Great Lakes Bass Fishing Forum

Bass Fishing => Bass Fishing Tips, Techniques & General Discussion => Topic started by: Savage on February 02, 2006, 05:45:56 AM

Title: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 02, 2006, 05:45:56 AM
As the February 5th meeting looms closer, many clubs will be deciding soon which way they are going to go forward.? With this is mind, I have some nagging questions that I would like answers to.

This may seem woefully ignorant, but what exactly is the "TBF"?? I know it stands for "THE Bass FEDERATION, INC" but what exactly is that?? I am a member of B.A.S.S., and the Michigan BASS Federation, does that mean I belong to "TBF"?

I have printed and read everything I can find on the subject.? It seems that the "TBF" is leaning towards partnership with FLW.? Is this true?

BassFan has entered the issue, and made some offers.? When I read the BassFan proposal, they say they are nuetral, and would like to help the "Federation" members with a website and other incentives.? They also say they would like to help, no matter who out partner is.? What do they really mean there?? They will give free membership to BassFan Army to anyone who is in the "Federation", but are they only talking about "TBF" when they say "Federation"?? ?

Doug has a great chart on the www.michiganbass.net (http://www.michiganbass.net) website that breaks down the two choices.? His chart is a little vague on the new Federation Nation plan for the six teams of six people.? Each state can send 6 teams of 6 people (36 total), but each team is made up of members from the same club.? I have done some research on that subject as well, and it seems that not only will there be the "bass club team" format, but will also send a 12 man state team to the regionals, just as we always have, and that will be the road to getting to the Classic.? The "club team" championship is geared more towards finding the best club team, and they win 6 fully rigged Tritons.? Is all that accurate??

I know this has been long-winded, but we need to get some answers to these questions, and get it all on the table so we can make some informed decisions!? The plans seem fairly even to me, I don't like FLW's desire to lock us in for 5 years, and their insistance on having exclusive sponsorships.? Plus, unless %80 of us move to the FLW plan, the FLW benefits package reduces substantially.? This means that some states, clubs, etc. could move to FLW, only to find that they don't get the package of benefits they were promised.? Sounds like bait and switch.? If I seem to be leaning towards B.A.S.S., I probably am, but I am keeping an open mind for now.

Thanks to all

-Brandon ???
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Revtro on February 02, 2006, 08:43:32 AM
I have the exact same question about the "TBF".  Are they referring to the federation (such as our MI B.A.S.S. Federation)?  Or is the TBF some other organization I've never heard of?  Nothing I've read makes it clear to me.  What am I missing.  Brandon, you're not alone in this one. 
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: joshimoto son on February 02, 2006, 09:16:59 AM
Savage, Revtro

I had to ask those same questions 3-4 weeks ago... in regards to the TBF.

Do you remember the story last fall about the guys that got banned from BASS?

Those were the TBF.

Reginal representatives that was voted into position by all the Federation chapter presidents.

I have read so much on this stuff, I'm starting to get burned out.

But I do not think that any state is required to be affiliated with the TBF.

I'm giving short answers on purpose, I tend to get off topic if I don't.

I know DK is very knowledgable too, are either one of you going to go to BPS on Sunday?

Josh
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Revtro on February 02, 2006, 10:11:55 AM
Sorry for being hard-headed.  I still don't quite get it.  Did the guys who were banned from B.A.S.S. form the TBF?  Or was the TBF a part of the B.A.S.S. Federation?  I'm still unclear whether or not it's two separate organizations.  Thanks for your patience. 
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: smbassman on February 02, 2006, 10:12:48 AM
The official deal from BASS has not been presented.  An idea of what they(BASS) are thinking the Federation Nation would include and could provide to its members was presented and from what I have heard, they are revising that plan based on feedback.

Josh is correct regarding the TBF - They are the regional reps that were voted into office and then decided they would become incorporated.  I have a feeling their positions would no longer be voluntary(in other words, they would be hired officers receiving a compensation for their time) under the plan they are going for with the FLW.  This worries me that their desire to obtain a seat at Irwins table is a driving force for them trying to persuade the clubs to follow them to the FLW.  (this is only my thoughts - so please don't quote me)

I am leaning towards working a deal out with BASS, mainly because I do not like the idea of the nations clubs and eventually the whole fishing community falling under the Ranger Nation that FLW will be pushing.  I don't have a problem with Ranger boats, but I don't want the owner of Genmar to be thee same owner of the FLW and have direct control of the Federation.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: blakstr1 on February 02, 2006, 10:21:51 AM
As with SMBASSMAN...aside from everything else my biggest concern is a monopolization of competitive bass fishing...

I believe the fellas that got banned for life have now been reinstated??

I like having a chance at the classic, but 6 out of 40,000...pretty tough odds.  With FLW we could go to the BFL, then to the BFL Championship, which 1 boater and 1 non-boater would advance to the FLW Championship (or the Forest Woods Championship can't remember??) but that might not be a federation member.  Still though we could work our way up through the ranks of BFL, to Stren, to FLW.

I don't know, I weigh the options all the time...I am still very much on the fence, I hope we all can get a firm understanding of all of this prior to any voting, and I plead with everyone to keep an open mind and listen to both sides carefully.  We need to do the best for the members of the Michigan BASS Federation.

BOTTOMLINE!
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Revtro on February 02, 2006, 10:30:33 AM
Aha.  So the guys were basically banned because of their notion to become incorporated and trying to bring the clubs in the B.A.S.S. Federation along with them.  Is this correct?  Am I on the right track now?  If the guys who were banned were subsequently reinstated, are they still incorporated as the TBF?  If so, are the various state B.A.S.S. federations automatically affiliated with the TBF?  I assume then that the decisions the TBF makes will end up impacting the state feds?  I think I'm starting to make sense of it now, unless I'm totally off base.  Wouldn't surprise me.  DOH!   :P
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 02, 2006, 10:30:33 AM
I will not be at BPS, I wish I could.  Bound to be interesting ;D

Anyway, if thos eguys are the TBF, what is this about a membership to the TBF?  Obviously some states are members and some are not (Michigan?)
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: joshimoto son on February 02, 2006, 11:37:46 AM
I think!!!!!!...... It is the states decision to allow the TBF to speek for them or in other words... represent them at the national level.
One example, I think it is Texas, that does not want anybody to represent their state except their own president, not a regional rep.
Somebody help me if I have it wrong.

