Idk, I don't track every freaking thing CCA backs. That wasn't my point.

Funny **** is, you ***** about them caving and not going with science, but the meeting I was at they went against the science and went with public opinion.

So which is right? Should they represent the public, or go hy the science? You can't have both, and they are a public agency. They represent CCA membership as well. Maybe the CCA was more vocal on the tripletail matter than anyone else, just as the majority was more vocal in favor of unified statewide openings for shrimp season, as opposed to those who wanted them to leave it alone.

They cave to the majority. Doesn't matter what the situation or what the science. They aim to please the most vocal constituents who have the most power to hurt them or cause them trouble.

How many people are CCA members vs those that oppose CCA? This seems like a simple thing to understand..a public agency that has never been known for making decisions based solely on science. Anyone with half a brain knows that is how that agency has always operated...BASED ON PUBLIC OPINION! Look at anything. Turkey seasons, duck seasons, shrimp seasons, limits, etc. Whoever holds the most influence gets what they want. Doesn't matter if its CCA, shrimpers, oystermen, or southwest Louisiana duck hunters. If you are the most vocal, you will likely get your way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Reckon u forgot all about the surveys the commission threw out and did what they wanted regarding duck season. Basically told the duck hunting public to F off.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

No, not at all. If I recall right, and I believe I even pointed this out at the time, a handful of people showed up and said they wanted the earlier dates in the coastal zone. Between that and some of those guys representing SWLA hunters and knowing what they wanted, that is what they did.

Hence my inclusion of the "SWLA duck hunters" as one of those vocal groups.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

U don't remember right. There was a huge survey that we all participated in for nothing

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

*** are you talking about? Of course I remember the damn survey that I ALSO PARTICIPATED IN!! My point, if you could freaking read, is a handful of people showed up to the Commission meeting from SWLA that wanted the earlier dates. The Commission also had other people in their ears about earlier dates. They CHOSE to listen to the VOCAL group that appeared over the survey results. They also took into consideration the fact that they had pushed the opener back the season before to appease another group!

This was no different than the shrimp season situation. The proposed dates were based on data that LDWF compiled. A dozen or so shrimpers showed up, voiced their opinion, and got it changed.

They are going to give more weight to a group showing up and voicing their opinion. You and MG and anyone else can argue all day that that is not right, that it should be based on data or hunter opinion or whatever, but that does not change the fact that they have proven time and time again that they are going to give weight to someone that stands at a podium in front of them on the first Thursday of the month.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Big negative. They didn't listen to a vocal group of public citizens, they listened to a couple of their own commission members that wanted their own agenda. It basically boiled down to one name, bottom line. Survey was ignored, as well as people I know who showed up to meetings with the same opinions as the overwhelming survey results.

All politics here and always will be.

Exactly, I'm done with dis Smalls dude. He's obviously biased

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

It is folly to think science provides a definitive answer for every public policy question in wildlife management.

Even when the science is done well and there is plenty of data, all science does is provide estimates for the possible ranges of sustainable harvest and the body of regulations likely to lead to harvests within the sustainable ranges.

This still leaves a lot of room for public policy makers to adjust seasons, limits, and other regulations to apportion the harvest among stakeholders, and to decide where within the reasonable range of sustainable harvest they want to the regulations to target in a given season or year.

I tend to prefer regulatory structures that tend toward an even split of harvests between commercial and recreational interests when dealing with resources sufficiently abundant to support commercial harvests and toward regulatory structures that prohibit or severely limit commercial harvests of resources that are not sufficiently abundant to support thriving commercial markets. But how the available resources are allocated is a purely political rather than scientific matter.

Consider the recent crab shortage. I would like to see the commercial harvesters bear more of the burden of the needed harvest reductions. But I'd also like to see the supply available for harvest increased by allowing larger harvests of black drum and other management improvements that can help more crabs reach adulthood in the first place. Good management does not just divide the pie, it figures out how to make a bigger pie. That requires much more attention to habitat and the larger food web.

Keep preaching to the choir.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk