Will The Federation Keep Its Affiliation With BASS?

(Editor's note: This is part 2 of a 2-part story on recent developments concerning the relationship between BASS, the BASS Federation and The Bass Federation Inc.)

What separates this BASS/Federation conflict from past flare-ups is the fact that state Federations that do not submit their dues to BASS prior to the Dec. 31 deadline will not be allowed to send representatives to the Federation National Championship (and thus the Bassmaster Classic) in January.

Here's how BASS VP and GM Don Rucks presented the situation:

"To circumvent the actions of these seven individuals in the affected State Federations, we encourage every member of good standing to work diligently and quickly to collect the dues and send them at your earliest opportunity to BASS by Dec. 31, 2005.

"Only those who comply will be eligible to enter a contender in the 2006 BASS Federation National Championship to be held Jan. 11-13, 2006. States that do not submit their rosters and dues of $20 per member to BASS headquarters by Dec. 31 will not be allowed to participate in the Championship, which qualifies six Federation anglers for the 2006 CITGO Bassmaster Classic."

It's an old-fashioned stare-down. On one side of the boat is BASS threatening to deny state Federations a chance to field their teams in the National Championship. On the other side are the divisional reps asking state Federations to hold their dues until the January meeting.

"What I see there is a threat," said The Bass Federation Inc. (TBF Inc.) president Robert Cartlidge. "Those guys earned those (National Championship) spots this year, while their dues were paid. That event is paid for by Federation dues. This whole thing can get real messy in a hurry. I hope it doesn't go that way, but I think BASS has made a grave mistake."

Cartlidge also said that many states already do collect member dues, then submit them to BASS, and that those dues often arrive at BASS headquarters after the deadline. Jones agreed there have been "occurrences" when dues were paid late.

What Does Ray Say?

Ray Scott played a major role is repairing the former BASS/Federation rift in 2003. Whether he will play any role in the developments is unknown – he did not return BassFan's calls – but Rucks did quote him in his open letter.

According to Rucks, Scott agreed with BASS that the decision to revoke the BASS memberships of the divisional reps – and suspend communications with them – was the only alternative.

Rucks referenced a past occurrence in which "a group within the Federation tried to break away and form their own organization. Ray acted decisively, expelling those Federation leaders and then rebuilding even stronger Federations in those few states."

Rucks then quoted Scott as saying, "It was painful for a short while, but the BASS Federation overall was better off after the malcontents left. That's the way it will be after we regroup this time."

About the Scott factor, Cartlidge said, "I have not spoken to Ray Scott about this. At this point it doesn't really involve him anyway. I think that's pretty well run its course."

Will the Federation 'Leave' BASS?

Given the stare-down, and the heated rhetoric between BASS and the Federation, questions have arisen as to whether the Federation will end its affiliation with BASS and align itself with another organization.

Rumors have circulated for years that the Federation might leave BASS, and the divisional reps did in fact meet with FLW Outdoors chairman Irwin Jacobs back in 2003.

But if the Federation was to sever its ties with BASS, both organizations would suffer, at least in the short-term: BASS would lose Federation members (and those dues), and the Federation would lose members who remain loyal to BASS.

Cartlidge had this to say about a potential split with BASS: "It's a pivotal point in the Federation's history, and 40,000-plus members are going to have to make a choice.

"The fact is that BASS is now owned by a big company. That's not necessarily bad, but the thing is, there's never any stability there. People are either moving up or moving out of the corporate ladder.

"The Federation needs stability. You can't change the direction of 40,000 members overnight. But we don't see the future getting any better there. Members will have to make a choice."

Cartlidge would not say whether he or other Federation representatives will meet again with Jacobs. But Jacobs told BassFan he would welcome such a meeting.

"I'm not going to jump the gun here or put anything out that's going to create rumor," Jacobs said. "I've always said that the Federation, as far as I was concerned, was the strength behind BASS.

"That is the grassroots. That's the people that made BASS what they are today. It isn't 20 or 30 or 50 fishermen. I don't care how good they are – a tournament by itself does not make BASS a great organization. It's the people who support it in what it is.

"And it's a crying shame what's happened to this thing in the form of a deteriorating relationship. I have no idea why (BASS) did what they did. I read the letter (from Rucks). I think it's the nastiest letter I've ever read in my entire life to anybody, particularly in an open forum.

"So I don't know what these people have in mind, but as far as I'm concerned, we welcome them into our family. I'm ready any day these people want to sit down and talk to me.

"And I will guarantee you, they won't have to worry about sending in $5 increases in their bills to us. We'll bring plenty of value-added to them if that's what they want from us.

"He added: "But we're not going to drive this thing to try to destroy BASS. That's not what it's about."

Both Rucks and Jones, on the other hand, said BASS remains as committed to the Federation as ever.

"I urge you (Federation members) to join BASS in helping build a stronger, more responsive, more vibrant BASS Federation — for the good of our sport," Rucks wrote.

Jones said: "BASS believes in the Federation. It always has. BASS feels there's opportunities to continue to grow the Federation and the benefits of the Federation, within conservation, within youth programs and the future of this sport, and within competition as well, and to make all of those programs as inclusive as possible – as informative as possible.

"BASS has no plans to do anything with the Federation but to continue to embrace it and grow it."

Communication Breakdown (Again)?

Here's what appears to be the bottom line:

> The Federation, in the form of their elected reps, feels it was blindsided by a BASS-required dues increase – just after a telephone conversation between the reps and BASS, and just before an in-person meeting between the reps and BASS, about various issues related to the Federation.

> The Federation states that dues increases can't be mandated by BASS. They can only be suggested by BASS and then must be voted on by all the state Federations.

> The Federation also feels that it hasn't gotten an accurate accounting of how its current $15/member dues are spent.

> BASS feels that $5.00 is a small, reasonable dues increase.

> BASS is giving Federation members about a month to decide whether to jump the BASS ship or stay on board.

> This incident follows a similar BASS pattern in how it deals with its constituencies: make an unforeseen change without prior communication with the constituency, and give a short deadline for acting. Other examples: the "no Busch patch, no points" Bassmaster Tour rule implemented at the end of 2002 (just before the 2003 season); and the new Elite Series requirements this year (just before deposits were due).

> An obvious question: What would have happened if BASS simply explained and proposed the dues increase?

Notable

> Rucks stated that the seven individuals who had their memberships revoked would not be "welcome at any BASS-sanctioned event now or in the future." Cartlidge said: "I don't know if they can keep us from BASS-sanctioned events. If I want to go to a state Federation event, it's up to the state Federation, not BASS."

> Former BASS tournament director Harold Sharp started the first bass club in the Federation. "For some time I have believed that BASS would cut the Federation loose because it does not fit the ESPN/BASS future of producing TV shows for profit," he said. "Look for a strong organization of worldwide bass clubs to rise from this mess. There are plenty of good Federation officers to get it done, and the bass-fishing world will take notice when it happens. The bass-club program and BASS were both started at the same time. I should know, as I was there when it started."

> TBF Inc. has stated that its mission is to expand opportunities for Federation members, not to align exclusively with one organization or another. So the concept of the Federation "leaving" BASS might be erroneous. In other words, maybe the Federation works with BASS, FLW Outdoors and others.

> Financially, this incident has the potential of costing BASS more than it could gain in a Federation dues increase. For the sake of round numbers, if you assume 40,000 members x a $5 dues increase, that's $200,000. But if half the Federation members leave over this, 20,000 x $15 current dues = $300,000.

- End of part 2 (of 2) -