Josh

As far as BASS or FLW, I really feel that I would like to stay with BASS.
There's nothing wrong with playing on the National League, but I prefer to stay with the American League. (That's my baseball analogy)
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 02, 2006, 01:40:50 PM
You have most of it here and correct. TBF was started when BASS and the state federations (all independent companies) decided to try a new approach of 1 representative per region (north, northeast, south, central, west) so the state federation?s elected existing federation president?s ? 1 from each region and then 2 kind of ?at-large? guys to oversee TBF. These are the 7 guys everyone is talking about.

TBF incorporated so they could attempt to arrange industry deals for all the federations as a whole entity. Only the Texas federation decided to not be involved in the TBF. As you know, BASS kicked out and ?fired? these 7 TBF reps. They can?t really fire them because they are their own company and really serve the state federations who want to participate (including Michigan although we have not until recently been very involved with them directly). TBF does ?represent? the Michigan federation, but we are not bound at this time by their agreements unless we choose to be.

When BASS kicked out TBF, they pretty much forced them to look elsewhere for a national deal for the individual participating state federations. I think it was more to do national deals outside of BASS with major sponsors. But with all the uneasiness, FLW saw a chance to make an alternative offer to the state federations through our single ?representative? TBF. I can?t blame them since a fair number of state federations made it clear they were very unhappy with the way things were going. In a number of our most recent communications, BASS staffers have admitted themselves that things could have been handled better. Not just from their end they say, which is probably accurate.

I have not posted many communications I?ve received because things are changing every day to some degree and some have been said in ?the heat of the moment? only to be later regretted (not all) and I see no good in confusing the overall issue with communications that have basically been knee-jerk emotional responses, not addressing the packages and offers.

I also want everyone to make up their own mind based on the actual offers and issues, not because one side or another isn?t very good at writing productive messages. I also don?t want to appear to be forcing my personal opinions on anyone by possibly appearing to post more negative from one side verses the other. Like I?ve said, a lot of ?guests? are reading this board right now and I?m probably not hearing from all of them.

The TBF is leaning towards FLW because BASS will not work with them, only the individual state federations, even though BASS did re-instate these 7 members. BASS? position is to only deal with the elected representatives of the individual state federations. You can imagine relations directly between BASS and TBF would be strained at this time. TBF has chosen to present the FLW offer to us as their arranged offer to state federations that choose to participate. I don?t know that anyone has signed contracts yet.

The BassFan offer is a free media promotional offer in exchange for access to our federation members. I imagine many state federations could use good media help and access. For various reasons, the BassFan offer came through the TBF, but I think (not 100% sure) that we can work with BassFan if we choose regardless of which overall offer we take.

BASS has made it clear recently that individual clubs CAN choose to affiliate with other groups ? like some of our clubs have been MUCC affiliates in the past. So individual clubs could join BASS and FLW. What BASS now says they won?t accept is for the actual state-level elected boards to be affiliated with any other group. I?m not totally clear on this ? I expect it is their attempt to have our Michigan board not try to affiliate with FLW too. I have to wonder though what that means for say an MUCC affiliation, or the BassFan offer.

This is all changing so fast ? more accurately initial vague offers are being fleshed out ? that I have not asked that particular question yet. I will ask.

The new chart up on the Michigan federation web site came from BASS. Doug just added comments to the right without changing what BASS sent out to us. As I say, things are fleshing out daily so it is quite a challenge to keep you all up on everything fast enough. I know Doug intends to have everything we know as of Sunday at the meeting for discussion. The plan is to have copies of everything for each club from what I?ve been told.

The BASS divisional were taken away, but now have been added back in. BASS had proposed the new club championship instead of the divisionals. Even though they put the old divisionals back, it appears they intend to keep the club championship too anyway as a separate and new benefit to chapter members.

Understand that both sides want commitment from the individual state federations. The new BASS Federation Nation also has levels and areas that require we only show their sponsors. There are contractual issues to consider with this for our existing contracts with our own state-level sponsors including several the contradict BASS? national sponsors ? i.e. Ranger, Yamaha and others.

FLW has indicated they may prorate some benefits if they don?t get 80% of members and federations. I?m not sure what will happen there yet. I have received notice that Maryland has voted to stay with BASS. Texas has said all along they don?t participate with TBF so I?m assuming that means they are with BASS. Supposedly, a new group of anglers has signed a BASS Federation Nation agreement in Ohio, replacing the existing Ohio federation. I do not know yet if that is 100% accurate, but I?ve received several notices from both ?sides? indicating that has occurred. That is all I know so far.

This is the real important part ? Regardless of which offer we choose to follow, bylaw changes will be required before we can sign with a new contract with EITHER TBF or the BASS Federation Nation. Bylaw changes cannot be voted on at the same meeting they are proposed. They have to be submitted in writing and voted on at the next meeting and/or (30 days later ? it?s either 30 or 60).

Talk about long-winded :) But this is an important issue for our future.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 02, 2006, 02:18:08 PM
Dan-

THANK YOU! :)

I think I finally understand the issue at hand.  I'll actually probably print your last post and take it to our club meeting Sunday.  It's too bad that all this emotion and politics is stirred up.  I'm still leaning towards B.A.S.S., because it is what I'm used to and like.  The Classic can't be replaced, no matter what else you call it.  Hopefully we stay with BASS, enjoy the new Federation Nation benefits, and add the BassFan package into the mix.  That all sounds pretty good to me. ;D

That's just my opinion, not trying to sway anyone here, and I'll keep an open mind.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: MBell on February 02, 2006, 03:12:52 PM
Hope this all shakes out well.  The appealing things of the federation to me have always been the state championship and the chance to qualify for the classic, I hope this will still be around in the future.  Niether side is ideal, I now view them as similar organizations.  Bass has changed in the last few years. 
-Matt
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: dhuff on February 02, 2006, 03:16:50 PM
The appeal of the state championship and a chance at the classic is nice.  However,  BASS to me has went down hill in the last few years.  I hater there new schedule of having the Classic in the spring.  That just isn't right.  I always loved it in the dog days of summer when the best of the best got to show their true fish catching skills when the bite was at it's toughtest.  Now it is just going to be everyone bed fishing. 
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Revtro on February 02, 2006, 03:26:02 PM
Dan, your reply totally clears things up for me.  Thanks for taking the time to be so thorough. 

Personally this is going to be a tough decision for me.  I have some of the same frustrations with BASS as dhuff mentioned.  But in fairness, it's going to be important to see all the cards on the table before forming an opinion one way or the other.

Our club has talked a little about affiliation and we were seriously thinking about being a BASS Federation club this year.  But with all the changes to the way BASS does things, we will be discussing all options.  So I imagine this will take some time to decide on the club level no matter what the TBF or state federations decide to do. 
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: ronhuntfish on February 02, 2006, 06:56:02 PM
This seem clearer, but it is still confusing.  Say my club,and others, wants to stay with BASS, but the Michigan Federation goes with FLW.  Will another Michigan Federation need to be formed so that we have 2 state federations?
Maybe I will say no to both and just go fishing.  ???
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Revtro on February 02, 2006, 08:57:14 PM
That's an interesting point.  I can forsee two "federations", one for BASS and one for FLW, so that clubs can choose which they'd like to be affiliated with.  I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that develop.  However, I wonder if there's any chance of the Federation being affiliated with both in the long run???
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: UAWBigDog on February 02, 2006, 10:06:38 PM
Ronhuntfish.....I would say yes to that question.  I would guess that the Michigan BASS Federation would have to change its name if they go to FLW.  However, I believe that just staying what we are we are automatically going to be BASS until Constitutional Bylaws are changed in order to change organizations.  As I read the Federation Nation explanation on the web.....it seems that it is automatic because that is what the "Mother Organization" is going to do.  But it seems to me that Constitutional Bylaws must be changed and then voted on by the membership.  I vote to stay with BASS.  They are the original and in my mind the ELITE of this sport.   Just my opinion.

BD       ;D
Peace Brother!!!!!! 
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 03, 2006, 01:12:02 AM
Two federations has already happened in at least two states - Ohio and Pennsylvania. Maybe others. BASS says clubs can affiliate with whomever they want and how ever many, but BASS still wants a state organization to deal with, and they are saying the state level officers can only affiliate with them if they want to be a BASS Federation Nation affiliate. I'm awaiting some type of response on how this affects our ability to affiliate with say MUCC or BassFan.

BASS has made it clear they will help clubs and/or members start up new federations if their existing 'board' goes to FLW. Six clubs in Pennsylvania did that. And now, supposedly, a group of anglers has become a BASS Federation Nation affliate in Ohio (although I was not aware the existing Ohio federation had officially notified BASS they had gone with FLW - not sure what exactly happened there).

We need bylaw changes in Michigan even if we decide to 'stay' with the new BASS Federation Nation. We also need to figure out what we will do with existing Michigan federation contracts that might conflict with BASS Federation Nation requirements. We definitely have to decide one way or the other or we won't be with anyone at the state level.

If the Michigan federation were to leave BASS, we could not use BASS (maybe) or B.A.S.S. and their logos. I believe we could be (instead of the Michigan B.A.S.S. Chapter Federation) the Michigan Bass Federation just like TBF is The Bass Federation. That is something that would require a bylaw change too I believe.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Dan on February 03, 2006, 10:36:04 PM
Thanks Dan,
I too appreciate the time you put into this. Things are about as clear as they can be and we will just have to wait and see how all the offers shake out and make an informed decision. Nowadays it's tough in any endeavor to get away from the politics. It becomes a necessary evil and one you have to evaluate with a level head. It is very easy to get swept up in a wave of negativism. Lifes too short. So I'll trust the Federation board to make the correct move and then we will all go fishing.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 03, 2006, 11:15:31 PM
Here are links to two Adobe pdf documents graphically showing the new divisional format and club championship format from BASS.

Road to Classic - Divisional - similar to the old format with one new division. (http://www.greatlakesbass.com/fishing/FEDtoCLASSIC.pdf)

New Bass Club World Championship chart. (http://www.greatlakesbass.com/fishing/BASS_CLUB_chart.pdf)
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 03, 2006, 11:29:34 PM
This is the latest offer summary from the TBF with FLW and BassFan (also Adobe pdf document): TBF Divisional and Conservation Flow Chart (http://www.bassfederation.com/TBF_Tournament_Flow_Chart.pdf)

Additionally, TBF announced the hiring today of an experienced national membership programs administrator (another Adobe pdf document):

THE BASS FEDERATION, INC. ?STAFFING UP?
HIRES FEDERATION MEMBERSHIP PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATOR

PONCA CITY, OK. (Feb. 1, 2006) ? The Bass Federation Inc. announced today that it has hired Ruth Bozeman to the position of Federation Membership Programs Administrator.

Ruth M. Bozeman, of Montgomery, Alabama, graduated from Troy University with a Bachelors degree in Business Management and Information Systems. She worked at BASS, LLC. for 3 years in the Federation Department. While with BASS, some of the things Ruth was responsible for include: Coordinating and maintaining relationships with State Federation Presidents and Representatives and Federation Sponsors, planning the Federation Divisionals and National Championship, and the Federation Outstanding Achievement Awards Program. Complete News Release... (http://www.bassfederation.com/Bozeman_Announcement___06.pdf)
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 03, 2006, 11:35:09 PM
Expect new similar announcements from FLW in the coming week or so. I have additional documents and letters to share with you, but I think they are best handled by first allowing our federation board to discuss them Sunday morning, and then giving the information to our presidents at the afternoon meeting once the board has had their chance to consider them.

Nothing will be held back, I just think politically, they should dsicuss them first, and then the presidents should have them before release to all members.

I promise that everything I have received or been told that is confirmably accurate will be shared at the president's meeting and then for those of you who can't make it, I will post it here after the meeting. No big secrets just trying to keep this productive and as smooth as something major like this can be.

