Originally Posted by
Jeff Hahn
These two posts on the "Old Guard getting their teeth kicked in" thread got my attention.
I think that both of these guys have hit on some key ideas regarding the FFS debate that I've been thinking about in light of my past research on bass fishermen. As some here may know, before I retired I used my training in Sociology to do research and writing on bass fishermen. It started out by doing consulting research for Tom Mann at Fish World in 1984, which got the attention of several folks in the American Fisheries Society. Fisheries managers do a great job managing fisheries resources. But, they have serious problems managing resource users. Thus, they became increasingly interested in having social scientists contribute to their field. As a result, I ended up presenting several papers and publishing several articles in fisheries journals, including a couple co-authored with Hal Schram and Steve Quinn. This isn't meant to brag, but to lay the groundwork for what I am going to say.
Much of what I did was built on the ground breaking work in the Sociology of Sport by Dr. Hobson Bryan of the University of Alabama. Hobson fished B.A.S.S. events for several years (he even led Megabucks on Lake Murray on Day 1 one year) and later conducted the economic impact studies done by B.A.S.S. at the Classic. If you were ever interviewed by someone at the Classic regarding your spending while attending the event, Hobson was behind all of that.
The whole purpose of sports and competition is to differentiate skill from luck. And, one of the key components of Hobson's work was the idea that those who are highly skilled and knowledgeable and regularly engage in a given sport will only use equipment that serves as a supplement to their skill and knowledge, rather than a substitute for their skill and knowledge. Over the years, many electronic devices have hit the bass fishing market. Some were eagerly adopted by bass fishermen and others were not. I found this interesting in light of Hobson's work and conducted a study in the late 1980's to see which electronic devices bass fishermen were and were not using. By examining Bassmaster and In-Fisherman magazines, I found 13 electronic devices that were being marketed to fishermen. I surveyed numerous bass fishermen and discovered that bass fishermen would readily adopt electronic technology that aided them in finding fish (flasher, graph, LCD, video sonar, water temp meter, ph meter, Loran C), but rarely adopted electronic technology that aided them in catching fish (Color-C-Lector, Pro-Guide [device marketed by a couple pros to tell you which baits to use under the conditions], Bassmate [similar to Pro-Guide], Diawa computerized fishing reel, Bass Raider, Little Litin' [the last two being electronic lures]. In the late 1990's, I had an adult student finishing his degree in Sociology who, along with his son, belonged to my bass club. He replicated my research for his senior research project and, although by then there were new electronic devices on the market, the result were the same. Serious bass fishermen are willing to adopt electronic equipment that helps them find bass, but not catch bass.
I think this distinction lies at the heart of the FFS debate. Although we often refer to flashers, graphs, LCR's, and now down imaging and side imaging as FISH FINDERS, in reality, those devices are for more helpful in finding the types of places fish are likely to be, rather than actually using them to find and catch fish. In contrast, FFS is specifically designed to help fisherman CATCH fish. Heck, you can see exactly where they are, exactly where to make a cast, exactly which way they are swimming, and exactly how they are reacting to your lure and presentation.
Those arguing against FFS are essentially saying that FFS is a substitute for skill and knowledge, not a supplement to the angler's skill and knowledge. In the past, pros used their knowledge of seasonal patterns to narrow down areas of the lake as most likely to hold fish for a given time of year. Then, they used their maps to find the types of places within those areas that are likely to hold bass. Then, they used their electronics to find those spots that they saw on their map. Finally, the only way to confirm that there were fish there was to carefully fish the spots. Contrast that with many of the pros now using FFS. While they are not necessarily just randomly scanning water anywhere in the lake, once they decide where to fish given the season of year, they are then spending their time scoping, not even making a cast until they find specific fish. Thus, this has led some on BBC to say that FFS is the same as spotlighting deer. In short, they are saying that using FFS is not "fair chase." In addition, opponents of FFS are arguing that the expertise required to operate FFS technology is not fishing knowledge and skills, developed by spending years on the water. The best fisherman is now someone who is "tech savvy" not necessarily "fish or outdoor savvy." And, they did not develop these skills and this expertise by spending time in the outdoors, but instead by spending time behind a computer or video screen. The question then becomes, "Is this the direction in which the sport of bass fishing, and specifically, tournament bass fishing should go?"
It's a very reasonable debate!
Reply With Quote