Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop_Tine
No i did not go, i have been hunting,
Also i only skimmed over some posts !
I fish that tournament which has been held around the same time every year , there has been quit a few times the tournament has been won outside of the river , there has been quit a few times the river is unfishable because it looks like chocolate milk, this is why i dont wanna get involved on this thread , the sawt president should not be evan brought up in this thread , it is legal to fish the river for everyone , so why shpuld the tourment suffer , if for one second u think every tournament fisher man doent care about the fish , for one stop the poachers at the spill way they are hurting the fishery way more than the sawt ever will!!!!
Chub, why dont u become the president of the sawt, you dont fish tournaments, u love walleye fishing , we could use a guy like u around the trail, ( im serious) , plus u also could actually see how many fish die , i would bet it is 1000 times less than the fish being poached!! Seriously think about !
Jason |
Sigh.... Maybe you should have actually read
all of the posts, and not just 'skimmed'
some of the posts.
No one, as far as I know, is debating the fact that the anglers fishing the SAWT care about the fish. There was one post that made the anglers sound bad (made by Dan Foss), which was commented on about how it sounded bad, and was clarified. So non issue in my mind. Next....
The reason the President of SAWT was brought up in this thread, was because of the conflict of interests created with the same guy being the President of WU. The conflict of interest being that while WU and their President was pushing for this closure (apparently 2-3 years) to protect spawning walleye (pre/during/post), SAWT with the same guy being the President of their organization, was allowing anglers in the tournament to fish the area subjected to the proposed closure. It has nothing to do with legalities.
Sure, it is/was legal for SAWT anglers to fish the west arm, but they could have taken a pro-active approach and joined WU's push for the closure, and voluntarily chosen to close the west arm. In the mind of some on here, this may have actually accelerated the process to get a longer closure on the lake (may being the key word, as there is no possible way to confirm this), as it may have gotten the attention of the SRD by the SAWT saying 'because we believe in this closure, we're choosing not to allow tournament anglers to fish the area being looked at for the closure.' This approach would have completely wiped the conflict of interests debacle clean, as it could be shown the President of both organizations is pushing the same agenda for both, and not one agenda for one organization (WU) while completely ignoring that with another agenda (SAWT).
I'm not sure how the tournament would "suffer" as you put it, because you even say it yourself, and i quote- "
there has been quit a few times the tournament has been won outside of the river , there has been quit a few times the river is unfishable because it looks like chocolate milk,". Others on here have also mentioned that not many fish have been caught in the west arm during the tournament. So why not close the west arm so as to align and maybe even help with WU's push for the closure, and at the same time, not harass walleye that are still in their spawning phase.
I mean, it's all moot anyways, but I'm done re-hashing this now... It's been gone over with previously.