RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments

(Richard Hamel) wrote in news:1148270406.31921
@isc.org:

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments .



My personal opinion, and others may differ, is that I think that a
tournaments-based group like this has little place in the "rec" hierarchy.
There's little recreational about tournament bass fishing.

It would be more appropriate in the alt hierarchy, and there's an
alt.fishing precedent.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
Richard Hamel wrote:

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments

My personal opinion, and others may differ, is that I think that a
tournaments-based group like this has little place in the "rec" hierarchy.
There's little recreational about tournament bass fishing.

Really? My dad does whatever tourney shows up in either Lake
Erie or Lake Ontario and he does them all for fun.

It would be more appropriate in the alt hierarchy, and there's an
alt.fishing precedent.

That would be up to the proponent. News.groups dscusses RFDs
for the Big-8 not alt.*.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in
oups.com:

Scott Seidman wrote:
Richard Hamel wrote:

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments

My personal opinion, and others may differ, is that I think that a
tournaments-based group like this has little place in the "rec"
hierarchy. There's little recreational about tournament bass fishing.

Really? My dad does whatever tourney shows up in either Lake
Erie or Lake Ontario and he does them all for fun.

It would be more appropriate in the alt hierarchy, and there's an
alt.fishing precedent.

That would be up to the proponent. News.groups dscusses RFDs
for the Big-8 not alt.*.



So, I guess I would be promoting the view that the proposed group is not
appropriate for the rec hierarchy.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

In article , Scott
Seidman wrote:

So, I guess I would be promoting the view that the proposed group is not
appropriate for the rec hierarchy.

Why not?

For instance, rec.woodworking has a large contingent of regulars who
make their living (some a damn good living) from woodworking.

The same is true in rec.craftswoodturning.

Yet the groups are frequented by as wide a range of folks as is
possible... from "I'm thinking about getting into this" to the high-end
professionals, and the shmucks like me who plod along with occasional
success.

The rec.* hierarchy seems to me to be the best fit, perhaps the only
fit, in the "Big 8" for this proposal. Where else in the Big 8 would
you say it belongs?

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:220520061545563484%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

In article , Scott
Seidman wrote:

So, I guess I would be promoting the view that the proposed group is
not appropriate for the rec hierarchy.

Why not?

For instance, rec.woodworking has a large contingent of regulars who
make their living (some a damn good living) from woodworking.

The same is true in rec.craftswoodturning.

Yet the groups are frequented by as wide a range of folks as is
possible... from "I'm thinking about getting into this" to the
high-end professionals, and the shmucks like me who plod along with
occasional success.

The rec.* hierarchy seems to me to be the best fit, perhaps the only
fit, in the "Big 8" for this proposal. Where else in the Big 8 would
you say it belongs?



OK, I stand corrected, but would still put it in rec.sports and not
rec.outdoors. I don't think the group would get much business in either
location, frankly.

What information would you expect that you currently don't get on rofb,
or don't think you would get if you asked for it?


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

In article , Scott
Seidman wrote:

What information would you expect that you currently don't get on rofb,
or don't think you would get if you asked for it?

I'll assume that's a question for others, as I don't participate in
rofb, nor do I expect to. We don't have a lot of bass up here, I mostly
fish for walleye and northern pike.

Scott Seidman writes:
My personal opinion, and others may differ, is that I think that a
tournaments-based group like this has little place in the "rec" hierarchy.
There's little recreational about tournament bass fishing.

I'd be interested in knowing whether you are someone who
participates in such tournaments, as that would help me
evaluate whether you are qualified to characterize whether
such tournaments are "recreational."

The scope of the rec.* hierarchy may be broader than you
think. To see what I mean, take a look at a list of all the
rec.* newsgroups. the meaning of "rec.*" on the Usenet does
not entirely correspond to what is classified as
"recreational" in real life.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

(Jonathan Kamens) wrote in
:

Scott Seidman writes:
My personal opinion, and others may differ, is that I think that a
tournaments-based group like this has little place in the "rec"
hierarchy. There's little recreational about tournament bass fishing.

I'd be interested in knowing whether you are someone who
participates in such tournaments, as that would help me
evaluate whether you are qualified to characterize whether
such tournaments are "recreational."


No, I don't fish bass tournaments. Perhaps that makes me better qualified
to determine the recreational status. From what I see many participants
are concerned about prize money, recognition, and sponsorships. As to
whether I'm qualified to comment on what belongs in the fishing
hierarchy, I hunt, I've fished since the age of 5, I fish freshwater for
everything from panfish to salmon. I've fished in a variety of
tournaments on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, some of which had bass
divisions. None were catch and release tournaments, and I wouldn't
promote a newsgroup in the rec.outdoor.fishing hierarchy for any of these
tournaments, either. I have no objections or arguments with tourney bass
fisherman, but I think of it as an organized sport, and not the sort of
individual pursuit that the rec.outdoor hierarchy represents for me.