I don't think a lot of pre-meeting discussion may be interpreted properly by people who are reading this.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 04, 2006, 08:39:16 AM
Dan, you should run for office somewhere you politically savy dude, you.  How about Governor?  Then you can open the bass season year 'round and outlaw jetskis during fishing hours (24 hrs a day ;D)
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: ronhuntfish on February 04, 2006, 10:56:55 AM
Judging by the Mich. Fed web site, I get the impression that they, or at least the Pres, is leaning to TBF/FLW.  That's just me trying to read between the lines, which probably is not  agood thing to do.  I guess we'll see.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 04, 2006, 11:58:28 AM
If we stayed with B.A.S.S. and some clubs went with FLW, I guess that just means less boats at the state fish off.  Hmmmmm.... ::)
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 04, 2006, 04:28:30 PM
I feel a little guilty not posting more on the federation forum, but you guys and gals are keeping me busy here (THANKS!) and there's still not a lot of traffic over there.

Like I say, there are additional communications and occurences that have gone on that will probably be covered by the board at the meeting tomorrow. That may be why the postings on the Michigan federation main page seem a little biased.

Also, as we all know, it is easy to 'sound' one way or another on forums and web sites when all you have is words. There is so much that could be posted to the point it is almost overwhelming. And things are still changing. I've been seeking advice myself from people I trust while trying to ignore unproductive email and other commucations that are possibly made in the heat of the moment.

I did find out that there are some problems over on the federation web site with the board email addresses and the web host. The federation webmaster is working to fix that. Some of the addresses were not working.

(Savage - I can't be a real politician - I'm a bad liar :) but... that doesn't mean I won't work on your ideas - I LIKE them!)
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: blakstr1 on February 06, 2006, 06:41:31 PM
well, i've held my tongue for a long time on this issue although i think about it and talk to my wife about it daily.? i have honestly been very conflicted about the whole situation for quite some time and actually i will be until the voting process.? for now call this my 2 cents, but basically i'm trying to pick points out of the proposals that go head to head, apples for apples.? It is important to me that i say i still haven't made a decision as to where my loyalty lies, but this is in a response to someone that asked what did i see that was good for us everyday average anglers about the FLW proposal.? so for now, here goes...

Under a TBF affiliated state:
(FLW)
15 person state team (12 anglers, 1 Alternate, President, Conservation Director)
6 Divisional Championships (2 from each state; 1 boater, 1 co-angler)
Federation National Championship (54 boaters, 54 co-anglers : 6 boaters and 6 co?s advance to BFL All-American)
1 Federation national champion boater and 1 national champion co-angler
Federation Nation Living the Dream Program
Advance to the Forrest Wood Cup
BFL All-American (1 winner not necessarily Federation member)
Forrest Wood Cup
(BassFan)
Designates a State Champion / Mr. Bass, provides publicity
Divisional State Champions Tournaments (12 proceed: 6 boaters, 6 co-anglers) 2 from each division
BassFans Weekend Warrior Championship (no entry fee)

This amounts to 182 New Championship Tournament slots past the state level for Federation members. This also includes a new Regional Conservation Program.

Under a BASS affiliated state:
(State Championship)
State Championship for each state federation (12 person team plus 1 alternate, and president)
Divisionals winning state team earns prizes and top angler from each team earns a slot in the Federation Championship
46 federation anglers & 6 foreign country anglers compete for 6 spots in the classic, 1 person from each region.
Bassmaster Classic

(NEW Bass Club Championship)
(6) man teams compete at state level
Each state sends 6 (6) man teams to regional
10 different regions hold qualifying tournaments
Top 6 clubs from each regional advance to Championship

This offers quite a bit new competition too..

When you look at these scenarios both have their strong points. Remember this all started when BASS wanted to make a $5 increase, which isn?t nothing but gives them an extra $200,000 annually in dues with no distribution plan for that money. My concern is based on that is that why they won?t commit to a multi year deal? Maybe its paranoia on my part but something doesn?t feel right? I?ve got issues both ways though. I?m just caught up with the fact right now that many guys are siding with BASS because its what they?re use too but what they?re used to is gone. Now should we side with the better business and strictly business wise IMO the better of the two is FLW, because ALL of their money is made by bass fishing or a bass fishing affiliate, their bread and butter?bass fishing is way down the list for money makers for ESPN, just turn on the TV.? In my mind FLW is anglers working for anglers.? Now that FLW is going to have the full liability package, progressive conservation progam, and a youth program in place it smoothes a few more wrinkles in my mind. Yes FLW did say they can only guarantee the full package if they get the 80% participation but that makes business sense, not ideal I know but I see their side..not sure if the plan is out there for the pro-rations of less participation, say 68% sign up gets this??? That would be nice to see.

Just picture the state if we do have 2 affiliations with clubs running around from each, you may have just doubled the amount of tournaments out there each year, more weekends used up..granted the amount of people might not have changed but it will still take up more room.? I'm also concerned with what this will do to memberships at the club level, will anglers that don't approve of their clubs vote, leave for another, all stuff I've been considering through this whole thing.? ?

I am just worried about our power as a national organization if we only represent 20% of the bass fishing nation (meaning if we stay with BASS and FLW does get the 80% participation) our voice just got hoarse. That would turn 40K into 8000 members or so, better chance to get to the classic but I?m afraid that whole process will back pedal due to lack of membership..if they were trying to increase dues by 200k what will they do when roughly 1.5million suddenly leaves?? OUCH!!

Ultimately I?m with you guys I just want to go fishing, however I want to have all the opportunities I can get to advance..? :-\'
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 06, 2006, 06:54:42 PM
I agree, why is everyone trying to tip-toe around this issue? ???? Anyway, I see all of this as a good thing.? TBF/FLW entering the picture has brought about some competition, and now B.A.S.S. had to step up a bit.? The way I see it, if I fish with FLW I can make the state team, which is one of 12 spots.....

If I fish with BASS I can make the 12 man team, or I can make it on one of the new club championship teams, 6 teams of 6 for a total of 36.? This means we are sending 12 + 36 = 48 guys to the "next level"? I like the odds on that much better. ;D

Realistically, I doubt that FLW is getting the %80 they crave, so the deal will change.? The benefits offered by BASS are on the table without stipulations.? BASS is also a known entity for me, so there is a comfort level.

FLW is asking too much....? making demands about putting their logo on everything that is printed, telling us what sponsors we have to have, and pushing for a 5 year deal (why would anyone want to try something new and lock it in for 5 years???)

I am sticking with BASS. :)
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: blakstr1 on February 06, 2006, 07:03:36 PM
Would someone with a better memory than mine please answer a question for me ???  Is it true that BASS set up there weekend series tournaments in Michigan without contacting the MBF to schedule it in conjunction with the Classic Series?

I heard this but need validity on the topic, wouldn't expect a situation like that if they were really concerned with the Federation.  :-[
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: ronhuntfish on February 06, 2006, 07:44:33 PM
Some of the options are looking better from TBF, but I am still uneasy about it.  I am still concerned about how their proposal could be effected by the number of members they get.

I am tending to think that I would prefer to stay with BASS at least for 2006. If it turns out that it was the wrong move for our club, then we always have the option of switching to TBF in 2007.

I was at the federation meeting meeting Sun. I think the board did a fair (as fair as possible) job of stating the facts, although it seemed that the fact that Ranger is a big Mich. Fed sponsor has swayed them to TBF.
I did not like the answer to the question of what happens to the Michigan Federation Dues that my club has already paid if my club choices the opposite of the MI Fed. He basically couldn't answer it, and then said you probably wouldn't get it back?  I know BASS said they would refund the national dues that clubs paid.

This really hoses up the State Championship.  The 12 man team from the 2005 St. Clair tournament now are not sure where or when they will be fishing in the divisional, or if they will at all.  The 2006 State Championship is still on, but we have no idea where that team will fish.  What if someone on the state team is in a club that goes the opposite of the federation, can he still fish in the divisional? Maybre the questions will be answered soon.

I also had a thought, not sure if this is valid or technically correct.  Shouldn't the Michigan Federation automatically convert to BASS Federation Nation?  It was started as a BASS affiliated group. That is what all its members have paid and bought into.  It seems that if members want to go TBF than they should leave this Federation to form a different one, not split it.  Or, is it the opposite way, since the MI Fed is represented by TBF?? Or maybe neither way is correct?

I guess these are some of the conflicts going on inside my brain.

Is it possible for a club to be members of BASS without being affiliated with a state federation? The way I understand it, BASS wont deal with idividual clubs, only at a state level.

I think the bottom line is that, in the end, we will have two groups.  It may be better since it creates competion and prevents monopolization by one group.  It could negativily effect sponsoship, since a sponsor may not like representing a small number of people.

Ouch!! I think I just had a brain fart! :P
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 07, 2006, 12:29:38 AM
Would someone with a better memory than mine please answer a question for me ??? Is it true that BASS set up there weekend series tournaments in Michigan without contacting the MBF to schedule it in conjunction with the Classic Series?

In the past, BASS has not kept it very secret that they are not fond of states having their own tournament series such as the Classic Series. Different reasons for this, but in general, they feel they are problematic.

To my knowledge, the board hadn't heard much directly about this in a while. The new Woverine Bassmaster Series director did contact the federation to check on our dates and try to not schedule on top of one of our events. There was no discussion from BASS to combine the two series together. I think the Michigan board may have asked about that previously, but it was not an option.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 07, 2006, 12:43:40 AM
I agree, why is everyone trying to tip-toe around this issue? ???? Anyway, I see all of this as a good thing.? TBF/FLW entering the picture has brought about some competition, and now B.A.S.S. had to step up a bit.? The way I see it, if I fish with FLW I can make the state team, which is one of 12 spots.....

It is nice to start to see we have real value and are desired by major companies. The board (and myself even though I'm not on the board) is trying to give the members all the available informatin that is accurate without trying to seem like they are misrepresenting anything or withholding any information BASS or TBF wants members to see.

We all have our personal opinions - some no stronger than many of you and some pretty strong - BUT (a big BUT) the members and presidents make the ultimate decision. Every board member besides the state president who is the tie-breaker does have a vote too, but the club presidents will make the real decision.

Nationally, there have been many confusing and unproductive accusations of lying and misleading - particulary against state presidents and/or state officers. Doug and the board (and I) are trying to avoid that here as much as possible.

Why? Maybe just because the more civil this process is, the more likely we all reach a wise decision without hating each other and without tearing the federation apart too much. This whole thing has been frustrating for me personally to see fairly strong, longstanding organizations hamstringed or worse when it seems like a lot of this could have been avoided. I just want the Michigan federation to come out of this with the least amount of damage.

If I fish with BASS I can make the 12 man team, or I can make it on one of the new club championship teams, 6 teams of 6 for a total of 36.? This means we are sending 12 + 36 = 48 guys to the "next level"? I like the odds on that much better. ;D

Make sure you understand that each 6-person team in the new club championship have to be made up of members from the same club. Some are concerned this could cause larger clubs to break up into more smaller clubs. Hard to say until it is seen how popular the event is.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 07, 2006, 01:30:53 AM
Some of the options are looking better from TBF, but I am still uneasy about it. I am still concerned about how their proposal could be effected by the number of members they get.

I'm looking into this to see what can be clarified.

I am tending to think that I would prefer to stay with BASS at least for 2006. If it turns out that it was the wrong move for our club, then we always have the option of switching to TBF in 2007.

Your club may have the option. BASS has said clubs can affiliate with both. BASS will not allow state officers to affiliate with more than one organization. TBF's deal with FLW says TBF will start a TBF federation in each state where there isn't one. So if the Michigan federation votes to stay with BASS, by next year there will be a TBF federation too.  The clubs could join this other federation, but the board could not since there would already be another board.

I was at the federation meeting meeting Sun. I think the board did a fair (as fair as possible) job of stating the facts, although it seemed that the fact that Ranger is a big Mich. Fed sponsor has swayed them to TBF.

