Travers Closure

[crestliner]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

this thread isnt about catch and release. please dont derail thread.

Was this really necessary! Rather childish

[crestliner]

Originally Posted by Winch101

I think the point is moot ....number of walleyes in the creek is relative to

feed , water temp and level . 3 yrs ago we were catching 20" plus fish in 2 ft. of water on july 15 th.....

Brian did tell me he was concerned about how the Tournaments were pounding this spawning area in the spring. This was 3 yrs ago...
So to me the Tourneys are the problem ....late opening on spawning areas on any given body of water is not uncommon , I have always debated the spawning theory here as this area is solid loon **** and every fish you cut open are full of shiners . There are milting males there but in May they are all over the lake even in W--- Coulee.

There are too many people keeping legal fish in this lake ....info and technology in the hands
of the wrong people is a dangerous thing , too many F&F's these days
( Fish and Fry )...Also too many blabbermouths on this board. " F & F " I believe should be a new club , the fisheaters unite....with membership you get a gallon of peanut oil.

This closure shows you that PC's have no plan , never have had one ,
just kinda rollin around . Now that I know that it just takes one guy to get the regs changed , I think its time to get the province wide Bait Ban movement
going .That would make those tourneys interesting , might as well just cut the cheque to Chub before it starts

Though that dock is home to a few kids , also lots of poaching going on there .

When is the last time you saw F&W there ....oh ya NEVER>

This closure will be tough to enforce.....so bussiness as usual

You do bring up a couple good points. The one thing I was wondering if Brian was concerned about the tournaments in the spawning areas why as the president of SAWT did he not address this problem. Did his involvement with SAWT seem greater then his involvement with Walleye Unlimited. There still seems to be a lot of unanswered questions. Thank You

[gl2]

the link for the next walleye unlimited meeting. i hope to meet a bunch of people there as i have never been to a meeting.


http://www.walleye-unlimited.com/meetings.htm

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by crestliner

Was this really necessary! Rather childish

read the whole thread before you post. kinda ignorant not to.

[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by crestliner

You do bring up a couple good points. The one thing I was wondering if Brian was concerned about the tournaments in the spawning areas why as the president of SAWT did he not address this problem. Did his involvement with SAWT seem greater then his involvement with Walleye Unlimited. There still seems to be a lot of unanswered questions. Thank You

You're not alone in wondering this! And sadly, it seems the unanswered questions we all have will probably stay that way, as the people with the answers are reluctant or refusing to come forward.

[crestliner]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

read the whole thread before you post. kinda ignorant not to.

I read the whole post or i would not have replied. Horsetrader replied to a post you and another poster made some comments on it out of context. You were then asked by Horsetrader not to derail the thread if you wanted you all could discuss this on another thread. The other poster seem to understand but you then had to try and blame Horsetrader for derailing. So see I did read the whole thing and not only find you childish but some what of a troll also. You need not respond to this for I am done with you. And will not respond. Thank You

[crestliner]

Originally Posted by gl2

the link for the next walleye unlimited meeting. i hope to meet a bunch of people there as i have never been to a meeting.


http://www.walleye-unlimited.com/meetings.htm

Thank you for the link. If not out of town will definitely be there.

[crestliner]

Originally Posted by MoFugger21

You're not alone in wondering this! And sadly, it seems the unanswered questions we all have will probably stay that way, as the people with the answers are reluctant or refusing to come forward.

That could be true but the old saying "what happens in the dark eventually comes to light" could be true here. There i a lot of people looking for answers.
If answers don't come the next best is to make sure it don't happen again.Thank you.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by crestliner

I read the whole post or i would not have replied. Horsetrader replied to a post you and another poster made some comments on it out of context. You were then asked by Horsetrader not to derail the thread if you wanted you all could discuss this on another thread. The other poster seem to understand but you then had to try and blame Horsetrader for derailing. So see I did read the whole thing and not only find you childish but some what of a troll also. You need not respond to this for I am done with you. And will not respond. Thank You

maybe read post 141 and 142 and tell me who started talkin bout the effects on catch and release bud. You say he responded to me? Have a look and see how backwards you are.

