SaltyCajun.com

SaltyCajun.com (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/index.php)
-   Inshore Saltwater Fishing Discussion (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Thank You (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54973)

T-TOP 07-16-2014 09:29 PM

GCCA is now CCA.... You guys should know this, changed the name to include east and west coast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keakar (Post 707359)
try again, learn your history and stop repeating false information, CCA had absolutely nothing to do with banning gill nets and didn't even exist then.

that was GCCA and I was a proud member of THAT organization because they DID work on behalf of helping fishermen and the environment unlike the CCA that was created years after the ban was passed and even to this day lives off of the false claim that they helped ban gill nets. they want people to falsely assume this and will not do anything but encourage this false narrative that helps them raise money.

CCA is not and never had anything to do with GCCA, they just used the CCA name so they could take credit for what things GCCA did to help fishermen knowing full well most people would confuse the two and think they were the same organization just as you assumed.


That don't sound right..........I thought they changed the name of the original orginization?

"W" 07-16-2014 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplepeddler (Post 707361)
Buddy I've been around here a while.....and many time agree with "W".....many times.....dubya knows that......

"W" it's simple math........you being the Stock Market guru know simple math.....

You hand over your limit..............to guys who take thier limit......equals too many limits per fisherman.........you have been bragging on banging limits out........

I asked.......do you send your limits home with the sports?


I send limts home with everyone !! Today I gave the guy who runs the landing 6o trout filets because it was a scout trip

And it was perfect legal to carry them home !!


Let me ask you this ; does it matter if I give my legal limit to a person or feed it to the hardheades ?

Can you tell me how anyone can speak for me on what I do with my limit of fish?

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 09:31 PM

The diiference is the client Dub........you are smart enough to know that........

specknation 07-16-2014 09:32 PM

A lot of the guides are down in total trout catches statewide, so let's hang CCA from a flag pole. Understand I am not a CCA member, but blaming them for a subpar trout season is just WRONG and for lack of better term just stupid.

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707367)
I send limts home with everyone !! Today I gave the guy who runs the landing 6o trout filets because it was a scout trip

And it was perfect legal to carry them home !!


Let me ask you this ; does it matter if I give my legal limit to a person or feed it to the hardheades ?

Can you tell me how anyone can speak for me on what I do with my limit of fish?

you make a valid point........your limit is yours to do with as you wish......finally an arguable point........now feeding them to the hardheads is wanton waste and against the law...........but I know you embelished out of wanting to win the argument

"W" 07-16-2014 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 707365)
GCCA is now CCA.... You guys should know this, changed the name to include east and west coast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No no No No No

This was a whole diffrent organization not even ran by the same system !!

GCCA was branched for The Gulf coast only

Once they were not funded heavy they then hired all these bootleggers and turned it into a money making operation

They have a great read on both and how it became somewhere on the web , think it was posted on RodnReel.com a year or so ago


They were two different teams

"W" 07-16-2014 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplepeddler (Post 707368)
The diiference is the client Dub........you are smart enough to know that........

So explain how it makes it any diffrent ?

If I give you my fish or a guy who just paid me $600?

"W" 07-16-2014 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specknation (Post 707369)
A lot of the guides are down in total trout catches statewide, so let's hang CCA from a flag pole. Understand I am not a CCA member, but blaming them for a subpar trout season is just WRONG and for lack of better term just stupid.

I just had a 250 comment Facebook debate this week

The east side still blames BP for slow trout fishing
Lmao

I bet less than 1% of any trout alive during the oil spill is still alive

eman 07-16-2014 09:40 PM

Actually the net ban was pushed by SOS. (save our specks) Before they banded w/ other states to become GCCA. I was a volunteer back then. After the gill nets were banned then cca came along. CCA had NOTHING to do w/ the ban on gill nets,

OnePunchRex 07-16-2014 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplepeddler (Post 707368)
The diiference is the client Dub........you are smart enough to know that........

Evidently not

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 09:42 PM

and.........I think your are splitting hairs on the "perfectly" legal..........I know fish have traditionally not been a huge topic of enforcement....but ducks on the other hand........you damn well better have your toast together.

With the intensity of the ARS..........we are going to see more and more enforcement where you are not going to be easily able to split hairs

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eman (Post 707374)
Actually the net ban was pushed by SOS. (save our specks) Before they banded w/ other states to become GCCA. I was a volunteer back then. After the gill nets were banned then cca came along. CCA had NOTHING to do w/ the ban on gill nets,

names changed
did leadership?

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707373)
I just had a 250 comment Facebook debate this week

The east side still blames BP for slow trout fishing
Lmao

I bet less than 1% of any trout alive during the oil spill is still alive

oil spill affected habitat maybe?

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707372)
So explain how it makes it any diffrent ?

If I give you my fish or a guy who just paid me $600?

this is exactly the "grey" area that is being targeted for clarity

hewes 07-16-2014 09:47 PM

leadership changed

T-TOP 07-16-2014 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707371)
No no No No No



This was a whole diffrent organization not even ran by the same system !!



GCCA was branched for The Gulf coast only



Once they were not funded heavy they then hired all these bootleggers and turned it into a money making operation



They have a great read on both and how it became somewhere on the web , think it was posted on RodnReel.com a year or so ago





They were two different teams


I would like to read it. I remember when they took the G off the sticker.. Same logo just took the G off and kept the CCA. I had some of the old stickers for years after..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"W" 07-16-2014 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplepeddler (Post 707376)
and.........I think your are splitting hairs on the "perfectly" legal..........I know fish have traditionally not been a huge topic of enforcement....but ducks on the other hand........you damn well better have your toast together.

With the intensity of the ARS..........we are going to see more and more enforcement where you are not going to be easily able to split hairs

You are 100% right ducks are a whole diffrent ball game

But fish are not

I actually believe the whole state including big lake goes by the 25 fish possession law
Not 100% on that but I think I read that a person can have up to 2 daily possession limits (25per person) which means if true 50 cleaned trout per person instead of 30 state wide

I will have to recheck but I believe it's read like that

keakar 07-16-2014 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hewes (Post 707381)
leadership changed


the leadership didn't change, the leaders are different because they are NOT the same and never have had ANYTHING to do with each other.

GCCA disbanded, shut down, closed the doors, called it quits because it was all volunteer and run by donations but after the gill net ban was put in place funding dried up and they disbanded. then CCA came along and saw they could make money while "claiming" to be working on behalf of sportsmen and they started telling people they just changed the name because it made people more willing to donate knowing they had done something already. this lie was started years ago and lives on today strong as ever and only the people who used to belong to GCCA know and remember the truth.

if you tell a lie long enough people believe its true and this is how this false idea that just because they used the same letters it must be the same organization but the Gulf Coast Conservation Association GCCA is in no way, manor, shape, or form, related to the Coastal Conservation Association CCA.

they only used the same letters to mislead people and lay false claim to the accomplishments of a completely different organization then CCA

CCA has no more claim to the gill net ban then me saying I personally got gill nets banned all on my own without any help from anyone or any organization. CCA's claim to banning gill nets is no more truthful then mine

"W" 07-16-2014 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 707385)
I would like to read it. I remember when they took the G off the sticker.. Same logo just took the G off and kept the CCA. I had some of the old stickers for years after..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will try to find it this week , almost sure it was on RodnReel

It was way more than taking he G off I promise

Like they said it was all new leadership change and went from almost zero politics to 100% politics in matter of a year



CCA is like Eron

You pay for a fee and you have a chance to get someone in return ( if lucky ) but all the profits are not posted public and you never see any progression

Without the lottery STAR CCA is nothing


They have a great money scheme in place to collect with little to none overhead

"W" 07-16-2014 10:10 PM

If CCA wants support from Lake Area

It 1st needs to

Ban oyster dredging

2nd
Revoke the triple tail size limit from 18inchs to none and keep 5 fish per person ( this would make 100% of the people happy )

If CCA does this I will donate $1000 every year to them

T-TOP 07-16-2014 10:12 PM

Thank You
 
http://www.joincca.org/about

Read the history portion

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MathGeek 07-16-2014 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplepeddler (Post 707378)
oil spill affected habitat maybe?

I doubt it. There were several studies attempting to connect the oil spill with speckled trout condition, reproduction, etc.

They were negative. The oil spill is a convenient target, but the careful science doesn't show any real link or even any problem with the trout on the E side of the state. They had a cold weather and a slow start, just like SW LA, but is was the weather rather than an anthropogenic factor.

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707386)
You are 100% right ducks are a whole diffrent ball game

But fish are not

I actually believe the whole state including big lake goes by the 25 fish possession law
Not 100% on that but I think I read that a person can have up to 2 daily possession limits (25per person) which means if true 50 cleaned trout per person instead of 30 state wide

I will have to recheck but I believe it's read like that

Ducks are federal.........sound familiar......with the ARS?

But the law reads the same on possesion limits.........if you get caught opening day with more than a days limit.....you are screwed......

same with fish in and out of season.........

I admit I'm not a "limit" guy anymore......but I was for years..........
I just don't like the taste of frozen anymore.....

I am not making some emotional plea to take a guides limit away......just don't think it's impossible to see them taken away ........and I don't think it's unreasonable.........

It has to be sustainable or you will be taking people on gafftop trips.......

It was the alligator poachers who are highly credited with saving the alligator population

It will be the guides and captains that will need to take the lead to save our fisheries........arguably they may not need saving right now........

What I can tell you all, is that if you go to bat with the feds the way you go to bat here.......you will not be taken reasonably........unreasonable people are treated unreasonably

"W" 07-16-2014 10:16 PM

Really what has CCA done on Big Lake ?? I last 10 or 20 years ?


Placed on rock levee around a island in turners that is washing away also

And one 500k donated reef "with bouys"




O and they supported a 15 trout limit with zero science
And triple tail Limt again with zero science


And only because they were getting destroyed by the public said they would take no part supporting a 10 trout limit with out new data ?? (W T F?)



But I have been doing my own work and have been in contact with other organizations who listen and have great ideas and want to help our lake

Hell Chenier Entergy has done more than the CCA on our lake in only few years than CCA in lifetime

MathGeek 07-16-2014 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707386)
You are 100% right ducks are a whole diffrent ball game

But fish are not

I actually believe the whole state including big lake goes by the 25 fish possession law
Not 100% on that but I think I read that a person can have up to 2 daily possession limits (25per person) which means if true 50 cleaned trout per person instead of 30 state wide

I will have to recheck but I believe it's read like that

Not quite right. Possession limit is 30 in SWLA, even if caught in waters with a limit of 25.

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 707392)
I doubt it. There were several studies attempting to connect the oil spill with speckled trout condition, reproduction, etc.

They were negative. The oil spill is a convenient target, but the careful science doesn't show any real link or even any problem with the trout on the E side of the state. They had a cold weather and a slow start, just like SW LA, but is was the weather rather than an anthropogenic factor.

Makes sense............arguing points are rarely factual in thier entirity

MathGeek 07-16-2014 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplepeddler (Post 707393)
Ducks are federal.........sound familiar......with the ARS?

But the law reads the same on possesion limits.........if you get caught opening day with more than a days limit.....you are screwed......

same with fish in and out of season.........

I admit I'm not a "limit" guy anymore......but I was for years..........
I just don't like the taste of frozen anymore.....

I am not making some emotional plea to take a guides limit away......just don't think it's impossible to see them taken away ........and I don't think it's unreasonable.........

It has to be sustainable or you will be taking people on gafftop trips.......

