[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

Because people are childish. As it has already been established, the boundaries and dates for the SAWT are set by the licenses they are given to hold the tournament. SAWT could have chosen to apply additional boundaries to not include that section but lets face it(and this forum is an example), Anglers are a bunch of whiny babies. Half of the SAWT anglers would complain and whine that "but if half-wit angler-Joe is allowed to fish that section why cannot the tournament anglers who likely have superior fish handling skills". IF you dont think this would happen, then you need to wake up. It's like anything in the world, if the saw says you should be allowed to do something then there will be a group of people who think it is their legal right to do so and if a third party says no then that group will resist. If people were allowed to carry guns, they would.

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.

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

It's not so simple as the SAWT saying "we are closing this section". especially when competition, money, and men are involved. There was no conflict of interest with the President of WU and SAWT being the same guy. If anything it worked to the best interests of both groups by incorporating them together. Providing both groups with invaluable information about the sport and the fish that we all enjoy.

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".

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......

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.

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

PS. The people who know the answers are smart enough to not get involved in this kind of thing. I mean come on, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the clashing mentalities and superegos floating around here creates the grounds for a legitimate discussion about as stable as boiling water. That is why those who have the answers have pretty much said no more than tell people where to go for meetings that will provide some information.

This is a valid point. But at the same time, it sounds like no one really knows exactly what is going to happen, as there are still some conflicting reports concerning the details of the closure. But I can understand why those "in the know" would steer clear, it's just frustrating.