[Dan Foss]

Originally Posted by MoFugger21

You're not alone in wondering this! And sadly, it seems the unanswered questions we all have will probably stay that way, as the people with the answers are reluctant or refusing to come forward.

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.

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.

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.

[horsetrader]

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.

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.

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.

So you are saying that SAWT could have very easily applied to have that area off boundaries for their tournaments but they did not because the anglers would have whined. If you think that is a viable reason then you are no better then the anglers .One of the reasonability's of the president is to control and keep order in the organization. If what you are saying is true then there was no order in SAWT and the president was not doing his job. And the SAWT organization in a whole does not care for the fisheries. Saying this if it was that easy to have that area marked out of bounds then I would say the president of SAWT and WU was looking after the interests of SAWT and not WU and that is CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Then you say it would not be easy to have this area closed for the tournament because competition, men and money are involved. Sorry but that statement is moot because everyone is still fishing the same waters the competition and playing field is still equal.

[Mark H]

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.

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.

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.

Well said, It took 190 posts but we have a winner!
I agree 110% with everything Dan said. My hat is off to you Sir.


Mark.

[chubbdarter]

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.

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.

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.

I can only comment if what you have posted in RED is true, it sure paints a black cloud over a group that i always thought cared about the fish. With that statement and your second paragragh stating no conflict are we to assume...WU is in place to care for the fish and SAWT is in place to not care for the fish?. You speak of men and money...so is HALF of SAWT membership willing to sell their souls for full field prize? as you seem to indicate.
I want people to know Im not against the tourneys, they provide a competitve avenue for anglers.

I will be shocked if I get the answers im asking for at the meeting but will trust you and take your advice into consideration.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Mark H

Well said, It took 190 posts but we have a winner!
I agree 110% with everything Dan said. My hat is off to you Sir.


Mark.

It saddens me you confirm that Half of the SAWT members feel that way.

[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.

[freeones]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

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.

X2

No one that actually had info or was involved in this would come to this forum and get involved in a post like this, not if there int their right mind anyway. It's pointless, there's a couple of guys here that already know everything there is to know about everything anyway, or at least have a theory on it.

[chubbdarter]

What i find really quite amussing is how everyone says to attend meetings and become better informed.
Well i did attend the Claresholm meeting DID YOU?
From that meeting i have some concerns....Concerns the public needs to know about. Concerns that arent being answered in phone calls.
For those that think the people in the know wont engage here....i understand, but it goes to show the non transperancy of the process. As its possible they can clear up matters via another avenue
My issue with sawt and wu is far from the big concern, my issue is with srd and their NON transperancy to deliver the facts. If you think that makes this pointless, thats fair. We all have priorities in life and i will not lessen the importance of your priorities.

When i attend a meeting and get TOLD how the process works and the rules change....then im concerned. Especially about a lake and the fish i care about.

[Dan Foss]

Sorry. I guess I should know better than to use generalizations like "half" and sweeping statements like "sure they could've...." Maybe less than half would have complained. Maybe more than half. does the divide really matter? I still guarantee a group of individuals will feel that if, according to government regulations, average joe who drags a fish up on the rocks, steps on its head to hold the fish down while he gets the hook out, then holds it up for a photo shoot that lasts longer than a kardashian marrage (yes this is for dramatic effect) then they(the tournament anglers), as responsible catch and release anglers who do their best to minimize fish stress, should have rights to fish that same water for the tournament.

Horse, sorry that I made it seem as if it was as simple as wave a hand and telling you that "these aren't the droids you were looking for" to set boundaries for the SAWT. I am not a board member and I am positive it isn't so cut and dry as you or I could imagine. I'm sure it is quite a process that is not all that simple. You don't know. Maybe the President of the SAWT had tried to push to get those boundaries established for the tournaments and failed. You don't know if he has. But then again maybe on the other hand his presidency with both WU and SAWT is just a clever ruse he fabricated to distract everyone while he is out building a death star that will turn all of alberta's trout and walleye into BASS. Or maybe it is to hide the fact that he drives a beige sienna and goes from lake to lake poaching walleye and pike.........

