So what happened at the meeting?

[Mike Nolan]

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of crap for saying this but here goes; FLW and BASS are for profit business' and the main reason they support federations is they use membership numbers to negotiate deals with their sponsors for their own profits. In the case of FLW they also want to sell Genmar boats.  ESPN is a media company and their job is selling advertising.  I don't know how much either company really cares about the sport of bass fishing per se.  Tournament bass fishermen spend big money on our toys and they want a piece of it.  Even on the state level greed within the federations have made anglers to question agendas of federation board members.  Prior to the federation split, a majority of federation resources (money and sponsorship gratuities) were funneled to the elite minority of federation members that resided on the board and/or fished the classic series tournament circuit.  The people in charge at the time ignored the majority of federation members that didn't fish the classic series either because they didn't have the finances to do so or didn't feel they could compete at that level. 
I don't mean to imply everyone involved in the federations is greedy, there are some very well meaning selfless people that give a lot of themselves to try to make federations positive organizations for everyone...guys like Dan and Paul Wagner (and I'm sure a few others) do things for the greater good of the fishermen in the federations and of the state.
Having said all this, the fact of the matter is most federation members aren't involved in conservation projects, are not involved in youth programs, and don't participate in federation fund raising projects.
I'm in a club (in the other federation) where we have monthly meetings, have a yearly fund raiser in which everyone participates, have a youth program, and fish tournaments to determine who our club sponsors into the state fish-off.  What we get from being federation members is; liability insurance that may or may not be worth the paper it's printed on, and a state fish-off that allows us to fish the next level.  Personally my club means a lot to me; I have learned a tremendous amount about fishing, I've made some very close friends, and I've learned what I like and don't like about tournament bass fishing.  I have gotten to the point were I don't care much about fish-offs or moving to the next level.  If my club decided to go to TBF, stay with BFN, or not be affiliated with either federation that's fine with me, the club is far bigger than either federation in my eyes.
My point of all this is; if either federation wants members (customers) they need to offer a product that appeals to a majority of fishermen in the state.  I fully appreciate that there is no way to please everyone all the time and determining what "fair" to the general membership can be difficult.  IMO the TBF has been making a big mistake not purchasing scales and untying its hands from the BFL.  Whether statistics show a majority of members participate in the fish-off or not the fish-offs are the most important functions the federations put on in the eyes of a majority of members.  I fished the first TBF fish-off and it was very well conducted and the BFL team did a great job at the weigh-in.  The problem is for the last several years the TBF has held their fish-off at the same lake(s) one day after the BFL during the spawning season.  These fish-offs have very limited appeal to anglers not participating in the BFL the day before.  The TBF needs to move around the state with their fish-off if they want to grow.
Also disturbing, at least to me is; if I am reading this correctly, the TBF president is implementing major rule changes (some of which will directly benefit him in the future) without bringing them to the presidents for a vote.  "Thinking outside the box" is great if the thinking is valid and responsible.  Aligning with someone that does not treat their authority properly is not something I care to do.  From a personal stand-point if my club did want to move to TBF I would vote against it.
Discussions like this do have positive impact on the way things are run even though some get upset initially.

   

[MadWags]

Excellent post Mr. Nolan.

Oh and welcome to GLBass.com!

[Hooksetter]

Nice post Mike, you'll get no crap from me.

I especially agree with the last paragraph, which is the same point I made in my earlier posts. Kind of like the"taxation without representation" thing we had about 250 years ago or so in this country.

Seems to me that most of you who are "serious tournament bass fisherman" don't really care about what the "average bass fisherman' thinks about how the TBF is run.

Just because I don't pursue tournament opportunities like you do doesn't mean I am any less passionate about bass fishing or fishing in general. It doesn't mean I care less about conservation or youth programs. That doesn't make me a tournament hater either, as some have stated. What it does is make me a part of the majority of bass fisherman in this state. If the TBF chooses to ignore that fact it will never be the organization it could be.

After much thought I will not be joining Michigan TBF or FLW Outdoors this year. There are other organizations out there that could put my $75.00 to better use right now.

I hold no ill will towards the Michigan TBF or any of it's members. I may very well be a member again in the future.

Here's to a short winter and an early spring for us all!

Willie

[WayneC]

Mr. Mike...Thanks for bringing your perspective along for the ride.

