N.P.A.A. Numbers Top One hundred

[Fishing Insider 2]

Just checked the NPAA site. In looking at the top 100 numbers, it appeared to me that there are 35-36 vacant numbers. Do a search yourself. By number.

If that is correct? Why is that?

Wouldn't those NPAA members who have a number lower than 100 grab those higher numbers?

wouldn't this be a great opportunity to support the NPAA and move yourself up?

[Juls]

Why would they need to? The cost is the same for any number now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the top 100 have no "special value" anymore, as far as I know.

They changed that back in Jan. of 09 when they ammended the bylaws.

Those pros who paid big bucks for the top 100 numbers won't make their investment back anymore either.

Juls

[Raybob]

Why would they need to? The cost is the same for any number now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the top 100 have no "special value" anymore, as far as I know.

They changed that back in Jan. of 09 when they ammended the bylaws.

Those pros who paid big bucks for the top 100 numbers won't make their investment back anymore either.

Juls

-sounds like a good move by NPAA to make all Pros equal to attain NPAA Goals (w/no 'old-school dollar games to be played on the side) ;)

[Chad]

I think the change was to make each member equal as far as membership.

I thought that when the top 100 numbers were originally auctioned off that the person who purchased the number actually owned it. They also had creative control over the use of it (could change the font, color, shape). All other numbers are property of the NPAA and you are not allowed to change it.

I would assume that the vacant numbers may be owned by someone but they have choosen not to renew their membership?

Just an assumption.

[Juls]

I would assume that the vacant numbers may be owned by someone but they have choosen not to renew their membership?

Just an assumption.

Even the top 100 had to renew their membership each year. If they didn't, the number became the property of the NPAA again. So, those vacant numbers are open to anyone who wants them.

As far as I know, if the owner of the number was a paid member, then he could still try to sell it, but who is going to pay more for a number that no longer has any benefits attached to it?

Those top 100 number owners will not recoup their investment in their numbers anymore.

The only ones that did, were the ones that sold them early enough.

Unfortunately, that's just the way it is. But, I too think it is better for the whole of the NPAA to have made those changes by the way.

Juls

[ND Resident]

I've been reading these NPAA threads and must say I'm kind of taken back. It seems to me a few people have a gripe with someone and like most "negative" type people or spoiled brats who didn't get their way are trying to trash a very good organization that's out there trying to help it's members. I could see their point if that was some high paying position. But get a grip!!! If you want a say in how it's run, join and become an active participant and show the collective group that your ideas are better. If not, mind your own. I've never been a member but plan to join shortly.

[Johnnie Candle]

Ok, here is how the numbers work/ed.

In the beginning...LOL!! There were two levels of mebership. These were designated by the numbers, two digits and three digits. The two digit guys were touring pros and had to meet stricter criteria to have a two digit number. The goal was to see these 100 members making their living from competitive and promotional angling. The other 900 numbers were for folks that supported the mission of the NPAA, competed in tournaments, but did not rely on them for a living.

The two digit numbers came at a price. At the first ever NPAA Annual Meeting, there were only 100 anglers there. It was by invitation from the Board at that time. There was a silent auction to distribute the numbers. Some went for thousands of dollars, others went for the minimum bid of $50. There was a $500 fee to join the NPAA at that time.

Once the two digit numbers were distributed, the dues were dropped to $210 for touring pros and the new level was added at $110. Every new touring pro was required to pay the $500 first year dues.

Over the course of time, things changed. Long story short, the BOD two years ago decided that the two level thing was hurting the NPAA so we made a change to one level of membership. This created a few issues to figure out.

The two digit numbers do belong to the angler, not the NPAA, as long as the dues are paid up. They did have a premium of $500 attached to them. The angler could use them in any way he/she saw fit. The BOD at the time of the change saw all of this and decided that those numbers still have extra promotional value.

The two digit numbers are still available to any NPAA member. They still cost $500 and they do still become property of the angler that buys them. If used properly, they will become part of the anglers brand and will generate good things.

I hope the post did not become too long or lose anyone. If you have any questions ever about the NPAA don't be afraid to ask. I am pretty easy to find.

[RGardner]

I've been reading these NPAA threads and must say I'm kind of taken back. It seems to me a few people have a gripe with someone and like most "negative" type people or spoiled brats who didn't get their way are trying to trash a very good organization that's out there trying to help it's members. I could see their point if that was some high paying position. But get a grip!!! If you want a say in how it's run, join and become an active participant and show the collective group that your ideas are better. If not, mind your own. I've never been a member but plan to join shortly.

Wow. So a 'never been' member is telling the 'former' members and 'tentative former' members what's what with the NPAA. Why don't you go pay your dues for say...5 years and come back and tell us about your return on investment in the NPAA?

People like to hide behind meaningless statements like "Don't ask what the NPAA has done for you; ask what you have done for the NPAA". But the bottom line is the NPAA takes (money, time and energy) from its members and gives nothing in return.

I was a member for 6 years.

Here is what I did for the NPAA.

1) I paid my dues every year
2) I volunteered whenever I could
3) I attended those goofy yearly meetings (22 hours driving each way at a cost of about $1000 in travel expenses each year).
4) Volunteered as a NPPA advisory member for the PWT for 3 years
5) I recruited new members at every seminar I conducted for 5 years (25 seminars per year)
6) I paid REAL money every year to have the NPAA logo embroidered on 5 tournament jersey per year to promote the organization.
7) I paid REAL money to advertise for the NPAA on my boat, motor, truck, business cards, letter head and website.
7) Lobbied hard to get the PWT to base championship berths on competitiveness rather than politics. I pushed to have on-the-water performance give everyone who fished a division in the PWT an equal shot at the championship. And the "top" members of the NPAA fought this at every turn.
8) I pushed to have a realistic growth path in the sport for up and coming anglers rather than have the competition and benefits slanted towards the good old boys at every point. And the "top" members of the NPAA fought this at every turn.
9) I fought hard to keep the PWT from instituting the “Super Pro Series” because I felt that it would kill recruitment of new pros, and force many pros to quit, and ultimately would kill the PWT. And the "top" members of the NPAA fought this at every turn.

Here's what the NPAA did for me:
1) Cost me a ton of money over the years.
2) made me feel like my opinions and ideas were not valid
3) frustrated me because it made me feel like they weren’t concerned about the health of the sport; they were more concerned with preserving the “phony credibility” of a select few members.
4) Best case, the NPAA did nothing to grow the sport of professional walleye fishing, and worse case, they actually contributed to its demise.

Rick Gardner
Former NPAA member #720

[Juls]

I've been reading these NPAA threads and must say I'm kind of taken back. It seems to me a few people have a gripe with someone and like most "negative" type people or spoiled brats who didn't get their way are trying to trash a very good organization that's out there trying to help it's members. I could see their point if that was some high paying position. But get a grip!!! If you want a say in how it's run, join and become an active participant and show the collective group that your ideas are better. If not, mind your own. I've never been a member but plan to join shortly.

My dues are paid. I have been a member for 9 years. My number is 89...that's right...a top 100 number. My husband is also a top 100 number, #41. He's been a member since the very beginning.

I may of had a couple facts slightly wrong, but if anyone qualifies to respond to the original poster, I think I do.

No one even mentioned anything about the last NPAA thread topic that your implying, so why bring that up again? This is about the numbers....period.

I'm not a negative person and I'm not trashing ANYONE with my replies. Where do you see that?

Calling people spoiled brats? Who needs to get a grip here? Sheesh!

If that's your idea of "professionalism" then you might want to reconsider joining.

Wow.

Juls
p.s. Thanks for clarifying that Johnny. :)

[hgmeyer]

Juls,

:exactly:

[RGardner]

But the bottom line is the NPAA takes (money, time and energy) from its members and gives nothing in return.



I'm sorry. I re-read my post and realized that I let the previous poster tick me off too much. I stand by most of what I said, but I would like to make some of my statements a little fairer.

Here it goes.

In my opinion, the NPAA should have been investing in growing the sport, not in promoting the agendas of the select few at the top of the organization. I expected my investment (time, money and passion) in the NPAA to result in an agenda of healthy growth in the sport to benefit all members. I don't feel like my investment in the NPAA returned that benefit. I think the NPAA actually had the opposite effect.

