Like I said he never "worked" "paid" by the CCA

I'm sure he took part in some activities but the GCCA was not ran like a political office seat when he took the fight to ban gill nets

How come CCA will not release there pay roll to the public ???

W and Kekar you both don't have a clue about what or who GCCA and CCA was or is. Walter Fondren and a group of men started GCCA and the name was changed to CCA to represent the entire United States instead of just the GULF coastal states. Period. End of that story. The EXACT same men and women continue to this day. (Fondren passed away) I was there on the state and national boards at the time. Tell us more about what you don't know. Keep smoking that crack boys!!!!!! Sit tight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that cleared things up a bit....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you don't know what the heck you are talking about but that doesn't stop you.

you must be an Obama supporter the way you want to rewrite history

I was a GCCA member from day 1 until the very last day when it was DISBANDED and it ceased to exist so there are still some of us around that know the truth but go argue with yourself in the mirror if it makes you feel better.

I got a great idea, lets claim CCA won the gulf war for us too because they love taking credit for other peoples sacrifices

You have 2 guys that sat on the board back in the day and you still arguing??? Reef man is no liar....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bra you gotta get off the crack!!!!! Sit tight!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who sat on the board ???

So KDM

Tell me what CCA has done for big lake last 10 years ?

Please do not say nothing about reefs

Walter never served under the name CCA

never

I know 110% more about the issue 110%

And I know for a fact CCA was zero responsible for the GillNet ban

If you can prove it on here CCA was responsible for gill net ban I will never post again


I have all day !!! GCCA and CCA were two diffrent operation a


You need to refresh on your History ; how about ask some of the GCCA members here on the lake if it's the same

I bet you will find a surprise in your answers !!

Several people from SW LA who were members of GCCA and helped push for the gill net ban despise what CCA is today. I'm not getting into the argument because I don't want to throw out names of people here who are successful business owners.

Still waiting on a response to what CCA has done for our estuary in last 10-15 years....

Yep. I know ppl that started the gcca chapter here and will have nothing to do with CCA ever since it started.

I will leave it at this .... I need no other answer because I know for a fact 1000% he is telling the truth
Y'all the sheep can bahhhh bahhhh all they want but this is the bible of it
The Truth

I'm done

...

CCAs last Federal 990 Form showed 12 employees with Texas addresses making 6 figures salaries or more.

wheres Raymond? waiting on awnsers

Getting his CCA shirt starched

He has zero answers !!

He can not come here and give one thing CCA has done here on the lake the last 10-15 hell 20 years

Other than a reef In turners almost washed away and a 500k plus donated reef ( love to see what a non donated reef cost ? 2mill? )

Raymond was CCA president and all he can show for his actions were a hoot shoot with the Brad Vincent Bouys !!!


While Oyster dredging is still going on
Erosion is still washing away land
Weirs still choking off lake
And dredging still silting up lake reefs

But "sit tight " our CCA board members who I was told by a close source
Out of everyone might spend a total of 3 days max a month on Big Lake if that !

And that is your board members from what I'm told !

But I don't know any of them left but Andy and Kevin

He's not going to answer, if he does, he is begging for someone to give him some answers. I doubt he knows anything himself.

They may come on here and give us a list of things they have tried to do, but it's all bull****. They have the power to get things done if they really want to. They changed the limit from 25-15 because of a social issue and they changed the triple tail limit very quickly, all while trying to keep it away from the public. If they want something done, they can get it done. Their priorities are extremely screwed up.

Back to changing limits due to a social issue(straight from David Cressons mouth), is so wrong. People over-look this often, but it is no different from Obama taking private healthcare from us. Limits should be set from BIOLOGICAL DATA. No one has a right to take citizens natural resources from them based on social issues.

This topic has been beat to death, but it is a damn shame that the one organization with enough power to get things done can't be relied on.

CCA sheep will tell you "sit Tight " great things are coming

LMAO I have so many contacts though fishing industry and not one has anything good to say about the CCA

This past week CCA was a cuss word as just about every guide was offshore catching 20-50 triple tail and only able to keep 3 -6 due to 18inch law

One cussed out the poor biologist guy taking fish surveys last weekend and the guy said man that is your CCA

During our rain delay today the CCA was bashed for over an hour by fisherman the ones who they are supposed to support

Sad when every fisherman can't stand the only conservation group in the state !!!