Those "positive organization(s)" guys you mentioned and those like them will just keep marching on regardless of what happens from year-to-year.  In my mind those are the people who deserve the greatest respect and support possible because they've shown the same toward the angling community.

The relationship between business (even big business) and anglers will probably always be weighed for its direct and indirect impact on the value of the sport.  It's inexorably symbiotic so in order for both to thrive, both need to negotiate the best possible terms that enable a strong positive presence in society while conserving the resource for the future.  Outside of this ideal there are anomalies that are easy to peg as defining moments or actions and in their own right they are, but over the long haul their influence while negative, gives way to the wide appeal and pure quality of the fishing experience.  This too marches on like your intrepid ambassadors and ultimately define the sport in its highest form.  Having that embedded into the whole of the conversation while treating the oddities and sideshows with less respect is the discussion that interests me the most.

In that respect I'll be looking for more of your posts and look forward to hearing about your activities along the way.

[djkimmel]

I'm completely behind the TBF Inc. - FLW Outdoors partnership as the best match. I believe having our federation owned by ourselves is the best way to go to benefit us anglers the most in the long run.

I have always supported partnerships such as trying to get clubs and the federation to belong to MUCC in the past. Partnerships are important for getting many meaningful things accomplished... like changing a bass season.

The best partnerships are where each party still controls their own destiny while providing mutual benefit to and for each other. That is what I believe we have with TBF and FLW.

Regardless of what I think makes the best partnership, I still want to see all outdoors persons working together in whatever organized capacity will work, and support all efforts to do so regardless of perceptions.

I do not ever want to see the days again where one person speaking for the anglers and outdoors people at a public meeting is completely outnumbered by all the other interests who not only do not share our interests, but are often opposed. That is very depressing and lonely.

[sterk149]

I have seen in recent years the MUCC not had the best interest of tournament anglers in mind with some of there proposals that they have tried to push through.

[djkimmel]

Maybe we should start another thread for some examples but... that doesn't change, in fact, it makes the case for being a member even stronger. MUCC is the largest state conservation organization in the world. Often, if you want something passed through the MDNR/legislature in Michigan (like the bass season), you need MUCC on your side.

Very hard to affect their policy from the outside, but you can change their policy from the inside. I spent a number of  years as the youngest person () on their board of directors and active on the fisheries committee for that very reason.

They are a diverse group like this country. Many opinions and ideas, but an acceptable consensus can be reached with some work and compromise. That is how many important things get done in our system of government and practices.

As much as realistically possible, I try to be a member and help make things better rather than sit on the outside unable to make a difference. I've had to cut back quite a bit for a number of reasons so I understand that as well as the next person.

[Mike Nolan]

A person who I have great respect for contacted me privately through an email and suggested my reply treated Jeff Cox unfairly.  I did not intend on targeting Jeff Cox and I apologize to any that took my comments as a slam towards him personally.  I don't know Jeff Cox and I don't have anything against him personally.  I was commenting on what I've have read in this thread and what I deem as potentially hurting the TBF.  Let me rephrase my comments regarding Jeff.  I don't believe it is in the best interest of the TBF to give the perception to members or would-be members that any one person is making rules for the federation without consulting the presidents.  This goes for Jeff Cox, Paul Sacks, or whoever is in that position.  I also believe it in the best interests of the TBF to purchase a set of scales and a trailer so they can hold fish-offs where it is most advantageous for the bulk of their members.  I personally feel this would be better for the TBF in the long run than would an "entry-fee free" state fish-off.  An entry-fee free fish off will certainly attract "paper" members on a temporary basis but the TBF should IMO be more concerned with being the best run federation so members join and stay longer than one year.  I would also urge the TBF to assemble a competent tournament staff of its own.  The fish-off in either federation is a very important event for a great many anglers.  Well run efficient fish-offs could certainly draw some clubs from the other federation to join the TBF and stay!  The last BFN fish-off I participated in was so poorly run I will not fish another BFN fish-off until I convinced there has been a major overhaul in procedure.   This issue alone could draw my vote for my club to join the TBF.
And I agree with Dan about MUCC.  Issues that need political pressure need numbers and organization and alignment with MUCC would be almost the only way one of "our" issues would have enough impact to sway legislators.  Federation numbers alone aren't enough to influence politicians of the state to act.

[Waterfoul]

Well Mike, since the tourney(s) haven't been conducted yet I think it's too soon to say they WILL be run poorly.  Since our TBF club is fairly local to the Muskegon Lake area I know for sure that several of our members WILL be helping out in whatever capacity we can for the event held there.  Several of our member have been running local events for many years and have a lot of experience managing boats/people/fish.  I am sure this will be a great event and I am very much looking forward to it.  

One nice thing about the Fishermans Landing ramp is the pavillion adjacent to the ramp.  No wind, roof over your head for rain/hot sun protection, nice picnic tables, and a very short distance to the water for releasing fish.  I think it's one of the premier tourney locations on the west side.

Also, if you don't mind me asking Mike, how are you involved with the TBF, FLW, BFL, etc...  It seems you have a lot of information and ideas.  Are you somehow involved?  Pardon my ignorance on this please, but I do not know who you are and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Mike
Store Manager, West Marine Grand Rapids.

[djkimmel]

I think Mike Nolan is saying similar things to what I had been trying to say or mean. It's easy to construe comments many different ways but in the end what is important is for members to be involved and part of the solution, directly, or by providing clear feedback and input to the boards.

Waterfoul, glad you are enthusiastic about the event AND particularly glad that you are offering to help make things the best they can be. The more involved members are, the better the federation(s) can be. I was very glad to see the good turnout at the last meeting. It is another step in the right direction. There have been a number of such steps lately.

[Mike Nolan]

Waterfoul; you might want to re-read my reply because you are seeing something that is not written.  Nowhere did I say the TBF fish-off was "going" to be run poorly.  As I assume you know the TBF has been having the BFL crew conduct their weigh-ins and they were done very well.  From what I understand the BFL will no longer be conducting the TBF fish-off weigh-ins so it is up the TBF to either put a crew together or hire the job out (I believe Chip Harrison is going to run your weigh-in at Muskegon).  The BFN has been conducting their own weigh-ins with their own crew and doing a terrible job of it IMO.  Despite the lowest turn-out ever at this year's St. Clair fish-off (64 boats I believe), some anglers waited an hour and forty-five minutes to weigh in the first day and then after the last angler weighed in it took them approximately another hour and a half to do the pairings for the second day.  I'm sure several people other than myself swore they would never attend another BFN fish-off.  My suggestion to the TBF is not to make the same mistakes the BFN did once they start conducting their own weigh-ins.

And excuse my ignorance but I've never heard of you either.  I guess the difference is being a small scale angler from the East side of the state, I wouldn't expect to know a small scale angler from the West side of the state.  Even though I haven't heard of you I don't assume you wouldn't possibly have a valid opinion or an idea that might help attract members to the TBF.

[djkimmel]

I don't think either one of you meant for things to sound the way they might be taken guys. Please remember it can be easy to read into things that honestly were not meant. I know I get that a lot

I used to run tournaments a long time ago and have been involved in the various federation tournaments in both organizations at times. It is not what I consider a 'fun' job. Like any leadership position, it is challenging to find the right volunteer (or low paid help) to run the event well.

[Waterfoul]

I don't think either one of you meant for things to sound the way they might be taken guys. Please remember it can be easy to read into things that honestly were not meant. I know I get that a lot

I used to run tournaments a long time ago and have been involved in the various federation tournaments in both organizations at times. It is not what I consider a 'fun' job. Like any leadership position, it is challenging to find the right volunteer (or low paid help) to run the event well.

Was simply asking who you are Mike.  Your posts make it sound like you are somehow involved directly with one of the organizations.  No animosity should be read into anything I posted earlier.

I'm just tired of hearing people (not you Mike, but many others) saying "you can't do that, it will never work" or "that won't work over here."   Some on our TBF team have other aspirations here in the BEST bass fishing state north of Texas/Florida.  We are trying to start something NEW and DIFFERENT over here (that in the grand scheme of things IS involved with FLW/TBF) and we have a few people (who think they carry weight with other anglers) saying what we are trying to establish won't work.  How could a 100+% payback tournament series WITH corporate sponsorship NOT attract anglers?  I just wish people who have NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE to add would simply stay away, keep quiet, NOT fish our events if they are not willing to at least give it a shot.  To dismiss something BEFORE you try it is a great example of shallow and often selfish thinking.  The "that's not the way we've always done it" mentality will simply bring about the end of anything new before it's had a chance to grow and blossom.  To paraphrase:  "if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."   New ideas should be welcomed, not dismissed.

