PDA

View Full Version : What does CCA mean to you?


cmdrost
07-07-2009, 09:14 AM
Lets hear the good and the bad. Also what you'd like them to do.

I'll start.....most know I'm heavily involved with CCA. I feel they do much good for the state of LA but also know they have dropped the ball on a few things (most recently their assistance on the management of Red Snapper).

#1 - I'd like to see them get more involved with LDWF, i.e., giving them monies to help study fisheries & fisheries management. Help build fish hatcheries for flounder & redfish like they have done in TX.

#2 - Help build better facilities, boat launches, parks, reef projects, etc.

#3 - Continue to grow elementary school corriculum to educate & encourage youngsters on outdoors/fisheries. They've started this, but it needs much help.

"W"
07-07-2009, 09:47 AM
Everybody has their good and bad with the CCA....I think they have done a great job for our state....The BIG change I love to see is DROP the Politics!!! Too many politicians that have say so!!! I think we the fisherman and members should have more say so than the BIG pockets!!!!

Big Kahunaz
07-07-2009, 10:45 AM
If i were to relate CCA to last weeks fishing trips it would stand for Cant Catch Anything!

007
07-07-2009, 01:19 PM
Until they change their stance on the snapper issue, they're dead to me.

LaAngler
07-07-2009, 07:15 PM
some of their stances on the grouper issues in florida along with support for snapper closures on the atlantic side seem pretty off to me.....

i think they need to be fierce on the issues like they were when it was a small grassroots org. mostly importantly please fight for the recreational anglers!

change rules for STAR to allow for easier catch and release, which i heard was already in the works.

make the shootout artificial only.....:rotfl:

redfishman
07-07-2009, 07:19 PM
If this is too strong,please kill the post::pissed::pissed:

CCA can kiss my ARSE. The organization is strictly political -fulfilling chapter "quotas" to the state and national coffers. It's NOT about "Conservation". Folks are being dupped by their GREED. Greed for themselves ,not for any"Conservation"


Example??????
(I need a cold beer ..... get back to 'ya)...:pissed:
=========================
20 minutes later: (a six pack gone)......

:beathorse:
background:
Years back Livingston parish "HAD" a very tight knit Chapter of approx 30-40-active members who fished together and knew each other in the larger community of Church-family-business. The monthly meetings were looked forward to and the fund raising banquets were profitable for the "State"
Members ,using their local connections enlisted the support of local business which gave generously.
A few months after the banquet the "State" chapter decided to:thefinger::thefinger::thefinger: the Livingston chapter by disbanding them and joining them with the Baton Rouge chapter. This is after the "State" coffers have been filled with Livingston money. Of course the local chapter is wondering ***-*** are you friggin' doing? Livingston ,proud of their own SEPARATE identity did not want thier efforts ,donations and business commitments going to Baton Rouge where that specific chapter had its own identity. CCA arrogantly shoved that down the throats and up the ARSE with sand. Pizzed alot of folks off. The "State level" secretary who was from Livingston Parish ,oddly was "fired" several days before Christmas after a complaint was voiced to the National office.( just a coincidence).

I challenge any CCA officer, either at the chapter or STATE level to refute this!!!! Come on.... Bring it on.... And if anyone does, Maybe you can explain lower memberships on the local level. ( It's the economy....right???):shaking::shaking: This hasn't been happening in the last couple of years.
This is the short version....

I'm willing to go the long version with some help if CCA wants to air the laundry on their end!!!!:cheers::cheers:

Big Kahunaz
07-07-2009, 10:30 PM
make the shootout artificial only.....:rotfl:[/QUOTE]

I 2nd that!
I recall reading about the Star wanting to make the tourny better and wanted recommendations from us fisherman. So they add a division and take out the split in the summer months for one long tourny.? VHAT? :spineyes:
Might as well end it after the first month the STAR begins.

"W"
07-07-2009, 11:41 PM
IM 100% on Shootout artificial only!!! No red and whites with croakier and shrimp...

