I have been reading quite a bit lately about the controversy surrounding FFS. If viewed as a structured debate, both sides have valid arguments to make. So, when I plan for a debate (on any topic) I go back to the beginning and ask for the premise. In other words, are both sides really talking about and approaching the topic from the same starting place. I have some concerns about the premise.
My first concern is the fact that one side is arguing from the point of view of a professional angler, and the other side is arguing from the point t of view of a casual angler with an interest in the sport. In other words, one side is all in, and the other is observing from the outside. One side is trying to make a living and the other side is trying to learn to enhance what is essentially a hobby. The viewpoint has an impact on the view.
A second concern is funding. A pro is forced by circumstance to get the newest and best equipment in order to effectively compete. There are sponsors and manufacturers resources to help with that. People who fish for fun, by and large, do not have the resource pool to keep up with technology at the rate that it changes. For example, the guys I know who fish for fun have boats that average 10 years old. So is the technology that is attached to them. A new boat is a really big deal, and definitely not an annual event. For the average fisherman some new electronics usually comes after months of research and deal shopping.
Third, my concern is location. Pros sign up for a tour that can involve the whole country, and usually means travel to several states at a minimum. The travel expenses alone can be staggering. Recreational fisherman are much more local than that. A trip for us that is a State away is considered a vacation, not a job requirement. Local guys tend to study local conditions as a matter of tactical fact. Having to gather tons of information about a number of lakes and rivers is jot part of the plan or the planning process.
I guess my observation is that theres a tremendous amount of time and effort being spent comparing apples to oranges. The worst part that I see as a casual bass angler is that the pros that are shown at these events do not spend any time explaining why they are doing what they are doing. I don't know if they are just protecting a spot or a technique, or (worse yet) don't know exactly what they are doing and can't adequately or accurately explain it.
At the end of the confrontation I don't see anything going on that is going to change the way I enjoy fishing. The techy people are not showing me anything that looks like a new or better technique, or, for that matter, anything that is even remotely interesting. But, I'm not trying to make a living fishing. I'm trying to enjoy life by fishing when I can. I think that is all the difference in the world.
Tight lines.
Arpy