Poche disqualified

[willwork4fish]

I don't know how much Toledo Bend fluctuates but if the water is higher then can you float over that? If you can is it now part of Toledo Bend? Is it posted NO FISHING? Seems like every tournament I've been in specifically calls out off-limits by name or area.

Seems to me that accessibility to an area is a little subjective based on water levels and what you're willing to do...some guys will run a ditch and others won't, etc. During high water people fish in "new" water that isn't usually part of that body of water all the time. Haven't seen anyone get DQ'd for catching a fish off a flooded swing set or picnic bench.

From a safety perspective is running when it gets big on Erie unsafe? How about outside the boat lanes on Fork? People take "unsafe" chances and the consequences are on them. If you say they are experienced in big water or they know the area than you can say Poche is experienced running over a little land.

All that being said, I like Keith and how he goes about fishing the way that works for him. I think he probably has a point but I definitely also think that once the official process resulted in a DQ he should have just let it go.

[BigFishSteve]

It's connected. It's also connected to Kevin Bacon.

[west_tn]

The people saying there is a pipe running underground connecting the waters so therefore they are connected and ok to fish are the same people that forced McDonalds to put "Caution Hot" on their coffee cups.

[jp71291]

That roller is NOT a creek (a natural stream of water normally smaller than and often tributary to a river) or canal (waterways or engineered channels built for drainage management or for conveyancing water transport vehicles. They carry free, calm surface flow under atmospheric pressure, and can be thought of as artificial rivers) connecting this impoundment (a body of water confined within an enclosure, as a reservoir) to Toledo Bend.

why is this so difficult An impoundment (the 500ac WMA impoundment) by definition, CANNOT be part of another impoundment (Toledo Bend).

Because, it doesn't matter what you want to call it. Toledo Bend is connected to that body of water when it's above 172. We call places off river systems: ponds, backwater, basin, lake, maybe even impoundment. Alot of the lakes even have names off river systems. I can't tell you how many times I've heard we caught them in XYZ lake. We barely got in and had to jump the sandbar to get in. If you can access them by not leaving your boat then you can fish them. You are trying to use a play on words and not judging the act. He did what 1000's of people have done in 1,000's of tournaments and all of a sudden now it's not permitted. If this was not deemed as illegal water by the tournament prior to the start then how in the heck could it be considered illegal based off previous precedence. So I'll repeat the question to you, Why is this so difficult?

[Jaredn]

The KEY word in the circled area on your first picture is "connected." If there is a pipe running under the levee/dam through which water flows back and forth between the 500 acre backwater area and the main impoundment, then the 500 acre area is "connected." From all accounts I have read, the 500 acre area is connected and is defined as part of Toledo Bend impoundment. While the pipe running under the dam is not navigable, nothing in the rules requires it to be navigable. If the rule was written such that an area must be connected by a navigable waterway to be considered within tournament waters, that rule would then also outlaw a competitor from going over a beaver dam, jumping across a sandbar, and other commonly accepted practices. Then, the issue becomes what is "navigable." One might also argue that anyone powering their glass boat across an extremely shallow area to access deeper water on the other side is crossing an unnavigable area. What about tidal waters? If one goes into a creek and then must power across a mud flat when the tides goes out, have they violated the navigable rule? It's the tournament organization's responsibility to write clear rules. They failed in this particular case due to some unique circumstances. As someone noted on the previous page, since this is a grey area, there should not have been a DQ and the rules should be rewritten to cover similar situations. I will concede that if Keith had gotten a ruling from the TD prior to fishing there, this would have been avoided. But, since the area he fished is considered part of Toledo Bend and since it is connected to that body of water, that area meets all of the criteria specified in the area you circled in your first pic.

So you’re telling me that this 500acre IMPOUNDMENT is a creek or canal?

[TritonJT]

If his boat hull was dry during the process, it was no longer "in navigable water", and thus he should be dq'd.

[lakebouef5]

Why not get a ruling from TD before tourney starts? Would sure settle a lot before hand.