It was the alligator poachers who are highly credited with saving the alligator population

It will be the guides and captains that will need to take the lead to save our fisheries........arguably they may not need saving right now........

What I can tell you all, is that if you go to bat with the feds the way you go to bat here.......you will not be taken reasonably........unreasonable people are treated unreasonably

Saving the fisheries is about the habitat, not about the stocks. THere are plenty of spotted seatrout, redfish, etc. There is zero evidence of overfishing, but there is lots of evidence of habitat degradation.

MathGeek 07-16-2014 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707390)
If CCA wants support from Lake Area

It 1st needs to

Ban oyster dredging

2nd
Revoke the triple tail size limit from 18inchs to none and keep 5 fish per person ( this would make 100% of the people happy )

If CCA does this I will donate $1000 every year to them

What happened to 25 or bust?

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 707397)
Saving the fisheries is about the habitat, not about the stocks. THere are plenty of spotted seatrout, redfish, etc. There is zero evidence of overfishing, but there is lots of evidence of habitat degradation.


I agree...............I absolutely believe that you are hard pressed to hurt a fisherie with a rod and reel

duckman1911 07-16-2014 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuckingFastard (Post 707185)
What if Rex is actually "w"

MIND BLOWN:fireworks::beathorse:

If not, then what is rex's obssesion with W? Did he just randomly pick someone to dislike? Rex and Slickfish should start their own club. I really don't understand why a persons sole purpose hear is just to talk sheet about someone else.

simplepeddler 07-16-2014 10:23 PM

.........you know........Lake Maurepas was dead when the harvested the clams out for road beds..........when it stopped the lake recovered ..........took a few years......but it did

keakar 07-16-2014 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 707391)
http://www.joincca.org/about

Read the history portion

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yes they lie about it on their own website (its their website so who is going to stop them?) and they also regularly repeat this lie to reporters all the time so there are numerous stories falsely attributing CCA with being GCCA with a new name but lies don't make it true any more then if the website claims to have flying monkeys. but claiming to be the new GCCA helps them raise money and lets them lie and say "look we banned gill nets"

they get away with this lie because back in 1995 there wasn't the internet coverage there is today so if you google GCCA you cant even find any info on it because back then people weren't online 24/7 where everything was recorded and talked about instantly. heck you cant even find info on the gill net ban itself other then government copies of the actual law.

they were smart and they took advantage of a situation where they could steal claim to someone elses work and since GCCA was all volunteer and had disbanded there was no one around and no paperwork around to fight this false claim other then the GCCA members who knew better.

CCA never took over from GCCA because GCCA no longer existed when CCA was formed and no one from the GCCA organization was part of creating CCA, plain and simple as that.

"W" 07-16-2014 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 707397)
Saving the fisheries is about the habitat, not about the stocks. THere are plenty of spotted seatrout, redfish, etc. There is zero evidence of overfishing, but there is lots of evidence of habitat degradation.

You are 100% right

Maybe you should start a new CCA someone with brains


It don't matter if your limit is 100 per person or 5
You estuary is going to only hold what it's healthy enough to support



Well off to bed , I have to put 60 trout in the boat tomorrow !! " my limit included"

T-TOP 07-17-2014 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keakar (Post 707403)
yes they lie about it on their own website (its their website so who is going to stop them?) and they also regularly repeat this lie to reporters all the time so there are numerous stories falsely attributing CCA with being GCCA with a new name but lies don't make it true any more then if the website claims to have flying monkeys. but claiming to be the new GCCA helps them raise money and lets them lie and say "look we banned gill nets"

they get away with this lie because back in 1995 there wasn't the internet coverage there is today so if you google GCCA you cant even find any info on it because back then people weren't online 24/7 where everything was recorded and talked about instantly. heck you cant even find info on the gill net ban itself other then government copies of the actual law.

they were smart and they took advantage of a situation where they could steal claim to someone elses work and since GCCA was all volunteer and had disbanded there was no one around and no paperwork around to fight this false claim other then the GCCA members who knew better.