The scope of the rec.* hierarchy may be broader than you
think. To see what I mean, take a look at a list of all the
rec.* newsgroups. the meaning of "rec.*" on the Usenet does
not entirely correspond to what is classified as
"recreational" in real life.


Maybe you're right, but once a competition is established, I'd put it in
the rec.sport hierarchy, and not the rec.outdoor hierarchy. The
rec.outdoor hierarchy is very small, and I still think that a new group
with a focus on tournament bass fishing shouldn't be in the rec.outdoor
hierarchy. Perhaps the best example would be something like
rec.sport.orienteering-- a completely outdoor sport that many serious
outdoorsmen and women particpate in, with much less sponsorship than bass
fishing, and its not in the outdoor hierarchy. I think its fine if some
tournament activity appears in rofb. In fact, some does, and it's
perfectly appropriate.

I'll point out that I don't think I've ever seen any objection to any
post on tourny activity on rofb--and there are plenty of tournament
anglers that participate. Not many of them choose to routinely use this
forum that way, despite the total lack of objection. It makes you wonder
how necessary the proposed group is.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a tournament-based
newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If you don't subscribe you
don't see it, right?

Further, for thousands of people tournament fishing is all about recreation,
myself included. There's nothing I'd rather do than fish a bass tournament,
it's my favorite form of relaxation. If I take the cash that's just a bonus
;-), but cash has never been nor will it ever be my main motivation for
fishing tournaments.

It's all about the fun bro, being outdoors, & relaxing.

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com



"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote in
:

Scott Seidman writes:
My personal opinion, and others may differ, is that I think that a
tournaments-based group like this has little place in the "rec"
hierarchy. There's little recreational about tournament bass fishing.

I'd be interested in knowing whether you are someone who
participates in such tournaments, as that would help me
evaluate whether you are qualified to characterize whether
such tournaments are "recreational."


No, I don't fish bass tournaments. Perhaps that makes me better qualified
to determine the recreational status. From what I see many participants
are concerned about prize money, recognition, and sponsorships. As to
whether I'm qualified to comment on what belongs in the fishing
hierarchy, I hunt, I've fished since the age of 5, I fish freshwater for
everything from panfish to salmon. I've fished in a variety of
tournaments on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, some of which had bass
divisions. None were catch and release tournaments, and I wouldn't
promote a newsgroup in the rec.outdoor.fishing hierarchy for any of these
tournaments, either. I have no objections or arguments with tourney bass
fisherman, but I think of it as an organized sport, and not the sort of
individual pursuit that the rec.outdoor hierarchy represents for me.

The scope of the rec.* hierarchy may be broader than you
think. To see what I mean, take a look at a list of all the
rec.* newsgroups. the meaning of "rec.*" on the Usenet does
not entirely correspond to what is classified as
"recreational" in real life.


Maybe you're right, but once a competition is established, I'd put it in
the rec.sport hierarchy, and not the rec.outdoor hierarchy. The
rec.outdoor hierarchy is very small, and I still think that a new group
with a focus on tournament bass fishing shouldn't be in the rec.outdoor
hierarchy. Perhaps the best example would be something like
rec.sport.orienteering-- a completely outdoor sport that many serious
outdoorsmen and women particpate in, with much less sponsorship than bass
fishing, and its not in the outdoor hierarchy. I think its fine if some
tournament activity appears in rofb. In fact, some does, and it's
perfectly appropriate.

I'll point out that I don't think I've ever seen any objection to any
post on tourny activity on rofb--and there are plenty of tournament
anglers that participate. Not many of them choose to routinely use this
forum that way, despite the total lack of objection. It makes you wonder
how necessary the proposed group is.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"WARREN WOLK" wrote in
news:xBGcg.4945$ei2.1908@trndny02:


I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a
tournament-based newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If
you don't subscribe you don't see it, right?


I don't think its overly concerning me. It's an RFD, and I think the
proposed group would fit better in rec.sports than rec.outdoors. This is
what an RFD is for.

FWIW, I'd vote yes when it comes to it in a call for votes if it were in
rec.sports, and I'd vote no if it were in rec.outdoors. I think others
might take the same position, and some my be OK with it in either case.

Also, the revised charter still specifies bass tourneys. I thought the
revision was to open it to all tourneys, which I think is an excellent
idea.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply