As a sports journalist for nearly a quarter-century, I've covered all kinds of events in all sorts of venues. I honestly can't remember one that was surrounded by as much confusion in the aftermath as the ABA Bassmaster Weekend Series Division 17 Championship, which took place in September on the Mississippi River out of Winona, Minn.
Former FLW Tour pro Karen Savik won the tournament, but was later disqualified because she received a ticket for culling fish. Culling is not allowed on Minnesota waters that share a boundary with Wisconsin. That particular regulation seems to be much misunderstood, even by some people who live and frequently fish in the region.
Savik was obviously unaware that she could not cull, or else she never would've admitted to doing it a total of 14 times over 2 days in a press release that was initially posted on the ABA's website, but later altered and then removed entirely as the controversy grew. That admission, and a subsequent interview with a warden in which she detailed precisely what she'd done and why she thought she was acting within the law, was the entire basis for her citation from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
That citation, in turn, was the basis for her DQ by the ABA
The tournament director who was brought in from New York obviously wasn't clear on the law, either – he was quoted in a St. Paul Pioneer-Press story as saying that Minnesotans didn't understand their own regs. And the confusion extended to the ABA office in Alabama – president Morris Sheehan said the organization had received "four or five" different interpretations of the rule from people connected with the Minnesota DNR.
Savik is adamant that the director, Joe Angelone, stated in the pre-tournament meeting that pros "must" cull when they caught their sixth fish of the day, and that co-anglers "must" cull upon catching their fourth (the limit for non-boaters was three fish). That account was supported by other competitors.
By the time I contacted him, Angelone was no longer commenting on the incident and referred all questions to the ABA office. Sheehan said that Angelone simply delivered a "canned" briefing that's the same for all ABA events around the nation and that it includes a stipulation that competitors must adhere to all state and federal laws and regulations.
"She may have misconstrued it or something like that," Sheehan said of Savik. "They live there, and they should know the rules."
When asked if he was satisfied that none of the top finishers other than Savik had culled, Sheehan said, "As far as I can tell. Nobody else is admitting to it."
Well, not quite. Co-angler winner Howie Lee, a friend of Savik's, admitted that he culled and inferred in the newspaper article that the pros he fished with did as well. He wasn't issued a citation, though, and thus wasn't stripped of his title.
Savik has returned her winner's check, which amounted to a little less than $2,500. David Ham, originally the 2nd-place finisher, was declared the victor.
In the newspaper article, Ham is quoted as saying that he did not cull in the tournament, and there's no evidence to the contrary. Was Savik really the only pro who culled? From what can be gathered, that's all but impossible to believe.
Savik said her original belief that culling was allowed during the event stemmed from two sources – a conversation with a Wisconsin DNR officer at a previous ABA event out of LaCrosse, in which she said he was told that the practice would be okay for a tournament launching from the Minnesota side of the river; and also from Angelone's pre-tournament briefing, in which she says the word "must" was used in front of "cull" on at least two occasions.
Savik says she's ready to put the ordeal behind her and move on. But she wonders why the ABA has refused to share any of the responsibility for what occurred. In light of the information that's surfaced (particularly Angelone's comments to the Pioneer-Press), it seems to be a valid question.
"Why are they afraid to stand up for me," she asked. "How would that hurt the ABA?
"They said to me at the beginning that whatever decision they made would be for the good of the sport. It seems that standing up for anglers who did what the tournament director told them to do would also be good for the sport."
Maybe this can be looked at as a case in which everybody – Savik, Angelone, the DNR, the ABA – did what they thought was right considering the information that was available to them. But after everything was mixed together and stirred up, it became a big mess.
Now that it's reached this point, there's no way of determining how many anglers did exactly what Savik did in that tournament. There's certainly no incentive for any of them to admit to it.
The sad part is that many of them no doubt originally believed they were acting within the rules. Everybody in that situation learned a valuable lesson, but it was Savik who paid the price for all of them.