Damn shame CCA is our enemy and slave to old money and I speak for lots of great fisherman who don't get in the internet

Yeah I was at spicers, I talked to biologist, he said that it was CCA.

Oh well, guess triple tail fishing isn't worth it anymore. Between CCA and the Feds, we won't be able to catch anything pretty soon. No more good ole fashioned meat hauls. Hell, we can't even keep triggerfish right now.

Hey man

It's a Social cause !!


Enough with the CCA I'm going try to beat the rain and kill 60 trout while I still can

In 1984 GCCA created the national umbrella organization called the CCA. Due to the east and west coast requests for joining. CCA was created when you were about 4yrs old.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It seems here in the East most guys that join CCA do it more of social thing to do. Most are fare weather type fisherman, and just think it's cool to go to the meetings and get prizes and get liquored up. I went to a local meeting 10 years ago and realize 80% of these guys are live bait chunkers, and have not a clue on how to fish. They just want GPS cords and a livewell full of live shrimp and 7 powerpoles on the back of there 70,000 bay boats. With all that being said ,if that's what floats there boat no problem with me. After working 10 years with LDWF in marine research and never ever seeing or talking to a CCA person I knew not to expect much from them.

What a most entertaining thread. There is more double speak and contradictions on here from both sides that it is impossible for anyone to form a knowledgeable position. But this post was the one that finally broke me to have to respond.

W you spend a ton of time on here chiding people and entities whenever there is a discussion on the resource to make sure they are backing it up with sound scientific data. To which I fully support.

And in line with that on the subject of guides keeping their limits you blasted the NOLA Times article that quoted two guides anecdotal stories of how they just don't see the fish numbers they used to. Not scientific evidence you said.

But RIGHT HERE you contradict yourself when talking about 3tails and pointing to the guides catching so many 3tails that the inferred point is that there have to be oodles of them.

I have absolutely zero idea on the state of 3tails BUT if anecdotal input from guides is ok for them then it is EQUALLY valid to use in discussing the state of other fisheries.

You can't pick and choose when you want to play the science card.:shaking:

What in the hell are you talking about ?! The State of La has ZERO

Big red O on triple tail research !!


I did not support a limit in 3 tail there should be zero until we have the data

I'm all for data and science so what are you talking about?

Dude u don't know

Hey man...there is no minimum size limit or bag limit on triple tail in federal waters.....listen to what I'm trying to tell ya'll. I ain't posting pics, but thats the rules I'm abiding by.

No warden at the ramp can prove where the fish were caught. And they prolly don't care. Now, if you meet a badge on the water....different story. But honestly, outta Sabine jetties, more trips are caught in fed waters than state anyways. It's just most fishermen choose to abide by the state reg instead of the fed reg. thats ridiculous to me since the state reg allows 4 red snaps per day and the fed reg allows zero. I ain't gonna get screwed on both, but hey, thats just me

All my snaps are caught in state waters and all my trips are caught in fed water. Not my fault

W, I thought you said you were done about 5 posts ago. Anyway, how long we're you a member of cca? How many conservation projects did you champion for the Calcasieau estuary during that time? I'm not trying to call you out, I am just wondering.

I don't campaign I'm not a politician

But I have done plenty and still doing

At one time I probably tagged the most fish ever in this estuary
After both Hurricanes Rita and Ike I was out on the water tagging and locating debris for removel
Today I'm working with a group of guys that will be involved with the rocking of the wash out and 9mile project to lower the salinity in the lake
What have you done?

zackly.....these lawmakers have so many dang rules, that a studious fisherman can use some of the rules to his advantage. The app from the GOMFMC is very useful in figuring out the red tape

seems hes at least been there and has tried to voice his opinion which is all he needs to do. hes done more though apparently. the thing is, we pay CC-fn-A to do this crap for us!! they dont! i just cant comprehend how its not understood. none of us "haters" are trying to point anyone out. just want something to be done correctly. just like mathgeek said, they just sitting back and getting fat off this. :shaking:

i meant to quote natrual light guy in that also since he was calling out someone he has no clue about and got shut down.

