Quote:
Originally Posted by MoFugger21
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)
|
All very good questions that I would also like to know the answer to all of them. I believe that questions formatted in this manner, in person, at these meetings would / should get answers. Not always the way things go but I believe they are fair questions as they are directed to get more information.
In terms of the two working together, who knows. Maybe their objectives are more aligned than what we see. I definitely dont think that without all these facts we can implicate the president of anything.
It is possible that extending the closure to the whole lake that the sawt would be unable to fish travers which I believe would ultimately collapse the sawt. Travers is a key lake as it is the most northern lake and most popular on the sawt. Turnouts for the other lakes are not as healthy. However I dont think this would be an ultimate cause for only seeking closure of the west arm. That is a big lake and I definitely wouldn't label it as easy to fish. I believe the large part for the push for just the west arm has to do with the fact that it is a major bottleneck. I dont consider myself by any means an expert angler. But the first time I went to travers, the first two spots I highlighted on my charts were the arm and wolfe coulee(which i think closure for wolfe will/should fallow suit of the arm next year). I also would like to believe that as avoiding closing the entire lake is a partial give and take offering. People love fishing, toss them a bone. Let them fish but also protect the resource. a meet in the middle type of situation.
The way I look at is is how I'd look at a kid. they need to be protected, and safety precautions need to be taken. But it overkill to wrap him in bubble wrap