I think of myself as an open minded kind of thinker.  Willing to give just about anything a shot if it shows merit (and to me, 100+% payback has merit).  I think this is what is missing from many bass fishermen/women in Michigan.

[ROI Outdoors]

I don't think either one of you meant for things to sound the way they might be taken guys. Please remember it can be easy to read into things that honestly were not meant. I know I get that a lot

I used to run tournaments a long time ago and have been involved in the various federation tournaments in both organizations at times. It is not what I consider a 'fun' job. Like any leadership position, it is challenging to find the right volunteer (or low paid help) to run the event well.

Was simply asking who you are Mike.  Your posts make it sound like you are somehow involved directly with one of the organizations.  No animosity should be read into anything I posted earlier.

I'm just tired of hearing people (not you Mike, but many others) saying "you can't do that, it will never work" or "that won't work over here."   Some on our TBF team have other aspirations here in the BEST bass fishing state north of Texas/Florida.  We are trying to start something NEW and DIFFERENT over here (that in the grand scheme of things IS involved with FLW/TBF) and we have a few people (who think they carry weight with other anglers) saying what we are trying to establish won't work.  How could a 100+% payback tournament series WITH corporate sponsorship NOT attract anglers?  I just wish people who have NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE to add would simply stay away, keep quiet, NOT fish our events if they are not willing to at least give it a shot.  To dismiss something BEFORE you try it is a great example of shallow and often selfish thinking.  The "that's not the way we've always done it" mentality will simply bring about the end of anything new before it's had a chance to grow and blossom.  To paraphrase:  "if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."   New ideas should be welcomed, not dismissed.

I think of myself as an open minded kind of thinker.  Willing to give just about anything a shot if it shows merit (and to me, 100+% payback has merit).  I think this is what is missing from many bass fishermen/women in Michigan.

Obstacles: Attitude, Ego, and preconcieved notions

Solutions: Improve attitudes, leave our egos at home, and start to open up to change

PLAN OF ACTION: Currently being developed by NASA's finest and MIT's brightest!

[BryanP]

The key phrase Waterfoul is "100+% payback tournament series WITH corporate sponsorship".  Based on the posts in this thread, I'm assuming you're refering to a no entry fee state championship.  Has the TBF of MI secrured enough "corporate money" to make this work?  I guess my point is while this is a great idea and I hope it works, I still think an organization should be financially established and have the infrastructure in place (ie. scales, tournament trailer, etc..) before they worry about anything else like no entry fee events.  Maybe that's just the business side of me speaking, and not the fisherman, but I personally think it's also just common sense.

Again, like I said, I hope this works and I'm not bashing anyone.  I'm all for new ideas and trying to change things up, but you can't always do everything at once.

[gr@ssmonkey]

my ? is,the TBF is been in business for a few years now.....how come we don't have scales?(because they cost money,i know that)
it would seem to me the first or 2nd year it should have been #1 priority to get scales..(i mean how do you have a fishing tourney without scales)
I would be up for a donation being taken at the state fish-off(since we are the one's using the scales) to help pay for future scales or offset the cost of one if we get it before the state-fish-off...

[Waterfoul]

Here's a question:  Who says the TBF doesn't have a scale??  Are we perhaps jumping to a conclusion?  Basing this on old information??

Just curious.  I'm a curious guy!  LOL!!

[cameraguy]

Once again not a lot of time but...

That's the first I've seen or heard of 100% payback for this tournament. That shouldn't be difficult since 100% of zero (entry fee) is zero.

I've been asking what the dollar amount goal is for the State Championship since earlier in this thread at least a couple of members complained that the funding for the state team wasn't nearly enough.  Unless I missed it, nobody has bothered an attempt to answer that question.

[gr@ssmonkey]

it sounds like TBF has been using the BFL scales for the last couple of years(at this level i think u need more than a good $150 scale)
 so the ? is to any TBF board members in the know....do we have our own scales?

[Jighead]

I don't see where Waterfoul said the 100% payback tourney was the TBF Fish-Off.  He said "they" were trying something different on the West side - nothing about the TBF in that statement the way I read it.

If I'm wrong, I apologize.  But I think there's some jumping-to-conclusions here.