I promise this is not a smart a$$ question, but what does tagging have to do with anything?

Maybe if the weirs were gone, they wouldn't have to compete so hard for their food. It's crazy that sabine is good right now and BL has been terrible lately. No weirs in Sabine and oyster reefs that aren't destroyed. To me it's pretty clear that these issues need to be taken care of.

Is everything that Cajunmade said B.S.?

It's just something he doesn't like. Think of it as a ear mark on a bill.


Spiral Out

Can anybody tell me what monetary or political gain cca leadership, or politicos involved in these limit reductions have received? Just trying to locate the money trail. I know that a certain guide service was documented supporting limit reductions. But does one guide service have enough stroke to change things like this? Also I keep hearing "WD"..... how or what would he personally gain from these decreases? This b.s. is happening in tx to a greater extent, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from these changes, and what motivates cca to back it up even when a lot of the membership clearly disagrees with it. I know the answer is $$$$, but I'm not smart enough to figure out who's getting paid and who is footing the bill? Maybe yall are?

It is not in the interest of true conservation to have the lobbying groups in bed with the LDWF. CCA supports license fee increases. LWF Commission passes restrictions with no scientific support and LDWF approves redfish tagging needed for tournament in which CCA generates most of their annual revenues. LDWF should not be giving perks CCA.

Any group should be free to hold a tournament, and any fishing tournament will involve some luck. But the redfish tagging removes all the skill and is functionally equivalent to winning the lottery rather than the more reasonable tournament goal of catching the biggest fish.

The whole "tagged redfish" deal is to circumvent rewarding big bull reds and suggests a long term motive to restrict angler liberties to keep bull reds. CCA has actively campaigned for more restrictive redfish limits in TX and FL, and in the long term I fully expect them to eventually lobby for more restrictive redfish limits in LA.

LDWF should not be assisting with fundraising for a lobbying group focused on restricting angler liberties. This is what the tagged redfish contest amounts to. The "lottery" aspect of the STAR tournament is one of the big challenges to an effective boycott.

they are saving us from ourselves, because its the "right thing to do"

They are the democrats of coservation

CCA raises most of their $$$ from the STAR tournament. A number of positions within CCA are paid. The STAR tournament is possible because the state wildlife agencies approve the tagging and other aspects of the tournament.

It is a back scratching fest. The state agencies support CCA fundraising efforts (redfish tagging, tournaments), and CCA supports license increases and more restrictive regulations. More restrictive regulations carry the illusion of conservation progress to keep the fundraising cycle going.

MathGeek is on a rolllll

What he said. Stop making new laws to feed the never ending cycle of inforcement.
Or there will be turits on LwF patrol boats.

Honestly mg...sounds kinda weak...not saying that you are wrong at all, I just think there is something more sinister than the "illusion of conservation progress" that's driving this. Especially when the TPWD hosted local (Port Arthur) public meeting on decreasing the flounder and trout limits here in TX had 0% support, and it still passed by a landslide because CCA backed the recomendation. How does CCA directly benefit monetarily from lower limits? I, like many on this site, will not be chipping in this year, which I think would be a negative impact on their bottom line???

Yeah. Right on.
Prison guards shouldn't lobby to keep laws that the majority of citizens don't like either.


Spiral Out

Everyone, even special interests should be free to lobby the legislature for the laws they think are right. This is just free speech and due process.

But wildlife regulations that are set by an executive branch bureaucracy should be subject to stricter scrutiny because they have the force of law (criminal penalties) without the benefit of due republican processes.

When a lobbying group gets too cozy with an executive branch bureaucracy and the bureaucracy is protecting the lobbying group's cash cow, and the lobbying group is supporting revenue increases for the bureaucracy, then due process and transparent government has been circumvented. The tight relations between CCA and LWF Commission has essentially shut out both scientific data and meaningful input from other stakeholders. Prying the lovers apart is the next step in making progress.

Got some great news, just talked to a guide who said the weirs are all closed up, awesome full moon great tides

Choke lake out again

1,000% agree with everything on that list and it is well thought out and all will have the desired resulting impact except for #7 and I would amend #1 part "b" as it pertains to red limits to reduce the size limit to 14". I only keep 16-18" reds because those are the best eating and I would love to have a 14-18" slot to be able to keep because finding something in that 16-18" slot isn't easy to do.

I think promotion of black drum as good to eat and a strong effort to get people to stop calling it and treating it as trash fish will do more to get people to start keeping and eating them and "maybe" even targeting them as a food item. this can and should be done weather they make any changes to the present system or not but there needs to be a change in peoples opinions of black drum as good to eat so people start removing them from the water.

I just don't see the bounty idea being feasible or practical and you definitely cant double other limits as a reward without having cheaters keep one big drum in the freezer so every trip they just bring it with them to be able keep double limits. i'll admit it now that if that were the system I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to cheat as I described because my fishing activities provide me with a much needed and depended on food source.

The LWF commission is composed almost entirely of CCA members... Coincidence? I think not

ok....so how does LWF comission directly benefit monetarily from decreasing the limits? I've been thinking about this for a while....can't figure it out....Could there be very wealthy fishermen and or guides willing to make large contributions to CCA and politicians campaign funds just so they can say they caught a limit? This seems unlikely to me...but its the best I've come up with. Who stands to benefit from the average joe only keeping 5 triples or 15 trout instead of 25? And why would he be willing to pay big money for it?

Bull drum have a lot of meat and are not hard to catch. If I were fishing mainly for meat I think I would tend to target them first on most days out. Targeting bull drum would also produce significant catch of reds and gafftops also. It's just not that hard to catch a lot of meat in a little time once you have a bit of experience targeting them. Guys who run trot lines can catch thousands of pounds of drum every day. Remove the limit on drum and no one fishing in Big Lake would ever be hurting for meat.

Who stands to benefit from the average joe only keeping 5 triples or 15 trout instead of 25? And why would he be willing to pay big money for it? I think this answer is the beginning of the solution.