The amount of accusations and fabrications based on a lack of facts is disgusting.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by freeones

X2

No one that actually had info or was involved in this would come to this forum and get involved in a post like this, not if there int their right mind anyway. It's pointless, there's a couple of guys here that already know everything there is to know about everything anyway, or at least have a theory on it.

all i see is one side asking questions and one side not answering.
If in their right mind means not open to the public, then i understand your point.

Im suggesting without being in attendance of the public meeting in claresholm, im not sure you can make a educated post on the pointless-ness of this thread.
Others in this thread who didnt attend, have mearly asked questions and desire clarification and thats their right, just as you have a right to say the thread is pointless.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

Sorry. I guess I should know better than to use generalizations like "half" and sweeping statements like "sure they could've...." Maybe less than half would have complained. Maybe more than half. does the divide really matter? I still guarantee a group of individuals will feel that if, according to government regulations, average joe who drags a fish up on the rocks, steps on its head to hold the fish down while he gets the hook out, then holds it up for a photo shoot that lasts longer than a kardashian marrage (yes this is for dramatic effect) then they(the tournament anglers), as responsible catch and release anglers who do their best to minimize fish stress, should have rights to fish that same water for the tournament.

Horse, sorry that I made it seem as if it was as simple as wave a hand and telling you that "these aren't the droids you were looking for" to set boundaries for the SAWT. I am not a board member and I am positive it isn't so cut and dry as you or I could imagine. I'm sure it is quite a process that is not all that simple. You don't know. Maybe the President of the SAWT had tried to push to get those boundaries established for the tournaments and failed. You don't know if he has. But then again maybe on the other hand his presidency with both WU and SAWT is just a clever ruse he fabricated to distract everyone while he is out building a death star that will turn all of alberta's trout and walleye into BASS. Or maybe it is to hide the fact that he drives a beige sienna and goes from lake to lake poaching walleye and pike.........

The amount of accusations and fabrications based on a lack of facts is disgusting.

Well all that could be assummed is that what you posted was FACT.....Half isnt excately a vague word....no one would take your post as a lie.
So are you quilty of your own in RED statement?

[Dan Foss]

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............

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.

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.

[iliketrout]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

I still guarantee a group of individuals will feel that if, according to government regulations, average joe who drags a fish up on the rocks, steps on its head to hold the fish down while he gets the hook out, then holds it up for a photo shoot that lasts longer than a kardashian marrage (yes this is for dramatic effect) then they(the tournament anglers), as responsible catch and release anglers who do their best to minimize fish stress, should have rights to fish that same water for the tournament.

Is the desire to win a tournament by catching weakened and vulnerable fish greater than the desire to keep the fish population stable, healthy, and sustainable for years to come?

Wouldn't a spawned out fish trying to recover suffer a lot of stress on the line as well as when it's handled? Seems to me it's not just the pose for the pic that causes stress.

The key difference here between the people causing stress on the fish - the "half-wit angler-Joe" likely doesn't understand the extent the stress he's causing. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of weekend recreational fishermen don't even know when walleye spawn. Those tournament anglers with the "superior fish handling skills" do understand the stress yet still do it (regardless of how minimal you claim the stress to be).

Seems to me that as users of a resource, we should all be stewards, advocates and protectors of the resource as well. If we don't look out for it, who will?

[Dan Foss]

Originally Posted by iliketrout

Is the desire to win a tournament by catching weakened and vulnerable fish greater than the desire to keep the fish population stable, healthy, and sustainable for years to come?


Wouldn't a spawned out fish trying to recover suffer a lot of stress on the line as well as when it's handled? Seems to me it's not just the pose for the pic that causes stress.

The key difference here between the people causing stress on the fish - the "half-wit angler-Joe" likely doesn't understand the extent the stress he's causing. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of weekend recreational fishermen don't even know when walleye spawn. Those tournament anglers with the "superior fish handling skills" do understand the stress yet still do it (regardless of how minimal you claim the stress to be).

