Like it or not, polygraph tests have become a household word around fishing and hunting contests. Bass tournaments, fishing rodeos and big buck contests now offer some mega-value awards. Thousands of cash dollars and merchandise in the form of trucks, boats, motors, trailers, ATVs and a variety of other high dollar prizes await the winners. Predictably, when the stakes are high, the worst in human nature rears its ugly head.  To keep 'em honest, directors have turned to polygraph testing. Read the print, sometimes bold, sometimes fine on any standard entry form or application and by signature you're not only subjecting yourself to polygraph testing prior to collecting prizes, but also agree to abide by the results. Whatever the decision, it's a heck of a lot easier for a director to accept or reject a winner based on an examiner's conclusion than to launch a comprehensive investigation that may still prove nothing. - Especially if he has the contestant's signature on the dotted line. Is this fair? Are the tests accurate? Can nervousness (and who wouldn't be intimidated after being wired to a machine) cause an honest person to fail?  Are there really cheaters who know how to "beat" the test?

Commonly and erroneously referred to as "lie detector" tests, the reliability of polygraph testing has been and still is a debatable topic. The most celebrated polygraph controversy surrounds an investigation of suspected spy Wen Ho Lee. Either Lee beat the barrage of polygraphs he's taken over a period of years or he is innocent and was coerced into confessing by the FBI as he claims. We may never know the validity of the polygraph in Lee's case.

Dr. Jack Gibbons, a director of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment explained at a hearing on legislation to ban the use of polygraph for job screening that there was not a shred of scientific evidence that it had any validity for screening. His contention was that a polygraph responds to nervousness or excitement but that it can't tell a lie from a lovers'quarrel. And there are cases that support his statement. Aldrich H. Ames, notorious CIA spy took scores of polygraphs and passed every one. Ames, in a prison interview, said his Russian cooperatives laughed at his worries about the tests. They told him to just relax and cooperate with the examiner because they don't work and evidently in this case, they didn't. According to David Lykken, a psychology professor at the University of Minnesota and a scientific expert on the polygraph, the tests merely record changes in blood pressure, respiration, and sweat. An accomplished liar such as Ames doesn't respond at all.

But liars like Ames may be few and far between and many examiners say, although non- admissible in court, a polygraph can be a useful tool for investigations and making judgements outside the courtroom.
 
"My experience has been that in cases where polygraph testing was used in conjunction with other elements of an investigation, I've found the results to be 100% on target," said Lt. Jeff Mayne formerly of LDWF Enforcement.

Often the LWDF employed the services of Robert Landry, a forensic psychophysiologist with the LA State Police. Like other polygraph examiners, Landry must be certified by the state.

"Nervousness doesn't affect the test results. A baseline level is established allowing for someone being nervous and the device detects variations from that level based on physical responses to questioning," Landry says.

He says that testing results fall into one of four classifications. One, that the subject exhibited deception during questioning, two, there was no deception, three, inconclusive where there was not enough data to draw a conclusion or four, no opinion where the individual refused to participate, follow instructions or complete the test. Landry says it's mandatory that he know the facts of a case in order to fashion questions that will generate a measurable response.

Dewey Kendrick, former tournament director for Bass Angler Sportsmen's Society (B.A.S.S) is a believer in polygraph testing but only if done properly. He says the organization's philosophy is to test only when necessary.

"We've given the test for 30 years only when an angler is accused of a rule violation and only after an initial investigation determines it's needed. We administer the test in Montgomery, Alabama and each fisherman agrees to test as part of the rules and also agrees to travel at their own expense. It's an extensive test that takes 2-2 1/2 hours and we make a determination after studying the tester’s professional conclusion. And any prizes are held until that decision is made," Kendrick said.

Kendrick totally supports the use of the method but says B.A.S.S. has a different approach than most tournaments that use polygraph testing.

"We’re different from most tournaments in that they usually use either some type of random testing or will test only winners or top placers. It's very hard to make any conclusions about cheating if you don't have specific questions to ask. You have to have some idea of what rule was violated or else the test is worthless."

Neil McMahon the former director of the state's biggest saltwater fishing rodeo, the Coastal Conservation Association's S.T.A.R. Tournament. says the tournament wouldn't be possible without the use of a polygraph.
"In our tournament where we offer high priced rigs to the winners, we feel we owe it to our members to ensure that deserving people who play by the rules are guaranteed to win these boats. We tested over 50 people during my 5 years and had only two failures."

In Louisiana, we take cheating seriously and consider it contest fraud and in major cases, a felony offense.  A lot fishermen and hunters who participate in contests are surprised to learn that we have a state law on the books that provides a definition and penalties for cheating.

R.S. 14-214.  Fishing or hunting contest fraud
A. The crime of fishing or hunting contest fraud is the act of any person, who with the intent to defraud, knowingly makes a false representation in an effort to win any prize awarded in any fishing or hunting contest.    
B. When the most valuable prize offered in the contest amounts to a value of less than one hundred dollars, the offender shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
C. When the most valuable prize offered in the contest amounts to a value of one hundred dollars or more, the offender shall be fined not more than three thousand dollars, imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than one year or both.