Having said that, I believe that the NPAA provided some value to some members. Some members who needed to learn the basics about sponsorship benefitted from the yearly meeting, and some members benefitted from the discounted product. I just don't feel those benefits really achieved any amount of growth and prosperity in the sport.

I think the elimination of the top 100 is a great step in eliminating the stratification in the organization, and the conflict of interest that was in place between the “top” members and the larger benefit of all members and the competitiveness of the sport.

Thank You,
Rick Gardner

[Chad]

I'm sorry. I re-read my post and realized that I let the previous poster tick me off too much. I stand by most of what I said, but I would like to make some of my statements a little fairer.

Here it goes.

In my opinion, the NPAA should have been investing in growing the sport, not in promoting the agendas of the select few at the top of the organization. I expected my investment (time, money and passion) in the NPAA to result in an agenda of healthy growth in the sport to benefit all members. I don't feel like my investment in the NPAA returned that benefit. I think the NPAA actually had the opposite effect.

Having said that, I believe that the NPAA provided some value to some members. Some members who needed to learn the basics about sponsorship benefitted from the yearly meeting, and some members benefitted from the discounted product. I just don't feel those benefits really achieved any amount of growth and prosperity in the sport.

I think the elimination of the top 100 is a great step in eliminating the stratification in the organization, and the conflict of interest that was in place between the “top” members and the larger benefit of all members and the competitiveness of the sport.

Thank You,
Rick Gardner1

Rick,

I for one appreciate your candid reply. I have not been an NPAA member long enough (1yr) to be familiar with the past hisotry nut it is nice to see someone take a stand and back it up with their name. I cant remeber anyone actually comming back to correct something they said. :)

I do think that Cody did an awsome job this past year. I hope the association continues down the same road he started it down.

[Fishing Insider 2]

Thank you John Candle, Rick Gardner and the others who replied..

I am still wondering why over 1/3 of the top 100 #s appear to be vacant? Has anyone answered that question? Is it because the $500.00 initiation fee is too high? Or is it because many of today's top walleye anglers have chosen not to support the NPAA? Or have anglers dropped out due to financial pressures?
Dropping the $500.00 initiation fee to a more reasonable amount might help. Can anyone explain what value is actually received for this fee? Maybe this policy should be reexamined?
In the early days of the NPAA numbers had a value and could be sold. At one time I believe there was a waiting list to buy a top 100 #.
That certainly has changed. Based on the amount of numbers that appear to be vacant, a lower initiation fee would seem to be in order.
Building membership should be a priority for ant organization. It does not look good to potential members or sponsors to have so many unfilled numbers.

[DocJohnson]

Originally the top 100 numbers were bid on and the purchase price varied greatly. The top 100 numbers are licensed to the holders of those numbers much as the NASCAR numbers. The question exists as to why there are so many between 0 and 100 are vacant. If you go back to the original issuance of the numbers and compare it to who is actively fishing today you will answer the question. The top 100 numbers originally required the holder of the number to be an actively touring pro. The remainder of the numbers did not require it. If after 2 years of holding the number, you did not live up to the definintion of being a touring pro, you had the option of selling that number to another touring pro who could fulfill the requirements or let the number revert to the ownership of the NPAA.

Some of the top 100 numbers were purchased directly from a pro who no longer was a touring pro, ( I personally know of a few who did this) and others were sold at auction at the annual NPAA meeting. It was the remaining group of top 100 numbers who voted in the changes of including voting rights for all members (after 1 year of membership) and the ability of a person outside of the 0-100 numbers to serve on the board of directors. You have to remember that the annual dues for a 0-100 member were double that of a higher number.

What remains for the 0-100 number holders is the prestige of having one of those numbers and the ability to sell that number to recoup their initial investment (one of the original numbers was sold for over $3,000) or to donate the original investment in part back to the NPAA (hence the $500 fee).

Originally this sale was designed to finance the original beginnings of the organization much in the same manner as the investors in AIM. So you could view the 0-100 numbers as being the original "stock holders" in the organization.