Seems to me that as users of a resource, we should all be stewards, advocates and protectors of the resource as well. If we don't look out for it, who will?

a- to some possibly I cannot really stand to attest to every single individuals opinion in the world but I'd bet that there are some who do. like I said look at all the BS that occured at the vanity. but not to me personally
b- I would definitely tend to agree.
c- once again I do not disagree
d- this one makes me want to slap you on the back and buy you a beer.

I am in no way arguing any points that you or anyone else has brought up. I was not in anyway arguing for or against the closure in any of my posts. Nor was I trying to debate the stress levels experienced by fish being handled by average joe vs angler pro.

I was just trying to highlight a point that I believe has been over looked in that it is not so cut and dry and not so simple and I attempted to employ an example of what may be a road block. And just for clarification purposes; I was also not implying that all tournament anglers feel that way. Id bet there are some. I dono how many.

I am only trying to point out that there are probably alot more to these arguments, debates, accusations, and organizations that what is being implied in this thread

[freeones]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

all i see is one side asking questions and one side not answering.
If in their right mind means not open to the public, then i understand your point.

Im suggesting without being in attendance of the public meeting in claresholm, im not sure you can make a educated post on the pointless-ness of this thread.
Others in this thread who didnt attend, have mearly asked questions and desire clarification and thats their right, just as you have a right to say the thread is pointless.

You do understand the point that a public internet forum, particularly one on which your name is being dragged through the mud, might not be the preferred avenue to answer the questions right?

If I want to talk to someone in charge at Chevy, I don't go on the alberta Chevy forum, bash the CEO and management of Chevy, demand answers and then expect to get them.

That was the only point I was making. I don't really have a dog in the fight, I just thought it odd that people acting the way the are were surprised that no one was coming on and politely answering all their questions.

Here's another thought - maybe these people just don't spend a lot of time on AO (or maybe they do )

[iliketrout]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

there are probably alot more to these arguments, debates, accusations, and organizations that what is being implied in this thread

This is a valid point. The resource belongs to all of us equally regardless of skill level, affiliation with associations, frequency of use etc. If a guy buys a license, its his just as much as anyone else's. However each group has their own motive for using the resource.

I appreciate the point-of-view from the tournament angler's perspective.

From a guy that takes 6-8 trips there a year, I am more than happy to fish elsewhere, be it elsewhere on Travers or a completely different lake altogether.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by freeones

You do understand the point that a public internet forum, particularly one on which your name is being dragged through the mud, might not be the preferred avenue to answer the questions right?

If you read the entire thread..no one appears to have been dragged anywhere......it seems some voluntary posting has sparked the questions

If I want to talk to someone in charge at Chevy, I don't go on the alberta Chevy forum, bash the CEO and management of Chevy, demand answers and then expect to get them.

Not sure my words are bashing but if my frustration has made it seem that way..i apologize

That was the only point I was making. I don't really have a dog in the fight, I just thought it odd that people acting the way the are were surprised that no one was coming on and politely answering all their questions.

I do have a dog in this fight.....i care about the lake and its fish


When personal calls are answered with no answers, then its time the public floods in some calls to try get answers.

Here's another thought - maybe these people just don't spend a lot of time on AO (or maybe they do )

im guessing the people in charge are watching and this maybe the only way they see what the people think

we differ in opinion, thats fair and acceptable

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

Sorry. I guess I should know better than to use generalizations like "half" and sweeping statements like "sure they could've...." Maybe less than half would have complained. Maybe more than half. does the divide really matter? I still guarantee a group of individuals will feel that if, according to government regulations, average joe who drags a fish up on the rocks, steps on its head to hold the fish down while he gets the hook out, then holds it up for a photo shoot that lasts longer than a kardashian marrage (yes this is for dramatic effect) then they(the tournament anglers), as responsible catch and release anglers who do their best to minimize fish stress, should have rights to fish that same water for the tournament.

Its great that you flame the average Joe angler so well. I would suggest you look at it the other way....According to you " THE TOURNAMENT ANGLER" is
a responsible catch and release anglers who do their best to minimize fish stress, Then why would they no agree to close that area to the tournament so they really minimize the stress that they put on the fish. As tournament anglers i'm sure they catch more fish then the average joe also. Perhaps the fish are safer with JOE.






