Rules Matter

I’m still not ready to concede that forward-facing sonar should be banned, or even limited, at the top levels of professional bass fishing. I may someday reach that conclusion, but at this time I think it would be far too premature. But for those of you who think that FFS marks the end of civilization as we know it, I need some input:

How would you write the rule?

This is not a minor question. I’ve been involved in drafting regulations for nearly 25 years, and I’ve had a front-row seat for the drafting of several pieces of legislation. It’s hard. People make mistakes. There are unintended consequences. Ambiguity runs rampant. And that’s among professionals with years of schooling, experience, and other sets of eyes to poke holes in whatever they write.

To the best of my ability, despite past, present, and future advisory committees, I don’t know that any of the leagues have that level of expertise on staff. On top of that, you have a certain percentage of anglers who will always look to get around the rules, or who are willing to operate in a gray area. Even among those who walk the straight and narrow, there’s enough wiggle room and uncertainty to create both practical problems and public relations nightmares.

We only need to look back to Keith Poche’s efforts at Toledo Bend this past season. We ended up with no fewer than 8,762 social media posts, and an uprising of arguments both civil and heated, over the meaning of “connected to.”

So if you want to limit FFS, I’d love to hear how you’d write the rule. I’m not being snarky here – I’m serious.

Start with defining “Forward Facing Sonar.” What does it mean? What does it include? What does it exclude?

If you use the common dictionary definitions, would it exclude a Livescope transducer aimed to the side of the boat? If you only allowed “two-dimensional sonar,” would that force out down-imaging, which creates a three-dimensional cone under the boat? If you limited real-time electronic information, might that take away a flasher from David Fritts?

Even if you were able to settle on a definition, it could almost immediately be made obsolete by some new technology. I suppose you could have a case-by-case analysis of whether something should be allowable, but that would no doubt lead to a certain level of arbitrariness and claims of favoritism.

As a practical matter, if you limit the number of transducers, what happens when they make a single transducer that shoots out five beams with five different resulting images? Or if you limit cumulative screen inches, what happens when you can see your FFS in a pair of “smart glasses.”

Again, I’m not saying that FFS should be permitted in all current and future forms forever. Maybe I’ll reach a tipping point. But whatever your personal tipping point may be, make sure you write a rule that addresses the problem rather than be underinclusive or overinclusive. It doesn’t ever make sense to replace one problem with another.