you do with a 90cm lizard?

[Angus]

Thanks for the previous points.

Agree with the decision or not, issues raised by both gad and Aussie123 essentially were the thoughts that went into the decision and may help you to understand it.

How does this conform with for example the brc? Upon reflection probably not well and this will be addresssed before the next event with some oficial clarification.

At the end of the day we invest a huge ammount of time and effort running these monthly comps. Unlike physical events these in no way generate any revenue for the site and are conducted purely to add more benefits for members in our own time.

Rod if you feel hard done by as the wording of the explanation made it sound you were intentionally doing something illegal then you do have my apology. However (and I will ensure this is better worded in the entry conditions) fish caught out of season will remain ineligible. After going through this thread so may be undersize fish regardless of whether they were released.

The way in which said practices are converted into the physical events may also require some tinkering.

Once again this will be done in time, when we physically can so patience as always is appreciated.

Cheers.

Angus

[aussie123]

I have uploaded the 2 documents to my server for the QLD Fisheries Act for anyone who wants to read them or save a copy to the computer.

You need to read both documents to get the full act.

/>http://www.reeltackle.com.au/fisheries_act/FisherA94.pdf
/>http://www.reeltackle.com.au/fisheries_act/FisherR08.pdf

[Do$tylz]

I wonder how many other comps run by any other organisation openly addresses such contentious issues like this?

AFO doesn't always get it right in everyone's eyes, but I think the best possible job is done to address issues. Mates can make mistakes without meaning to harm anyone.

[aussie123]

I personally think every comp should be run and based on their relevant states fisheries laws.

If a fish is deemed illegal to keep for one reason or another then they should be ineligible to be entered.

This format keeps everything transparent and very clear to every angler.

A good example is sharks and flathead that have a maximum size limit.

Keeping to fisheries law stops people deliberately targeting oversize fish for the purpose of winning a prize even though they set out with full intentions to release any large fish.

Keeping the rules within the law saves any confusion and gives a great platform to base every competition from whether it be fishing comp or ROTM type comp.

[JarrydA]

I agree ^^

Seems like the most logical and fair way to do it.

[max pwr]

What about all the tiny bass we see in reports all the time and undersized barra from north coast reports? Should all of these posts be deleted as well? I see congratulations awarded aplenty to these posters but somehow it's different to award a few lures as a prize/ thankyou......If someone else catches a barra in the coomera out of season or undersized should he/she keep quiet and pretend it didn't happen or just not take 30 seconds to take a pic?

Unfortunately litigation can go crazy and the powers that be who run AFO in the end are the ones who are going to cop any flak should there be any fallout......it's a shame but that's the reality of a public forum. Personally I reckon Rod deserved rotm but it's not my ass on the line but really the question is where does it end? If all non legal catches are banned from the forum then there's going to be bugger all reports full stop.

BTW I have no problem with the posters or posts I alluded to at the start of this comment and hope you don't mind me using you as an example

[aussie123]

What about all the tiny bass we see in reports all the time and undersized barra from north coast reports? Should all of these posts be deleted as well? I see congratulations awarded aplenty to these posters but somehow it's different to award a few lures as a prize/ thankyou......If someone else catches a barra in the coomera out of season or undersized should he/she keep quiet and pretend it didn't happen or just not take 30 seconds to take a pic?

Unfortunately litigation can go crazy and the powers that be who run AFO in the end are the ones who are going to cop any flak should there be any fallout......it's a shame but that's the reality of a public forum. Personally I reckon Rod deserved rotm but it's not my ass on the line but really the question is where does it end? If all non legal catches are banned from the forum then there's going to be bugger all reports full stop.

BTW I have no problem with the posters or posts I alluded to at the start of this comment and hope you don't mind me using you as an example

This discussion has nothing to do with general reports on the forum as it is about what should or should not be allowed to be entered into competitions.

IE: What should be deemed legal or illegal.

I think everyone here agrees that there needs to be much clearer rules and regulations but which platform should be used to make it fair to every competitor and to how things can be run to comply with the law.

I have suggested the option of basing all comps on fisheries law to save any confusion and to make it completely transparent to every one.

[max pwr]

Yeah but rod put up a report first and foremost, not a competition entry. He obviously thought it worthy of consideration of ROTM as a lot of other people did. If a post is valid as a report then should it not be admissable as ROTM? Because it is a report of his trip and that's why I made the reference to other reports of undersized fish and other barra out of season. The other reports are somehow fine for the forum because they're not up for a prize?

Once again I have no problem whatsoever with people posting pics of undersized fish, a lot of anglers like Rod on this forum are well respected and I'm sure everyone knows that fish are handled well and returned to the water safely. I really think it's splitting hairs that Rod paused for a quick couple of pics and that's been his undoing. It was an exceptional catch and we're all better off for his report.

[Orca]

What about all the tiny bass we see in reports all the time and undersized barra from north coast reports? Should all of these posts be deleted as well? I see congratulations awarded aplenty to these posters but somehow it's different to award a few lures as a prize/ thankyou......If someone else catches a barra in the coomera out of season or undersized should he/she keep quiet and pretend it didn't happen or just not take 30 seconds to take a pic?

Unfortunately litigation can go crazy and the powers that be who run AFO in the end are the ones who are going to cop any flak should there be any fallout......it's a shame but that's the reality of a public forum. Personally I reckon Rod deserved rotm but it's not my ass on the line but really the question is where does it end? If all non legal catches are banned from the forum then there's going to be bugger all reports full stop.

BTW I have no problem with the posters or posts I alluded to at the start of this comment and hope you don't mind me using you as an example

This discussion has nothing to do with general reports on the forum as it is about what should or should not be allowed to be entered into competitions.

IE: What should be deemed legal or illegal.

I think everyone here agrees that there needs to be much clearer rules and regulations but which platform should be used to make it fair to every competitor and to how things can be run to comply with the law.

I have suggested the option of basing all comps on fisheries law to save any confusion and to make it completely transparent to every one.

Lance

After the flak from Dan Youngs post and also Angus's post about the Noosa Barra the judges came up with a guiding principle which i believe is very clear concise and unambiguous. Perhaps this was not communicated to the Forum adequately but as far as i was concerned that was the way we were to look at reports from that point onwards. Hence my comment that the precedent had been set and i felt i had no option but to vote against Rods report.

The guiding principle was as follows: " if the report contains any activity which is illegal or includes any fish caught out of season then it is not eligible to be considered for the "Report of the Month"

[aussie123]

I can totally understand your thinking here as well but the issue in the end with Rods fish and report is whether the fish was an illegal capture and if so should it be allowed to be entered into a competition to collect the prize.

These are 2 separate issues and should be dealt with accordingly and something that AFO now in reality does have to address the situation so it can be put to bed once for all and to make a sturdy platform for all future events.

As far as I am concerned personally I fully believe Rods Barra was an exceptional capture and exceptional report and in no way would it ever be deemed an illegal capture by Fisheries Law under those circumstances unless he kept the fish or harmed the fish before it was returned to the water.

The next step is the illegibility of this fish and report into a competition and should it be allowed or not.

This is where I would like to see all events based on fisheries law to make life simpler for everyone and if at the time the fish is deemed legal to keep it is allowed to be entered but if that fish is illegal to keep it should not be allowed therefore the fish in question I believe Angus and the other judges have made the correct decision this time.

I know it sounds unfair for a great capture like Rods barra but it creates clarity for everyone.

The biggest thing here is people need to remember this is a social forum and in reality the comps are a social gathering and the chance to have a fish and possibly win a small prize as a bonus.

The same goes for events like the ROTM,it's a bit of fun which is supported by some great sponsors and should be treated that way.

We are not playing for sheep stations and big money prizes and I think the sooner a set platform is put forward the better for everyone.

[aussie123]

What about all the tiny bass we see in reports all the time and undersized barra from north coast reports? Should all of these posts be deleted as well? I see congratulations awarded aplenty to these posters but somehow it's different to award a few lures as a prize/ thankyou......If someone else catches a barra in the coomera out of season or undersized should he/she keep quiet and pretend it didn't happen or just not take 30 seconds to take a pic?

Unfortunately litigation can go crazy and the powers that be who run AFO in the end are the ones who are going to cop any flak should there be any fallout......it's a shame but that's the reality of a public forum. Personally I reckon Rod deserved rotm but it's not my ass on the line but really the question is where does it end? If all non legal catches are banned from the forum then there's going to be bugger all reports full stop.

BTW I have no problem with the posters or posts I alluded to at the start of this comment and hope you don't mind me using you as an example

This discussion has nothing to do with general reports on the forum as it is about what should or should not be allowed to be entered into competitions.

IE: What should be deemed legal or illegal.

I think everyone here agrees that there needs to be much clearer rules and regulations but which platform should be used to make it fair to every competitor and to how things can be run to comply with the law.

I have suggested the option of basing all comps on fisheries law to save any confusion and to make it completely transparent to every one.

Lance

After the flak from Dan Youngs post and also Angus's post about the Noosa Barra the judges came up with a guiding principle which i believe is very clear concise and unambiguous. Perhaps this was not communicated to the Forum adequately but as far as i was concerned that was the way we were to look at reports from that point onwards. Hence my comment that the precedent had been set and i felt i had no option but to vote against Rods report.

The guiding principle was as follows: " if the report contains any activity which is illegal or includes any fish caught out of season then it is not eligible to be considered for the "Report of the Month"

Hi Mike

I totally agree with your decision and the reasons why.