Today some value is retained in 0-100 numbers with the $500 fee. That is a one time fee, none of that fee goes to the current or most recent past holder of the number. The fee goes into the operating fund of the NPAA much as the same as the original purchase at the organizations conception.

If you are complaining about the fee for the open 0-100 numbers it must have some value to you to have one of those numbers that is not realized by a number above that. If that is true, step up to the plate and pay the going fee. If it is not of that much value to you, then take a higher number.

If you are trying to bash the NPAA by trying to infer that the open numbers 0-100 are open because people are disappointed in the organization, then go back and see who the previous owner of the number was and what they are doing now. Remember to hold one of these numbers you need to be an active touring pro.

If you have any questions you can contact me.

Dr. Tom Johnson
NPAA #15

[bbbbb]

Is Tony Puccio still a Touring Pro NPAA #2? I thought they changed it so the top 100 didn't have to tour.

[tzonetom]

I think you guys bashing ND Res need to re read the post.

He's talking bout the people bashing the members.

[Juls]

Is Tony Puccio still a Touring Pro NPAA #2? I thought they changed it so the top 100 didn't have to tour.

Correct...you no longer have to be a "Touring Pro" to hold one of the top 100 numbers. I am no longer fishing tournaments, but am still active in the industry. That rule was changed last year, so I was able to retain my number.

[10 Pound]

Correct...you no longer have to be a "Touring Pro" to hold one of the top 100 numbers. I am no longer fishing tournaments, but am still active in the industry. That rule was changed last year, so I was able to retain my number.

There they go...changing the rules just for Juls! LOL :)

[ND Resident]

Ok, I'll admit I might have been a little tough calling the naysayers negative type people or spoiled brats. But over the years I've been a part of many organizations and sometimes have risen to the leadership position. The points I was trying to get across were that in any organization like this were the members personal lives are a part of what the organization does someone's always going to complain about whoevers at the helm having a "conflict of interest". Unless you get a leader who's totally not involved in the type of organization you have, it's just the way it is. Would you rather have someone who has no links and's not involved in that type of business? I think not. Also, no organization can satisfy the wants or be run in a way that every single member will be happy. BUT.... and I repeat BUT.... if you really care about the organization and it's purpose you won't quit over your little pet peeves, issues you disagree with, or trash the decisions they make. Instead you get behind your organization and try to improve on it's shortcomings and continue to support its strengths. To drop out and then trash them because you disagree with a few things does nothing for your reputation or point of view nor the organizations. As a member you have a voice and the possibility of changing what you don't like. As a drop out, you look like a spoiled brat who didn't get their way.

[Juls]

Ok, I'll admit I might have been a little tough calling the naysayers negative type people or spoiled brats. But over the years I've been a part of many organizations and sometimes have risen to the leadership position. The points I was trying to get across were that in any organization like this were the members personal lives are a part of what the organization does someone's always going to complain about whoevers at the helm having a "conflict of interest". Unless you get a leader who's totally not involved in the type of organization you have, it's just the way it is. Would you rather have someone who has no links and's not involved in that type of business? I think not. Also, no organization can satisfy the wants or be run in a way that every single member will be happy. BUT.... and I repeat BUT.... if you really care about the organization and it's purpose you won't quit over your little pet peeves, issues you disagree with, or trash the decisions they make. Instead you get behind your organization and try to improve on it's shortcomings and continue to support its strengths. To drop out and then trash them because you disagree with a few things does nothing for your reputation or point of view nor the organizations. As a member you have a voice and the possibility of changing what you don't like. As a drop out, you look like a spoiled brat who didn't get their way.

There you go again, bringing up a topic unrelated to this thread's topic. And, again, you're calling people names.

I'm curious now...are you a member of the NPAA right now?

Juls

[Juls]

There they go...changing the rules just for Juls! LOL :)

heheh ...that will be the day! :)

[mrbreeze]

There you go again, bringing up a topic unrelated to this thread's topic. And, again, you're calling people names.

I'm curious now...are you a member of the NPAA right now?

Juls

Seems like a pretty legit comment. If you'll look above, this poster says that he is not a member but plans to join.

Curious Juls, are you one of the ones that paid "big bucks" for a top 100 number? You've mentioned a couple of times that those folks won't make their money back.