Let the real fisherman use there skill to compete!!! I think we should vote on the issue this year!!!

cmdrost
07-08-2009, 08:30 AM
redfish......

CCA LA member numbers are actually on the rise. They are re-organizing old chapters. I agree with you it was b.s. was happend to Livingston.

I hate the banquet side of CCA! I understand every organization has to raise money, but it seems to be all CCA LA is worried about right now.

I would love to see them get back to grass roots CONSERVATION efforts.

cmdrost
07-08-2009, 08:34 AM
LaAngler......

I've been in the STAR meetings and been pushing very hard for years for STAR to promote catch and release. At least give the angler the option if they want to release the fish. Calcasieu Point is the only option to do so right now on Big Lake.

This year we were instrumental in raising the trout minimum size for STAR from 24 inches to 26 inches, hopefully saving a few extra trout.

LaAngler
07-08-2009, 01:33 PM
not to get too far off topic but does texas STAR kill all the fish also?

cmdrost
07-08-2009, 01:49 PM
yes, but they have an 8lb min to even weigh a fish for TX STAR.

007
07-08-2009, 11:08 PM
Don't everyone forget where the cca actually started.

eman
07-09-2009, 03:40 PM
I used to be a member of CCA and then the hunger for the big $$$ took over the agenda.
I kept my membership untill the louisiana CCA chapter refused to get into the fight against the posting of public waters and i found out that other states CCA groups did get into the fight against gates and WON!
Now why if other states can do it ,Why can't CCA Louisiana?
Is it $$$ or politics or both?:eek:

"W"
07-09-2009, 03:51 PM
I don’t think the STAR kills a lot of big fish…..Once the 1st week is over and everyone knows what weight to shoot far……I think most would be amazed at how many big trout are killed on Big Lake buy guys who only meat fish!!!! Some just don’t know and keep everything 7 lbs or 1 lb doesn’t matter to 75% of fisherman out there!!! I have seen guys at the jetties in August slamming HUGE trout on Croker and shrimp keeping all the big ones and letting the 3lber go……
I hardly ever keep anything over 4lbs to eat……I rather a small trout than big one!!! I don’t think we should push the CCA to make our fishing laws as liberal as Texas…..I live in a liberal America and pay liberal taxes….SURE THE HELL don’t want my fishing to turn Liberal!!! Our fishing system in Big Lake is fine the way it is…. Only change I would like to see is a 14inch minimum…. I think we need to lose the name Trophy lake also….If we keep pushing our limits down and makings slots then you will have a TROPHY LAKE FOR SURE…..AND 100xs the Texas flat boats

cmdrost
07-10-2009, 08:52 AM
I don't think Big Lake will ever lose the "trophy lake" moniker. It keeps getting published in magazines, local & national, proclaiming it to be the best. Saltwater Sportsman has repeated claimed Big Lake as Top 3 nationally for catching big trout. Hence much more pressure and the need for reduced limits on the lake. I don't see the limits changing here anytime, so don't worry about that.

I too would like to see a 14" min, but have yet to hear the health of the fishery since the last bump. LDWF has become tight lipped on SPR numbers, which to me, is a bad sign.

cmdrost
07-10-2009, 09:23 AM
eman.....

I think that fight is between law makers and land owners. I'm surprised to hear other state chapters of CCA got in that fight and won, and if that is the case, you need to bring it up to CCA LA. One thing about CCA, they are followers, meaning if one state or chapter is successful, then others will follow suit. You ought to bring it up to someone.

"W"
07-10-2009, 09:41 AM
I think the fight Eman is talking about is where landowners blocked of waterways and called it private! I see two sides to this story also…. We have family land where a canal runs through it, that is attached to a public waterway. Both sides are ours and the canal dead ends at us….Before we gated it there was to many trespassing and hunting on private property.. We never would have blocked it off if guys were just fishing!!! So seeing both sides of the fight it’s hard to pick a side!! Landowners own land and pay taxes. Some think they have the right to every body of water navigate able by boat! I would not want someone tell me what I can and can’t do with my own land!