[Jaredn]

Because, it doesn't matter what you want to call it. Toledo Bend is connected to that body of water when it's above 172. We call places of river systems: ponds, backwater, basin, lake, maybe even impoundment. Alot of the lakes even have names of river systems. I can't tell you how many times I've heard we caught them in XYZ lake. We barely got in and had to jump the sandbar to get in. If you can access them by not leaving your boat then you can fish them. You are trying to use a play on words and not judging the act. He did what 1000's of people have done in 1,000's of tournaments and all of a sudden now it's not permitted. If this was not deemed as illegal water by the tournament prior to the start then how in the heck could it be considered illegal based off previous precedence. So I'll repeat the question to you, Why is this so difficult?

it’s not what I call it, it’s what the state calls it.

play on words? Do you understand how rules and directives are written? I do. It involves words and their definitions to ensure the standards are black and white

[TritonJT]

Why not get a ruling from TD before tourney starts? Would sure settle a lot before hand.

He didn't want the answer. He knew what it would be.

[Booster]

Just look at a satellite photo of the area. It IS connected, he just took a short cut.

[Doorman1]

Missing tournaments and DQs will have him needing to qualify for the elites again. I read the entire thread this afternoon and both sides seem to make very valid points. The bottom line is he knew before he did it that it was questionable at best and chose to not get a ruling from the TD before he did it. I truly think he knows he would have been told it was off limits.

[jp71291]

it’s not what I call it, it’s what the state calls it.

play on words? Do you understand how rules and directives are written? I do. It involves words and their definitions to ensure the standards are black and white

And their directives are vague as hell. I serve as a tournament director and am very familiar with interpretation of rules and precedence. We have had incidents where we had to change the language of a rule or add one because of situations like this. No one has ever been disqualified in the Elites before for jumping into other waters. Fisherman have, however; been disqualified for fishing in areas that were deemed illegal BEFORE the tournament began. IMHO, he should not have been disqualified and the rule should be written in a different way if they don't want someone doing what he did.

And for those saying he knew he would be disqualified if he asked, then why did he post all about it on his social media. That argument is not valid.

[TritonJT]

And their directives are vague as hell. I serve as a tournament director and am very familiar with interpretation of rules and precedence. We have had incidents where we had to change the language of a rule or add one because of situations like this. No one has ever been disqualified in the Elites before for jumping into other waters. Fisherman have, however; been disqualified for fishing in areas that were deemed illegal BEFORE the tournament began. IMHO, he should not have been disqualified and the rule should be written in a different way if they don't want someone doing what he did.

And for those saying he knew he would be disqualified if he asked, then why did he post all about it on his social media. That argument is not valid.

IMHO you would be wrong.

[jp71291]

IMHO you would be wrong.

They're like buttholes, we all have one.

[Jaredn]

We should boycott BASS and start a Gofundme

#justice

[Almag6]

BASS is wrong in this instance-IMO

[jp71291]

Last thing I'll add. Why in the hell is a college kid involved in making the decision?

[Jaredn]

I wonder if he had the limited public use permit required to be in there too.

I mean that’s kind of the dead giveaway to all this. To fish Toledo Bend, you need a fishing license. To fish this 500acre WMA impoundment you need a fishing license and a limited public use permit

[janky]

This thread is awesome.....well, some of it.

[okiebass]

Wow, lots of misinformation in this thread

I think the much easier course of action here is to remove a few rules. Let the man fish. If he stays in his boat and puts in and takes out at the same ramp as everyone else who the heck cares what he jumped or how shallow the water was. Everyone has the same opportunity to get to those areas but they choose a more comfortable boat. I don’t see Poche complaining at the tournaments on big bodies of water about guys in glass boats having an advantage?

A tournament organization is not responsible for the actions of a boat driver. It’s not a liability issue, and if it was, make everyone sign a waiver at the beginning of the season that addresses this.

Poche is under a microscope at every tournament because of his fishing style. I’d be interested to know who protested his 29th place finish

yep