CCA never took over from GCCA because GCCA no longer existed when CCA was formed and no one from the GCCA organization was part of creating CCA, plain and simple as that.

I think you are confused... I could be wrong, but probably not.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

keakar 07-17-2014 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 707413)
I think you are confused... I could be wrong, but probably not.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well there is no point to call them out on it except for the pride factor of it and it would be a lot of money and trouble to go through for anyone to officially challenge CCA's claims so CCA can say whatever they want unchallenged. I like many people don't see it as a real issue but more of a telling sign of how low CCA stoops to get funding and mislead the public about who they are and what they do. in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter who got gill nets banned as long as it happened and that's about it but honest people don't steal credit for the work of others and THAT is the point that sticks in many peoples craw is that they claim credit for something they had no part in doing.

pottom line is, people who trust CCA will believe what they say because they want to believe it.

KDM 07-17-2014 12:02 PM

GCCA and CCA are the exact one in the same. Always has been. You boys keep smoking your crack!!!! Sit tight!!!!!!

"W" 07-17-2014 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDM (Post 707482)
GCCA and CCA are the exact one in the same. Always has been. You boys keep smoking your crack!!!! Sit tight!!!!!!

Here is some homework

Who founded the GCCA ?

And please show me where he was employed with the CCA

mr crab 07-17-2014 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noodle creek (Post 707189)
Let me go ahead and tell yall how absolutely f***ing stupid the triple tail limit is. Caught 43 the other day, 3 were keepers. It's about equivalent to saying you can only keep a trout 6 lbs or bigger. What's even better is when we got back to spicers and the wildlife and fisheries biologist was taking surveys, we told him we didn't catch sh** because of their stupid triple tail limit. He was so quick to shut us down and say "woahh hold up, it was soley CCA that pushed for that." He then went on to say that there is nowhere near enough data to have a limit in effect.

So thanks Raymond, I'm glad this is how yall choose to spend money, even though there are much, MUCH bigger issues. I also love the fact that probably 5% of the active CCA committee has even been triple tail fishing in the last few years.

How do yall plan on using this money to benefit our estuary? There isn't a single person that gets on here and gives us updates. Larry Reynolds takes time out of his day to interact on public forums, give is facts, and present data. You would think that if the CCA is supposed to represent recreational anglers, they would at least maybe come on here and other public forums and give an update every now and then. You're quick to back up CCA, but I doubt you can even give us maybe one or two examples of something yall are currently working on to improve our estuary.

So hurry up, call up your CCA big wigs and come up with an answer.

No limit on 3 tail in fed waters....jussayin....food for thought bruh. I been thinkin on it for a minute

mr crab 07-17-2014 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobo23 (Post 707250)
I think "W" is JAdams..... Or maybe "W" is Inchspinner. Now that would be something....Saltygate was just a figment of our imagination. :spineyes:

oh..snap the Salty Cajun Matrix?

mr crab 07-17-2014 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707352)
You just made ZERO point

zERo

You can not justify what you support

It's simple let me break it down

Crabbers crab and profit money off public waters and pay state fees
oystermen Oyster and profit money off public waters and pay state fees
shrimpers Shrimp and profit money off public waters and pay state fees
Fisherman fish and profit money off public water and pay state fees

Nothing is different

If a Shrimper want to keep his limit he can
If a crabber wants to keep his limit he can
If a Oysterman wants to keep his limit he can
If a fisherman wants to keep his limit he can

It does not matter who is on your boat , you have to follow the state and federal creel limits per your vessel
Bottom line


You can not soundly justify your case on why a "guide " is any different from any other person making a living off public waters


And please explain how a person can take home more fish than the law allows

I'm ready to hear this one !!! Lmao

Actually it does matter who's on the boat. Any person aboard a commercial vessel must hold a commercial fishermans liscense. I used to be commercial bruh. In TX and LA

Reefman 07-17-2014 01:09 PM

GCCA stood for GULF Coast Conservation Assoc. When GCCA expanded to East and West coast states they dropped the GULF association to encompass all coastal states.......Same group, now just much larger.

"W" 07-17-2014 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr crab (Post 707489)
Actually it does matter who's on the boat. Any person aboard a commercial vessel must hold a commercial fishermans liscense. I used to be commercial bruh. In TX and LA

So a shrimper who has his wife on board requires her to have a commercial licenses also?

Because I see a lot of women on those boats and kids

mr crab 07-17-2014 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman1911 (Post 707401)
If not, then what is rex's obssesion with W? Did he just randomly pick someone to dislike? Rex and Slickfish should start their own club. I really don't understand why a persons sole purpose hear is just to talk sheet about someone else.

I don't really have a dog in the hunt here, but you are spot on. Rex and Slick NEVER post unless its to slam W. Its as stale as the "u mad bruh" resonse from W.....just worse cuz those 2 don't ever offer anything useful to the site.

keakar 07-17-2014 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 707491)
GCCA stood for GULF Coast Conservation Assoc. When GCCA expanded to East and West coast states they dropped the GULF association to encompass all coastal states.......Same group, now just much larger.

GCCA never "expanded" the disbanded, closed the doors, turned the lights out, job done for the purpose it was created, finished.

then OTHER people decided thee was a lot more work that needed to be done but wanted to do it nation wide but since GCCA was disbanded and the members had no interest in championing causes nationally they weren't interested in this idea so this NEW group, completely separate from GCCA started CCA and that's where it began.

its really simple to prove if CCA was GCCA by just posting the pictures and notices showing GCCA is the new CCA, but there are no pictures or anything because THESE ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE OR THE SAME ORGANIZATION PERIOD.

believe the lies if you want, but you are only deceiving yourself.

"W" 07-17-2014 03:42 PM

GCCA is not CCA

Bottom line

They founders of GCCA never worked under the name CCA

So it's not the same


They branched off the name GCCA like stated above

The prime example is like a company who goes bankrupt and a new group if owners come in and pick it up and old owners leave

They keep the CCA name


Founders never ever worked for CCA NEVER

"W" 07-17-2014 03:43 PM

Here this is for you CCA sheep
Name the head guy who pushed for the ban of Gill Nets for the GCCA

I'll wait !!


Raymond ? KMD??

Com on

Reefman 07-17-2014 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707515)
Here this is for you CCA sheep
Name the head guy who pushed for the ban of Gill Nets for the GCCA

I'll wait !!


Raymond ? KMD??

Com on

Walter Frondren from TX?

"W" 07-17-2014 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 707516)
Walter Frondren from TX?

Correct and he never worked under the CCA

He was the one who lead the strike against gill nets and the GCCA under his direction are responsible for gill net removal

So the CCA sheep want to take credit for "gill net ban"

When the credit goes to one Man who lead the fight under a 100% volunteer program



Do you know how many people get a check each month as an employee of the "CCA " ? Non profit

Reefman 07-17-2014 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707523)
Correct and he never worked under the CCA

He was the one who lead the strike against gill nets and the GCCA under his direction are responsible for gill net removal

So the CCA sheep want to take credit for "gill net ban"

When the credit goes to one Man who lead the fight under a 100% volunteer program



Do you know how many people get a check each month as an employee of the "CCA " ? Non profit

W, I respectfully disagree. Walter was active in CCA TX until his death. Although not one to take the spot light he had tremendous influence not only in TX but many other states starting up chapters of CCA.

In the beginning, there were no paid employees (here in LA). After several years of getting no where in the State Legislature, the LA assoc decided to hire a lobbyist. After that a state director was then hired. I haven't sat on the board for quite a few years, I don't know who gets paid now a days.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - [ARG:3 UNDEFINED], Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vB.Sponsors
All content, images, designs, and logos are Copyright © 2009-2012,
Salty Cajun, LLC
No unathorized use is permitted