I also understand how harsh it may have felt to Rod for such an exceptional capture in the Coomera River and the effort he put in to create such a great report.

A set of eligibility rules need to be put in place once and for all that covers all AFO events so this never happens again and the members can move on.

[max pwr]

Yeah I can see everyone's point of view and different perspective, I'm just adding my 2 cents as part of the discussion...... It's a pretty complicated issue and I'm glad I don't have the responsibility of making the call, especially for the fishing comps.....imagine if there's 20 under 45cm flatties caught and 2 over 75cm but none inbetween in the BRC no eligible fish therefore no winner, though there are 22 fish of that species caught.......tough one allright.

And as far as the guidelines for the comp go then Orca had no choice but to deem Rod's report ineligible, shame but that's the way it is..... Good luck to AFO mods coming up with a solution and thanks for reopening the thread so we can have our say.

Over and out.

[Keen-as-fisho]

.imagine if there's 20 under 45cm flatties caught and 2 over 75cm but none inbetween in the BRC no eligible fish therefore no winner, though there are 22 fish of that species caught.......tough one allright.

IMO its simple omit the species off the list before the event, theres plenty of other targets.

[bootyinblue]

I have uploaded the 2 documents to my server for the QLD Fisheries Act for anyone who wants to read them or save a copy to the computer.

You need to read both documents to get the full act.

/>http://www.reeltackle.com.au/fisheries_act/FisherA94.pdf
/>http://www.reeltackle.com.au/fisheries_act/FisherR08.pdf

OK I have been through both the Act and Regulations and

Sect 12 of the Act states

12 When Act does not apply

This Act does not apply to—

(a) the unintentional taking of regulated fish or marine

plants if the fish or plants are not intentionally or

recklessly injured or damaged and are immediately put

back; or

( the unintentional possession of regulated fish or marine

plants by a person if the fish or plants are not

intentionally or recklessly injured or damaged and the

person can not, because of circumstances beyond the

person’s control, put the fish or plants back immediately

they come into the person’s possession; or

© the use of a hand net to lift from water fish taken by

other fishing apparatus; or

(d) the use of a gaff to secure fish taken by other fishing

apparatus.

And section 197 of the Regs says

197Taking fish using fishing apparatus

(1)This section applies to a person using fishing apparatus for—

(a)taking regulated fish unintentionally; or

(b)taking other fish the person does not intend to keep.

(2)The person must immediately release the fish into water deep enough to allow the fish to escape.

(3)The person must not allow a part of the apparatus containing a regulated fish to be out of the water other than to immediately remove the fish from the apparatus.

There is no mention that I can see in either publication about the general public photographing knowingly regulated fish prior to release. Obviously you could argue the point of a measure to confirm length and determine if a 'keeper' or not, but the way I read them is that once you have knowledge that the fish is regulated and does not meet or exceeds the limits it must be returned to the water immediately.

For anyone who has just swung in to this, a regulated fish is any fish or other aqautic thing that has a size, bag or closed season applicable to it.

I searched a few key words to find this, there maybe a subclause hidden somewhere about keeping fish out for longer but I cant find it. Although would happily stand corrected if someone does.

[aussie123]

Hi Greg

You are correct that there is no reference in the regs to what is allowed when it comes to taking pictures of a regulated fish.

I contacted the DPI a while ago and asked for a ruling in writing about this and they stated that it is fine to take pictures as long as the fish is returned to the water Unharmed.

[ellicat]

Hi Greg

You are correct that there is no reference in the regs to what is allowed when it comes to taking pictures of a regulated fish.

I contacted the DPI a while ago and asked for a ruling in writing about this and they stated that it is fine to take pictures as long as the fish is returned to the water Unharmed.

That's only good until that bloke is replaced. The legislation will always prevail, especially where a replacement manager interprets the legislation to the letter. Having been in a legal occupation (tax) I have witnessed the effects of a different interpretation from one period to the next by different 'managers'

[crazywalrus]

Hey guys - we need to settle down and not make it so serious. It is not sheep stations here. I and Chicken Eddie both spent ages on our reports last December only to have the ROTM canned for that month. We did not put up a song and dance. I have not stopped putting in reports. I spent a good day or more on that report as I wanted to beat Chicken Eddie. We will never know now who would have won. :whistle: :evil:

[bootyinblue]

I dont think anyone is spinning out of countrol here... its more about food for thought for a balanced, fair, sustainable, fish friendly future ;-)

[Manni79]

.imagine if there's 20 under 45cm flatties caught and 2 over 75cm but none inbetween in the BRC no eligible fish therefore no winner, though there are 22 fish of that species caught.......tough one allright.

IMO its simple omit the species off the list before the event, theres plenty of other targets.

Someone may have one in your example seeing as the legal limit for Dusky Flathead is 40cm (http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_3042.htm)

But you make a good point mate