Understand that the board takes our existing and very good contracts seriously. It is not only Ranger, but also Yamaha and other sponsors too. If we stay with BASS, a number of our really good contracts become questionable with not much to replace them. We already know the deals from the other side - they are limited because of the way they are structured; they favor the national level, not the state level - and they do not compare to our existing contracts. This is a major concern that should not be taken lightly. We have heard from a number of our sponsors on this issue as I have too.

No threats, just discussions on how things might have to change either way we go. For Ranger alone, we get a free boat and a boat at about cost. This is one of the best state contracts in the nation. With BASS, we may not keep this level of support and there is no such program available to the states from their side. With TBF, we can keep our existing contract PLUS get in on the additional national benefits TBF and FLW provide including bonus money back to our federation for every Ranger sold. Yamaha has just signed a larger deal with FLW Outdoors and will be a major player in our future too. We can't afford to overlook that and not stress to members how valuable these deals are. This decision has major cost considerations to the Michigan federation.

I did not like the answer to the question of what happens to the Michigan Federation Dues that my club has already paid if my club choices the opposite of the MI Fed. He basically couldn't answer it, and then said you probably wouldn't get it back? I know BASS said they would refund the national dues that clubs paid.

This is all new and challenging. No decision has been made on this issue. I heard as many board members say we should give the dues back as I heard say we should not. Again, the club presidents make the decision on whether we stay or go as a federation. I think by the time the decision is made, the board will have thoroughly talked over club dues and made the best decision they can on this question.

This really hoses up the State Championship. The 12 man team from the 2005 St. Clair tournament now are not sure where or when they will be fishing in the divisional, or if they will at all. The 2006 State Championship is still on, but we have no idea where that team will fish. What if someone on the state team is in a club that goes the opposite of the federation, can he still fish in the divisional? Maybre the questions will be answered soon.

Most likely, to participate in one companies event or the other, you'll have to be a member in good standing in that company.

I also had a thought, not sure if this is valid or technically correct. Shouldn't the Michigan Federation automatically convert to BASS Federation Nation? It was started as a BASS affiliated group. That is what all its members have paid and bought into. It seems that if members want to go TBF than they should leave this Federation to form a different one, not split it. Or, is it the opposite way, since the MI Fed is represented by TBF?? Or maybe neither way is correct?

The BASS Federation Nation is a new agreement with new requirements, rule, codes of conduct and even patches and logos - some of which we have not seen yet. We have to go by our bylaws - we are an incorporated company ourselves. Either BASS Fed Nation or TBF. To go or stay is up to the federation presidents/reps present at the bylaw vote - done as mandated in the bylaws. Michigan federation has been a member affiliate of both BASS and TBF.

Is it possible for a club to be members of BASS without being affiliated with a state federation? The way I understand it, BASS wont deal with idividual clubs, only at a state level.

As far as I know, BASS still requires clubs to be a member of the state affiliate. It appears TBF will be the same way. BASS has made it clear they will help members/clubs start a new state federation if necessary. TBF is obligated to start TBF federations in any state that doesn't already have one.

Ouch!! I think I just had a brain fart! :P

I know the feeling...
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 07, 2006, 09:19:47 AM
Looks like we are getting a ton of good info on this, I hope we don't wear out the topic before it comes time to vote! :-\'
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: joshimoto son on February 07, 2006, 09:39:31 AM
Do you remeber in one of the REAL Star Wars movies when Luke Skywalker was blind folded and had to defend off the little lazer beams being shot at him by that little round thing flying around?

I just witnessed Lt. Dan doing the same thing with this last post of his.

The force is strong that one is... yes

Well done young Jedi!!!
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 07, 2006, 12:10:36 PM
Luke gets his arm cut off later in that one, right? :o
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 07, 2006, 12:52:49 PM
Yeah - I believe that is true... could account for some of the toe-tapping, you think?

I'm hearing from a lot of people and I'd like to stay friendly with as many of them as possible when the smoke clears.

I only have one vote for my club and my club has not fully weighed in yet.

I can see we will be 'buried' in information before this is over. I think about that (because I've been accused of this more than once ;D) every time I think about responding to something.

No one here should feel uncomfortable stating their opinion and don't take any of my responses personal either please. Just trying to be fair to all the readers and members - you might be surprised who is reading this stuff. I have been a few times.

All questions are particularly important since I hope people make informed decisions about this important issue. Not everyone is up to speed yet on this issue as we were reminded at the federation meeting. I assume a question means at least one person wants to know - and probably others too. Thanks for your patience and participation.

I just saw yesterday that there is a popular Wisconsin Bass Federation web site in Wisconsin that is completely TBF now. That was quick. I do not know for sure if this is the original site or a totally new one. Like Ohio, where there are two web sites now with one being a new BASS Federation Nation web site and the other being the original Ohio BASS Chapter Federation.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 07, 2006, 12:54:11 PM
I figure we are talking about the issue enough here - I've stayed off the forums in other states - I don't want overload anymore than anyone else...
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 07, 2006, 01:15:35 PM
What I really don't want is for this to turn into the civli war of bass fishing. :-\'  If things were right, I would be in both organizations.  More opportunity is good, any way you slice it.  Just because I am choosing to go with BASS for the time being, doesn't mean if someone goes to the TBF plan I would even care.  Fishermen are pretty cool people for the most part, and we are reluctant to get into politics.  That's why it's so surpirsing to me that this is such an eotional issue!

I'm cool with everyone, BASS, TBF, FLW, BFE, XYZPDQ, and even WWE   ;D
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: blakstr1 on February 07, 2006, 01:39:04 PM
the fear of Civil War is exactly my fear, like I said on another post, if you split the Federation you're going to end up with the Republicans VS the Democrats...when all I really want to do is fish..... :(
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: ronhuntfish on February 07, 2006, 06:06:50 PM
Thanks for answering my questions Dan, one-by-one.
Another thought I had is if my club chooses BASS, and the MI Fed chooses TBF (based on the club presidents votes) we can still choose to go with the MI Fed and TBF.
Right, even though we originally voted to go BASS?

Boy, I never expected to be involved in issues like this when I joined a club.  I know you can't avoid the politics completely, BUT I JUST WANT TO FISH!!!

Pardon my outburst.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: UAWBigDog on February 07, 2006, 08:29:20 PM
Well, at least we will be an informed bunch when it is time to vote..........




