10-08-2010, 06:49 PM
Hey bud, wait a minute. First you say that we should not allow musky or pike because there aren't many lakes to target them because "certain" BFT members don't live anywhere near a musky water. Then you propose to open up the Challenge to cover three or four states? Is travel an issue here or not? [
]
What is your reasoning for limiting the panfish to two. Is it because "certain" BFT members don't live anywhere near a water that they could possibly come up with three panfish species? Utah Lake, in the center of the state has them all.
I understand why you're hesitant to enter the Challenge this year. If you get serious about it, It does influence where you fish. I have some waters that I would icefish more if I wasn't in the Challenge, but then there would be waters that I wouldn't fish at all if I wasn't in the Challenge.
I did fish at least twice a week last winter. It was great.
I like the rules the way they are. Time to get geared up.
[signature]
]What is your reasoning for limiting the panfish to two. Is it because "certain" BFT members don't live anywhere near a water that they could possibly come up with three panfish species? Utah Lake, in the center of the state has them all.
I understand why you're hesitant to enter the Challenge this year. If you get serious about it, It does influence where you fish. I have some waters that I would icefish more if I wasn't in the Challenge, but then there would be waters that I wouldn't fish at all if I wasn't in the Challenge.
I did fish at least twice a week last winter. It was great.
I like the rules the way they are. Time to get geared up.
[signature]