[Kris Kringle]

Well I guess I will not Join. Due to the Neg press and obviously will get nothing out of it. The New comers are never going to get a chance.

[stpper]

Not sure what you mean about all the negative press but when I joined four years ago and as a newbee I found more than I expected;helpful people and good activties around kids events and helping people who wanted to be more focused on advancing there pro status. I do not believe you will find a stronger organization

[Chad]

Well I guess I will not Join. Due to the Neg press and obviously will get nothing out of it. The New comers are never going to get a chance.

Get a chance at what?

[Juls]

Seems like a pretty legit comment. If you'll look above, this poster says that he is not a member but plans to join.

Curious Juls, are you one of the ones that paid "big bucks" for a top 100 number? You've mentioned a couple of times that those folks won't make their money back.

Thanks MB...I didn't feel like reading his posts again, so I missed that.

And, at first I was pissed that you would even ask such a personal question, especially since you and I are always bumping heads...lol
But, after thinking about it, I'm guessing you're just asking to see what my motivation is for saying that...correct?

The answer is.... Even 5 years, or so ago, or however long ago it was that I moved from a higher number down to a lower number...the values were already reducing by leaps and bounds compared to what the original top 100 paid. I won't lose any sleep over what I paid for my number if I lose it, so that has nothing to do with my response.

My reply was motivated by conversations I have had with individuals that had those original numbers, and had to give them up when they quit touring. Back then, the rules were you had to be on a circuit with a championship in order to retain your top 100 number.

That's all different now. I'm sure many of those guys might of kept their numbers if that hadn't been the rule.

Hope that clears it up for you. :cheers:

Juls

[mrbreeze]

That's right. You know that I wouldn't say anything to purposely piss you off.

Since you brought it up not once, but twice, - the fact that those who paid a "premium" rather than "retail" price for the number - I was thinking that you were trying to remind folks that they lost value on their investments when the rule changed. A fact that they obviously know, and probably wouldn't want to be reminded of.

I really think that the guy that your were calling out made some good points, I'm not sure why you were offended. I think that his motivation was to basically tell people that if they aren't part of the solution, why bring down the organization. It reminds me of the whole AIM vs. FLW threads, and it appears as though some of those posters are on this thread too. They are always full of helpful opinions.

[Juls]

Well, MB it looks like I should have listened to my gut instinct...my bad.

[walleyejim1216]

I would like to say that I joined the NPAA last yr. and got my money back because I was lucky enough to win a tourney! Then I got 2 sponsers this yr. that I would have NEVER gotten without being in the NPAA! So I'd say the new guys do have a chance and I can't wait to see what the future brings from being a NPAA member! Thanks, Jim Perry Proud NPAA #332

[stpper]

Its pretty simple and stated on their web. Some off the benefits of being a NPAA member:

Gain sponsorship knowledge and skills

Secure discounts to save money on fishing tackle and gear

Teach youth fishing techniques at clinics

Ability to network with other anglers

If the organization does not meat your needs don't join. Mybe a local fhsing club fits your needs better.

[bbbbbbbbbbbb]

Scott how was my asking a question about the NPAA starting something? I am curious if they have a tourney program that pays out money, because if they did I may join. Not trying to start anything.

[Juls]

Scott how was my asking a question about the NPAA starting something? I am curious if they have a tourney program that pays out money, because if they did I may join. Not trying to start anything.

No, they do not. Not at this time anyway. It's been talked about before, so you never know what the future holds.

Juls

[Johnnie Candle]

For two years the NPAA offered a contingency prize to the highest placing NPAA member in each MWC event. The moneys used were donated for this specific purpose by an NPAA member each year.

This program is not in place for 2010 at this time.

[Juls]

For two years the NPAA offered a contingency prize to the highest placing NPAA member in each MWC event. The moneys used were donated for this specific purpose by an NPAA member each year.

This program is not in place for 2010 at this time.

Right...right...right....I was in a rush when I read his question and thought he was talking about the NPAA holding a tournament like the PAA does.

Sorry to hear the NPAA/MWC contingency money won't be in place for the 2010 season. Seemed like a good program to get new members to join.

Juls