AND I JUST WANT TO FISH, TOO!!!!!!!!!



BD? ? ? ? ;D
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Dan on February 07, 2006, 10:24:57 PM
I tell you what you guys impress the heck out of me. This forum has some real class. Good info. good discussion, nobody bashing, that's why I hang out. Plus I want to glean some of your hot spots and baits. Steal them glean them any way you want to give them up!
It's costly though. You guys already cost me over a hundred bucks in new baits this month alone. Hope summer gets here soon so I'll quit salving my fishing pangs with stashes of plastic.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 07, 2006, 10:59:03 PM
Dan (nice name btw) we all have to feed the pangs somehow... ;D

ronhuntfish - regardless how your clubs votes, BASS has made it clear they don't have a problem with clubs having multiple affiliations. I would not want to be a member of an organization that turned down members. I don't want to see a major split.

Heck, just like when we vote for president - about half vote one way and half vote the other, but when the smoke clears, most of us stay in the US anyway. I would hope your club stays in too regardless of how the vote goes.

I'm not worried about the board holding any grudges. I don't expect TBF to turn anyone down. BASS says they don't have a problem with clubs having multiple affiliations. Yeah, there's a handful of guys who may get really torqued (we saw a couple at the meeting), but overall I think we can get through this without too much 'permanent damage.' That's what I'm hoping for anyway.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 07, 2006, 11:42:52 PM
I think about and actually what worries me more is that the most personal level will happen in the votes within the individual clubs. I hate to think friendships and clubs might be damaged by this process.

I just hope everyone remembers that after the vote, regardless how any individual votes, we should all remember why we are in the clubs we are in with the people we are in them with. We should be able to still get along even when we don't agree 100% on everything the same. That is the principle this country is founded on - majority rule without unnecessarily harming the minority.

This issue should not be wrecking any real friendships or clubs. Life will go on and we WILL still get to fish (and earlier than normal this year - YAY!
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 08, 2006, 03:01:35 PM
Quote
we should all remember why we are in the clubs we are in with the people we are in them with.

Ouch, that one made my brain hurt! :-[
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 08, 2006, 03:05:07 PM
I dislocated my left ringfinger when I typed it... but it was late and... well, it was late.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: blakstr1 on February 08, 2006, 04:34:09 PM
From BASSFAN...
A little math 2/8/2006
According to Federation representatives who were at the January meetings with BASS, the former, or previous, BASS Federation was down to around 35,000 members as of the end of 2005. If true, that's 10,000 members (or 23%) off the alleged 45,000-strong Federation roster when ESPN bought BASS in 2001.

Nevertheless, here's some simple math regarding the FLW Outdoors-TBF deal. If you assume that 100% of former BASS Federation members register with FLW (unlikely), and were not already FLW members (unlikely), that's 35,000 x $25 annual membership = $875,000. FLW's $1 million that it's giving TBF annually minus $875,000 in annual membership dues leaves $125,000 as FLW's annual cash contribution under this scenario (note that FLW is contributing more than just cash to the TBF package).

Kind of interesting stuff...
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: blakstr1 on February 10, 2006, 07:31:01 AM
I opened my new BASS TIMES last night (which the print was perfect in this one, unlike my Bassmaster mag from another post)..I got to the page that outlined the differences between BASS and TBF.  I had to laugh outloud, it was like going into McDonalds and asking them if the Whopper is better than the Big Mac!! ;D  They were pretty biased but I totally understand their publication, their right...I'm sure TBF is doing the same. 

At least I got one laugh out of all this!!  ;)
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Revtro on February 10, 2006, 09:07:19 AM
That's funny.? Of course we all know though that the Big Mac is better than the Whopper.? Or is the Wendy's double cheeseburger better than both of them?? Crap, now I have to do an experiment to figure that one out.?

But seriously, what is the time-frame for all of this stuff now?? Where does it all stand?? Is there a deadline for the states to make a decision about all this?

Never mind, I just read the other post from Dan.  I'm looking forward to March to see how this all goes.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 10, 2006, 09:52:18 AM
It always makes me feel wary when someone is trying to push for a quick decision..... :-[

What's the rush?  I already paid my BASS dues for the year to the Michigan Federation too, so why would I not fish with BASS?  Are the clubs getting their money back if they don't agree with what the board decides?  Time will tell who the greedy parties are in all this.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: blakstr1 on February 10, 2006, 10:01:05 AM
yeah makes me nervous too, should have been given a year or so to consider, but again when BASS decided to raise the dues, they should have went out and asked the federation members and gave a reason for the increase..then we wouldn't be in this mess! (for the most part).  Initially thats why i couldn't understand when BASS posted the Federation Nation sign-up had to be by March 1st, I guess they've relaxed on that... :-\'
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 10, 2006, 10:05:31 AM
I hope so.  I'm starting to wonder how many clubs will tell everyone to "kiss their bass" and just go independant for a year or two.  Might be nice, save money and all.  If a club doesn't have an open (need the insurance) and does not really want to fish the SFO, why be in BASS or FLW?
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: blakstr1 on February 10, 2006, 10:14:18 AM
thats an option too, fish your club organized events and tour around hitting opens..not a bad idea..then we can keep all of the political headache causing hooplah out of our lives and concentrate on whats important ...? being on the water!!

(i just decided to modify my post based on Revtro's next post)

I think Revtro's bass club has a great idea!? I agree with you too about the business end of things, we tend to overlook that I guess, but they are both businesses and if I was in either of their positions I would want this upcoming years business under my belt and not let it hang out there forever where even another organization could step in...
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Revtro on February 10, 2006, 10:27:50 AM
I know how you feel about the rush.  You might be right, it could be interpreted as greed.  But as a former business owner, I understand how sometimes a company can be in a hurry to get something done because of expected or desired growth.  Plus, I'm sure FLW expects more success in winning over clubs to their side of things if the timetable is abbreviated.  Either way, I'm gonna give both groups the benefit of the doubt.  It's a competitive world out there and I think we're seeing it with these two organizations. 

