Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Foss
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............
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.
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.
|
This is fair enough. I understand that if you don't keep the anglers coming back, there won't be a tournament trail in the future. And as I said in a previous post, I don't know the inner workings of SAWT or WU, so I don't know what happens or is decided or talked about behind closed doors.
And look, I'm not trying to drag SAWT or WU "through the mud", as some on here have alluded to, it would just be nice to hear how and why certain decisions were made. Questions such as: 'why didn't SAWT close down the west arm in previous tournaments?', or 'why the decision to push for a closure to the west arm, and not a longer closure for the whole lake?". I get that these answers may never be answered, or at least answered on here, its just frustrating, cause as you have said, none of us have any facts on the situation.
And it is definitely possible the president of SAWT tried to push for a closure during the tournament, and was shot down by what ever governing body they have. And it may have been unfair to associate the 2 organizations as if they were one, but you have to appreciate how the whole situation looks to an outsider, and how the situation looks like a conflict of interest. It just seems weird to me that 2 associations with the same president wouldn't try to somehow work together, or try to push similiar agendas.
And this brings me back to one of the questions above, "why is the push for the closure only to the west arm, and not the whole lake?" As has been discussed previously there are many different spawning grounds for walleye in Travers, and if the main reason for closure
is to protect spawning walleye, why pin point only the west arm? Surely the other spawning grounds would benefit from a longer closure too. Is the push for the west arm closure because if the closure was instituted to whole lake it would fall on the dates of the SAWT tourny in Travers? And by pushing for only a west arm closure, the SAWT would still be able to hold their tournament in the open part of the lake in mid to late May?
(Let me be clear, these are not accusation questions, but merely probing questions to better understand the why of this whole process. I have no information or facts to substantiate these questions, I'm more so just curious)