Gerald
07-10-2009, 01:27 PM
I don't think Big Lake will ever lose the "trophy lake" moniker. It keeps getting published in magazines, local & national, proclaiming it to be the best. Saltwater Sportsman has repeated claimed Big Lake as Top 3 nationally for catching big trout. Hence much more pressure and the need for reduced limits on the lake. I don't see the limits changing here anytime, so don't worry about that.

Will.........where did you get this information??? The LDWF did not say that a reduction in limits was needed on Big Lake.

cmdrost
07-10-2009, 02:52 PM
I'm not Will. LDWF also didn't say it wasn't needed. They stated SPR levels were on the decline and have been for a while now. They also said SPR levels had declined below the sustainable average with they themselves set.

eman
07-10-2009, 03:28 PM
eman.....

I think that fight is between law makers and land owners. I'm surprised to hear other state chapters of CCA got in that fight and won, and if that is the case, you need to bring it up to CCA LA. One thing about CCA, they are followers, meaning if one state or chapter is successful, then others will follow suit. You ought to bring it up to someone..


The last year i was a member of CCA ,I did bring it up at meetings 3 different times and 2 times the subject was changed w/o me getting an answer and the third time i was just ignored.
CCA ,WILL NOT answer any questions about why they won't get involved here in Louisiana.
I got the info that other states had joined the fight and won straight from the Other chapters info pages in the tide magazine.
CCA is all about the $$$ , They are not going to fight the major landowners in the marsh. When these same landowners contribute big $$$ to CCA and allow the big shots to fish the gated/posted areas any time they want.

Big Kahunaz
07-10-2009, 03:51 PM
I'm not Will. LDWF also didn't say it wasn't needed. They stated SPR levels were on the decline and have been for a while now. They also said SPR levels had declined below the sustainable average with they themselves set.


SPR? please elaborate

Hebert
07-10-2009, 10:45 PM
I'm against any organization that advocates or trys to dictate what I can keep and what size I can keep...we already have this its called the LDWF...after living outside of Louisiana for 20 yrs and having to deal with states that have destroyed a sportsman's right to bring home a mess of fish to eat...it sickens me to even think of possibility of it happening in La. also.....this is how it starts...

cmdrost
07-13-2009, 09:02 AM
Mortality and spawning potential ratio (SPR):
Earlier we said the goal of fishery management was to determine how many (numbers) or how much (pounds) fish can be safely harvested from a stock. In simpler terms we want to know how many fish in a stock can die and still allow the stock to maintain itself. Fishery biologists refer to the rate at which fish die as mortality or the mortality rate. If 1000 fish are alive at the beginning of the year and 200 fish die leaving 800 at the end of a year, then the annual mortality rate is 20 percent (200 divided by 1000) and the survival rate is 80 percent (800 divided by 1000). Each year some fish die whether they are harvested or not. The rate at which fish die from natural causes is called natural mortality and the rate at which fish die from fishing is called fishing mortality.