Our club isn't going to affiliate with either of these organizations this year.  We're just going to go out and fish and have fun and see where the chips have fallen a year from now and then make a decision.  Besides, most of our guys will be very busy with NBAA and FOM.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: Savage on February 11, 2006, 07:37:51 AM
Honestly I want to stay in the game this year at least, for two resons.  One is the SFO is in my back yard this year, the BAY.  The other is that we hold an open every year, and that's tough to do without insurance!
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: ronhuntfish on February 11, 2006, 08:36:20 AM
I'm leaning to staying with the Federation decision even if it is not what our club voted.  That would keep us in the SFO and we could still kind of sit back and see what happens for next year. B.A.S.S. has said that they will give back dues that clubs have paid.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djmaclf on February 11, 2006, 09:12:14 AM
Remember also at the club level, your club can belong to both organizations.

As far as trying to rush the decision, Remember both organizations need to make the plans for the fall for Divisionals, Nationals, Etc.

I have to explain all of this to my members on Sunday.  Got a go start reviewing.   Again.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on February 11, 2006, 02:53:14 PM
Regardless of the timescale - and some of the reasons have been touched on, united bass anglers are extremely important to our future of having more bass fishing and being able to hold tournaments.

I understand people don't like politics - just look at election participation every year - but that is how this country works. I agree with people who say 'if you don't vote, don't complain' although I'm not so hard I say don't talk to me if you didn't participate.

I have to tell you though, after another public meeting I've been to where once again no anglers, or hardly any anglers showed up, it is hard to feel positive knowing that a tiny tiny number of anglers seem to do all the work that ends up affecting all anglers. It's frustrating to say the least.

What having a group like the federation does, is give an elected or appointed representative enough legitimacy that when you sit at a public meeting once again outnumbered five or ten to one by lake association members or others who aren?t on your side, what you (me for example being conservation director) say means more because you REPRESENT hundreds of anglers and their official position.

If I speak at a meeting or hearing as myself, it just doesn?t mean the same as when I speak at the same events as a representative of hundreds of organized anglers. A lot of the time, that is the best we can get out of anglers. Not scolding anyone, just stating the way things are.

We had dramatically better participation during the bass season issue, but that?s often what it takes to get anglers involved in the public process ? something really dramatic. But every day, I get mail and notices about things going on that affect many or all anglers that need anglers? involvement to turn out in favor of anglers. Talking public access fights, wetlands loss, tournament regulations, weed poisoning, water pollution - the list is endless.

Anglers need to be heard. I have seen many references by even government officials of this ?great silent majority? that could be so powerful in outdoor issues IF they would get involved as an organized group. The federation is one way all of you can get involved!

EVERY time outdoor writers and reporters interviewed me during the bass season issues they asked ?Who do you represent?? I got a more press and interest AFTER ABA, BBT, NBAA and other groups said I could represent them, than before when I just said, ?I?m an involved angler.?

I?m not saying it doesn?t count when you are just speaking for yourself. Ten anglers together at the same meeting all speaking for themselves are powerful, but it doesn?t happen enough, so the next best thing is an angler officially representing a whole bunch of anglers. Just the way things work out there.

That?s also why I?ve asked for club conservation directors. An angler who represents a club will be listened to more than if only one angler representing him/herself shows up. Obviously, I would love the whole club to show up at the meetings and hearings, but I?ll take the one member REPRESENTING everyone else next.

Politics is uncomfortable at times, but it is the way things work. So please, hang in there. We?ll get through this and then move on to the next challenge and the next. Fishing is a privilege, not a right. We need to protect that privilege - constantly.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: UAWBigDog on March 05, 2006, 10:28:34 AM
Quote
Fishing is a privilege, not a right. We need to protect that privilege - constantly


I am going to disagree with you on this quote Dan.? Hunting and Fishing is a? RIGHT!!!! ? And this? RIGHT? was handed down to us from the Founding Fathers of this great nation of ours.? And I am not about to let a bunch of Bleeding Heart Liberals take that? RIGHT? away from me.? Apparently someone lied to you about this and you believed them.? ?Also, I believe that politics is only uncomfortable to those who don't stay informed and get involved.? Shame on them for not getting involved and letting their legislators make decisions for them.
Allow me to correct you Dan:

FISHING IS A RIGHT AND WE NEED TO PROTECT THAT RIGHT!!!!!!  


I am not in favor of the move to FLW.? BASS was the first and original and I believe we need to hear their side of everything before we make any hasty decisions.? This is an extremely emotional subject and we all have opinions.? We need to thoroughly think these through before we make a decision that will affect our Federation in the days to come.?

I am not in favor of FLW because of Walmart.? Being a Union man, Walmart has destroyed the very essence of the American workforce.? However, my wife did make sense to me when she said, "Why don't you fish the FLW organization tournaments like BFL and Everstart??? Fish hard and get in the money.? Take their money and use it against them."? So that is what I am going to do.? Fish their events and do my very best to win.? Then take those winnings and donate them to the anti-Walmart website.? That is why I married her.? She brings to me a fresh perspective.? ?That is why I love her.


BD? ? ? ? ? ;D
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: djkimmel on March 05, 2006, 02:27:54 PM
I won't argue with the BigDog. I do prefer to consider fishing a right.

It is a right if you own the water like a pond - you can fish without a license. There is a building movement to pass more legislation to protect our rights to hunt and fish as RIGHTS.

All I mean by privilege is in general you need to buy a license to hunt or fish. The government can take away your individual ability to hunt or fish by not giving you a license.

My biggest concern along those lines aren't losing my ability to hunt or fish because I break a law and the courts remove my ability to purchase a license, it's losing the ability to hunt or fish because misguided people legislate it away, which is why I try to be active in politics and processes; vote, speak out at meetings, write letters, etc.

As far as BASS and FLW Outdoors... well, I'm posting a new thread on that. I've waited too long.
Title: Re: FLW vs. B.A.S.S. - Decision time
Post by: UAWBigDog on March 05, 2006, 08:06:57 PM
You know what Dan, the government has put too many controls on us.  That is why we need to stay diligent in our ideas and worries.  As I said, we all must write to our legislators to make sure they do the right things on our behalf.

BD         ;D