Quote:
Originally Posted by MoFugger21
As has been mentioned already, this sure makes the anglers within SAWT (or at least half of them) sound pretty bad, as though the anglers care more about the tournament itself than the state of the fishery going forward. I'm sure that's not the case, or at least I hope not anyways, but it definitely sounds bad.
So basically the "prisoners run the asylum" when it comes to SAWT or what? I know nothing about the inner workings of SAWT and how decisions are made (whether there is a committee, board of directors, etc), but why isn't it as simple as saying "we're voluntarily closing this section of the lake for the tournament, as we are concerned about the pressures being put on spawning walleye in that specific section of the lake".
|
No i did not intend to mean the prisoners run the asylum so to speak. However the SAWT is still a form of a business. Have to keep the people investing happy or else they will stop coming. I know the SAWT is not legally allowed to retain money on a yearly turn over basis and they do everything they can to give the best return to those competing. If angler attendance drops, return drops which inturn will once again decrease angler attendance. As to why it isn't so simple as saying "were closing ....."? That is a very very good question. but As I said I bet you it is anything but simple............
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoFugger21
If SAWT, as an organization, was truly in line with WU, shouldn't they share the same beliefs as WU, and be worried about the pressures of the spawning walleye in the west arm? And wouldn't the correct response to that belief be to not allow the tournament anglers to fish that area of the lake? Cause remember, WU has been pushing for this closure for 2-3 years because of the said pressures, so wouldn't SAWT have known about the push for the closure and the pressures on the fish? Cause SAWT should have.... The two organizations shared the same president......
|
I understand your logic and reasoning. However, I do not recall anywhere in this thread nor on the WU website nor on the SAWT website does it state that as organizations, they are at all in any way affiliated/aligned/or partnering in any way. The president may be the same person, but that does not mean the organizations are in line. One board of directors may believe one thing and the other may believe something completely different. That doesn't mean the president and two sided. He may argue the same point to both boards and get mixed results. These clubs are not totalitarian ruled. One man cannot define a groups beliefs and the beliefs of a group definitely should not implicate the beliefs of an individual. As I said to horse, you do not know what actions the president may or may not have taken towards setting boundaries for the tournament.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoFugger21
So if they(SAWT) knew about WU's 2-3 year long push for this closure, and knew about the pressures put on the spawning walleye, why couldn't the committee/board/governing body tell the anglers, "whine all you want, but we are concerned about the state of fishery in this area of lake and the pressures put on the delayed spawning walleye, and because of this, anglers will not be aloud to fish this section of the lake for the tournament."??? I would think, or hope, any angler fishing in the tournament who truly cared about the state of the fishery would see why the voluntary closure, and understood it.
|
As mentioned above, 1. when all is said and done it may come down to a numbers game. maybe they surveyed a group of anglers and they said they would rather goto the NAWT that weekend if the arm was closed. who knows. I dont. or maybe the pres. had a crucial part on his death star to work on.......I would like to believe all fishermen are very moral people who believe in the greater good and are clean and fair individuals. but sadly as in society that is not always the case. Just look at all the BS that happened with the vanity tournament and how desperate people were in order to try to cheat or give themselves an edge.
People have different beliefs. and those beliefs arn't wrong. I have kept a travers fish that was over 50cm (may god have mercy on my soul.)...... And I will probably do it again some day when I get the itch for walleye cheeks (oh lordy the devil must be waiting for my soul)........ It is my legal right to keep one so long as I fish within the regulations imposed by the government. There are even tournament anglers in this argument that have voiced their opinions; some landing on both sides of this debate. So to say everyone would unanimously follow what someone tells them is the greater good is the stuff you wash hogs with. Some may debate what the greater good actually is. some may debate the facts. some may debate for their own self interest.
All I am trying to say is we as common keyboard warriors do not know all the facts. It is unfair for us to sit here and judge others when we are missing these crucial facts. All my posts are intended to do apply a side that may not be seen by us common folk. I do not know all the side or all the stories. but I will reserve my judgement and ultimately my prosecution of others unless I know 100% of the TRUE facts.