While it is easy to understand these rates as annual percentages, fishery biologists must convert them to something called instantaneous rates to use them in mathematical formulas. As a result, in a fishery management plan you might see statements such as, "The instantaneous fishing mortality rate is 0.67 (F = 0.67" or that, "The instantaneous natural mortality rate is 0.1 (M = 0.1)." Sometimes the word instantaneous is omitted, but F and M are conventional symbols for instantaneous annual rates. Natural mortality (M) and fishing mortality (F) can be added together to get total mortality (Z). Unless regularly dealt with, these numbers do not mean much relative to our more intuitive understanding of annual percentages. Table 1 gives some examples of annual percentages and the corresponding instantaneous rates (F, M or Z).
http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/cid:image001.gif@01C98510.C1CBA710Determining mortality from age structure:
The age structure diagrams (Figures 2 and 3) are a picture of the stock at the time the information was gathered. It is often assumed that if conditions remain the same, then as the younger fish grow older they will decline through time at about the same rate as the older year classes appear to have declined. For example, in Figure 2, there are 6.5 million two-year-olds and 2.5 million six-year-olds. It would seem likely that the current crop of two-year-olds will also be reduced to 2.5 million by the time they are six years old. In this case the annual mortality can be estimated by subtracting 2.5 million from 6.5 million to get 4.0 million and then dividing by 6.5 million to get 0.62 or 62 percent mortality. However, this mortality took place over five years, so the average annual rate is 0.62 divided by 5 which equals 0.12 or 12 percent. This corresponds to a total instantaneous mortality (Z) of 0.13.
Remember that in a fish population, the total mortality includes the fishing mortality and natural mortality. The above example for estimating total mortality from the age structure does not reveal how much of the total mortality is due to fishing mortality and how much is due to natural mortality.
Several methods are used to determine each mortality rate. For example, fishing mortality can be estimated from a tagging study. After a lot of fish from a stock are tagged, the percentage of tagged fish that are caught and reported is an estimate of the fishing mortality. Natural mortality is then calculated by subtracting fishing mortality from total mortality. Sometimes there is no available estimate of fishing mortality for a stock. However, fishery biologists may have a good idea of what the natural mortality might be from studying other similar stocks. In this case, natural mortalities (or a range of possible natural mortalities) can be subtracted from total mortality to get fishing mortality (or a range of possible fishing mortalities).
Spawning potential ratio:
Most recent fishery management plans attempt to define a rate of fishing mortality which, when added to the natural mortality, will lead to the rebuilding of a stock or the maintenance of a stock at some agreed upon level. The level being used in many management plans is based on the spawning potential ratio (SPR). The spawning potential ratio incorporates the principle that enough fish have to survive to spawn and replenish the stock at a sustainable level.
Spawning potential ratio is the number of eggs that could be produced by an average recruit over its lifetime when the stock is fished divided by the number of eggs that could be produced by an average recruit over its lifetime when the stock is unfished. In other words, SPR compares the spawning ability of a stock in the fished condition to the stock's spawning ability in the unfished condition.
As an example, imagine that 10 fish survive the first couple of years of life and are now large enough to get caught (recruited) in the fishery. Four are caught before they spawn (no eggs produced), three others are caught after they spawn once (some eggs produced), and the last three live to spawn three times (many eggs produced) before dying of old age. During their lifetime, the 10 fish produced 1 million eggs and the average recruit produced 100,000 eggs (1 million divided by 10).
In the unfished population, 10 fish survive as before. Three die from natural causes after spawning (some eggs produced) and the other seven spawn three times (very many eggs produced) before dying of old age. During their lifetime, these 10 fish produced 5 million eggs and the average recruit produced 500,000 eggs (5 million divided by 10).
The spawning potential ratio is then the 100,000 eggs produced by the average fished recruit divided by the 500,000 eggs produced by the average unfished recruit and is equal to 0.20 or 20 percent.
SPR can also be calculated using the biomass (weight) of the entire adult stock, the biomass of mature females in the stock, or the biomass of the eggs they produce. These measures are called spawing stock biomass (SSB) and when they are put on a per-recruit basis they are called spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR).
In the above example, the weight of fish that contributes to spawning could be substituted for eggs produced to get the SSBR for the fish stock. SSBR (fished) divided by SSBR (unfished) gives the SPR.
The concept of spawning stock biomass is illustrated in Figure 5. The graph shows the weight (biomass) of a stock at each age in the unfished condition compared to the weight of the stock when SPR = 20%. The adult fish in this stock spawn at age four so only the weight of fish four years and older sontribute to the spawning stock biomass.
In a perfect world, fishery biologists would know what the appropriate SPR should be for every harvested stock based on the biology of that stock. Generally, not enough is known about managed stocks to be so precise. However, studies show that some stocks (depending on the species of fish) can maintain themselves if the spawning stock biomass per recruit can be kept at 20 to 35% (or more) of what it was in the unfished stock. Lower values of SPR may lead to severe stock declines.
Summary of mortality and SPR:
Fish die from either natural mortality or fishing mortality. Fishing and natural mortality added together equal total mortality. Total mortality can be estimated from age structure graphs. If either fishing or natural mortality can be estimated, then the remaining unknown mortality can be determined by subtraction from total mortality. Once fishing mortality and natural mortality are known, they can be used to examine the effects of fishing on the stock.
One way of looking at the effect of fishing mortality is to compare the spawning biomass of the fished stock to what it would be without fishing. The ratio of the fished spawning biomass to the unfished spawning biomass is called the spawning potential ratio (SPR). If the SPR is below the level considered necessary to sustain the stock, then fishing mortality needs to be reduced.