Horse, sorry that I made it seem as if it was as simple as wave a hand and telling you that "these aren't the droids you were looking for" to set boundaries for the SAWT. I am not a board member and I am positive it isn't so cut and dry as you or I could imagine. I'm sure it is quite a process that is not all that simple. You don't know. Maybe the President of the SAWT had tried to push to get those boundaries established for the tournaments and failed. You don't know if he has. But then again maybe on the other hand his presidency with both WU and SAWT is just a clever ruse he fabricated to distract everyone while he is out building a death star that will turn all of alberta's trout and walleye into BASS. Or maybe it is to hide the fact that he drives a beige sienna and goes from lake to lake poaching walleye and pike.........

The amount of accusations and fabrications based on a lack of facts is disgusting.

I'm not sure if your attempt at humour is to cover your embarrassment of writing facts that you don't know to be true or the fact that you got caught.
You may find the amount of accusations and fabrications based on a lack of facts is disgusting. I find the fabrication of your facts equally disgusting and there for you lose any credibility you might have had. You my go!!!!

[Dan Foss]

lol. horse, I actually never claimed or stated any facts. I have actually deliberately waned on both sides because my argument is that we DO NOT KNOW the facts. So as far hiding with humor, I'm not hiding anything. I'm also not claiming one side or the other. just playing devils advocate to the purpose of explaining we do not know all the facts.

A final note, I am not worried about my credibility with you. Your judging me based on facts when I never claimed to offer any facts at all. So I am not sure if you misread or mis interpreted me.

As stated several times before. the things I discuss on here are not necisarily my opinions on the matter. I feel I am smarter than to actually explicitly state my opinions. I am only offering suggestions of what others might not have considered when discussing these topics.

also, I like how you actually said I am flaming the average joe even after I stated that I was exaggerating the example for dramatic effect.

[horsetrader]

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

lol. horse, I actually never claimed or stated any facts. I have actually deliberately waned on both sides because my argument is that we DO NOT KNOW the facts. So as far hiding with humor, I'm not hiding anything. I'm also not claiming one side or the other. just playing devils advocate to the purpose of explaining we do not know all the facts.

A final note, I am not worried about my credibility with you. Your judging me based on facts when I never claimed to offer any facts at all. So I am not sure if you misread or mis interpreted me.

As stated several times before. the things I discuss on here are not necisarily my opinions on the matter. I feel I am smarter than to actually explicitly state my opinions. I am only offering suggestions of what others might not have considered when discussing these topics.

also, I like how you actually said I am flaming the average joe even after I stated that I was exaggerating the example for dramatic effect.

try reading you statements again there is "no this could be" or "this might be" or any other hint of anything but a factual statement.

[gl2]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

I have actually deliberately waned on both sides because my argument is that we DO NOT KNOW the facts.

FACT: HARASSING SPAWNING FISH IS A PROBLEM. I dont care if its from a weekend warrior or a tourney vet its wrong, plain and simple.

I have been searching the internet and have read some interesting pdf files on how some other places run there waters and how they manage the resource. I know that some wont apply to alberta waters as different places have to deal with different problems and have different challenges. I did find a pretty common theme in most places such as minnesota, ontario and michigan. Protect, develop, maintain and restore critical habitats for natural stocks of walleye. I would say this fits right in with the problem occurring on traverse. To me protect doesn't mean getting my gear out and chasing them all over there spawning grounds.

There were also some other ways that other places implemented special regulations to preserve there fish and habitats. i.e. slot limits, banning early season night time fishing,reduce possession limits and banning boats from tearing up spawning grounds. I know the boat one would be tricky as the launch sits in the middle of prime spawning ground but with the closure no boat should need be up the west arm further than the launch. There were also some things that don't need regulation changes and would cost nothing like keeping the lake free and clear of garbage ( especially in spawning grounds ) so by doing something so small as not leaving your cra* on the ice in the winter and lugging your trash out the rest of the time will help walleye have a more successful spawn. just thought i would share some of the stuff i have been reading on the net....