I must admit I cannot fully subscribe to Astralbee's answer.
I do agree with Astralbee that your version is not acceptable formal writing. My reason, however is different. Mine is that your second sentence lacks a verb.
In speech, however, there is no way to distinguish between a comma and a period so that there would be no perceptible difference at all between the first and second versions. This persuades me that breaking the single sentence of the first version into two sentences cannot in and of itself violate the sense of the first version. Your version's second sentence implicitly references the immediately preceding sentence. Such implicit references are acceptable provided that they are sufficiently obvious.
Over the weekend ... Pelicans. The sole reason was to ...
No one would read that pair of sentences and have any doubt that the reason specified in the second second related to the fact described in the immediately previous sentence. There is no rule that everything to be said on a topic must be crammed into a single sentence.
Nevertheless, I essentially agree with Astralbee about style. Your version does not improve the original; indeed in speech, the two versions are indistinguishable. The version given in Astralbee's answer is more direct, more concise, and so more comprehensible.