cmdrost
07-13-2009, 09:10 AM
This is from Jerald Horst in 2003:

"What is the future of recreational speckled trout fishing?
The future of the fishery depends on two factors: good habitat and good management. If our coastal areas remain unpolluted and coastal erosion is controlled, management will be the key. Very few more speckled trout can be produced from other sources. If the entire commercial speckled trout harvest were divided up equally among Louisiana’s over 400 thousand recreational anglers, each sport fisherman would get less than one fish per person per year. Research has also shown that very few speckled trout appear in shrimp trawl bycatch. This means that gains and losses will be the result of management within the recreational fishery. Management priorities, as set by recreational leadership, will determine whether the fishery is managed for liberal limits and smaller fish or restrictive creel limits and larger fish."

"W"
07-13-2009, 10:28 AM
I just hate to see the word Liberal involed in Fishing!!! In my outlook you can stack 3000 boats on Big Lake and only a small % will catch fish!!!! Liberal just dont need to be part of Fishing!! IMO

LaAngler
07-13-2009, 12:15 PM
say what?

I just hate to see the word Liberal involed in Fishing!!! In my outlook you can stack 3000 boats on Big Lake and only a small % will catch fish!!!! Liberal just dont need to be part of Fishing!! IMO

cmdrost
07-13-2009, 03:23 PM
he's contradicting himself ....haha

sulphurboy
08-06-2009, 08:03 AM
i was very disappointed that CCA didn't get more involved in the posting of waterways/restricting access to waterways.

jsmoke222000
08-12-2009, 02:10 AM
What does CCA mean to you?

CCA gives me an excuse to fish as much as possible from memorial day to labor day in hopes of catching a tagged redfish. :cheers:

Ray
08-12-2009, 03:34 AM
CCA means another $100 spent on fishing this year.:spineyes:

Country
08-22-2009, 12:46 PM
.


The last year i was a member of CCA ,I did bring it up at meetings 3 different times and 2 times the subject was changed w/o me getting an answer and the third time i was just ignored.
CCA ,WILL NOT answer any questions about why they won't get involved here in Louisiana.
I got the info that other states had joined the fight and won straight from the Other chapters info pages in the tide magazine.
CCA is all about the $$$ , They are not going to fight the major landowners in the marsh. When these same landowners contribute big $$$ to CCA and allow the big shots to fish the gated/posted areas any time they want.


Eman, You are dead on spot. The CCA is taking more money fro the big oil and landowners in the marsh than they are collecting from recreational fishermen. They will not even discuss this at any meeting. The big land owners are gating off the canals and politicians get to fish and duck behind the gates. What really bothers me most is that these very same canals are a primary reason we have lost so much of the marsh.

I feel the landowners have a right to keep someone of of their land. But the water and the fish in that canal belong to the people. I also feel that because of the erosion issue, they should relinquish any so called right to the canal or have to fill it back in at their expense therfore, helping to hold ground in the marsh.

Because of their lack of stance, I have lost respect for the CCA. The have prostituted themselves to big money and I dont really see any benefit they have provided to saving our fishing and coast line in Louisiana.

SAM, ARE YOU LISTENING!!!!!:hairout:


Country

cordgrass
08-24-2009, 09:04 PM
nothing. i just get in the star incase i catch a tagged red or big trout thats it. They are to political.