Get off your knees man. Like I said, I wasn't trying to call him out. More giving him a chance to show people what he has done rather than going around quoting anonymous people. There is no doubt w has done more than me. I have done very little nor do I pretend that I have. At this stage in my life, I am barely a recreational fisherman anymore. Honestly I do not have the time or energy to help as much as I would like. I wish some people (notice how I didn't call out lil w) would do more and say less. Some are full of personal opinion and that's fine. Just don't get mad when someone else's personal opinion doesn't jive with yours. I'm not saying I'm for or against CCA. I'm for big lake and whatever/whoever it takes. I do get a kick though how much time some spend on this sight. I read and post when I have a chance (bathroom, waiting in lobby, etc.). Some of y'all take these postings way too serious. This is the closest thing I do to twitter, Facebook, etc. My family, friends, career, etc. are way to precious to me to spend that much time on here. However, I do get a kick out of the internet muscles that pop up, empty threats of never posting again, my daddy can beat up your daddy kind of stuff that takes place on here. Great entertainment.

what does anyone have to prove to you? nobody asked how diligently you use your time during the day either. i did say, dont call people out that you dont know. i dont know w at all but i do know that he doesnt like the same ideas that i dont in this matter. aint a matter of getting on your knees. this idea that were discussing here is NOT my personal opinion... apparent to say the least since there have been 100 threads with many pages of crap talk about EVERYONES personal take on it.

W
This question is specifically for you. What do you recommend for someone in my position? Not much money and hardly any time to donate to the cause of helping the Calcasieu estuary. In the past I have been a member of CCA and participated in STAR. Do you have a better idea of where those dollars should go if CCA is such a horrible organization? For the record, it was at a CCA banquet that I met you at years ago. You were wearing a starched fishing shirt and taking money at the door lol.

i would have quoted "slickfish" if he made you eat your words just like that. you stuck your neck out and now youre offended. youre the one who just started talking smack about getting on knees...

W

To say that since there is no scientific data, and I will take your word for that since I have no reason to believe otherwise, you are a fool, from a scientific perspective to say that there should be no limit.

Any scientist worth a **** will tell you the same thing. When you have no data you take the scientifically cautious approach which in this case would be some type of limit. Could it end up being more restrictive than needed? Certainly. Could it end up being less restrictive than needed. Certainly. But you at least have established some baseline that is safer than a free for all.

Ok so how do you justify putting a limit on a fish who 1st off does not reproduce in La
does not live in La
And is only allowed to be targeted 2 months out of the year most of the time ?


Putting an 18inch Mim is like putting a 25inch Mim on trout

I'd recommend keeping your money in your pocket for now. Why the feeling that you need to give to a "conservation" organization to "do something"?

Writing to the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission and to state legislators and attending meetings where policy makers are receiving input on policies is more important right now than giving money to organizations that have proven ineffective or disinterested or supporting harmful policies.

A well-written letter to the Commission and your legislator on an important issue (oyster dredging, tripletail limits, marsh loss, speck limits, scientific management, etc.) would be more beneficial at the present time than donations and membership fees to CCA. Let them know that it is a travesty to allow ongoing limit changes that are not supported with sound scientific data while neglecting the more important habitat preservation and restoration issues.

Cost: price of a stamp.

Benefit (compared with CCA donations): priceless.

Triple tail stocks have thrived very well in Louisiana waters without any limit.

Why is one suddenly a fool for thinking that a policy that has succeeded for decades will continue to succeed?

Where is the scientific data showing that the stocks are threatened if a limit is not imposed?

Is one a fool for suggesting other species do not need a limit? Should we impose a limit on hardheads? Gafftops? Croaker? White trout?

Does every species need an arbitrarily set limit?

Species whose stocks can reasonably be shown to be in likely danger from fishing pressure can and should have limits. Species whose stocks have been healthy for decades with no limit and are likely to continue to be healthy for decades are not in need of arbitrarily imposed limits. Determining the health of a stock (in order to impose a limit) should include a quantitative stock assessment and evaluation of all the available data.

I love throwing back 5-6lb triple tail. Makes me feel really good about myself, knowing that I am conserving fish for the future, even though they were perfectly fine without a limit. Can I get a conservation trophy?

Seriously w, I want your feed back on this. Thanks math geek too. Trying to do what's best.

How well are the tripletail stocks "thriving" if y'all can't catch a limit of 18" fish? Go to Texas and it's common to catch limits of 18 pound fish. 18" fish are babies.

From a purely scientific perspective I will give you my opinion and I am sure it will go over like a turn in a punch bowl with the keep em all crowd.

YES I believe that there should be some kind of limit with every game fish species. Lacking better evidence it is safer for the future to put on some reasonable restrictions. Again for species defined as game fish.

If you kill a fish it will not contribute to the future biomass. At some point overfishing is a possibility.

Great post!

Tripletail are only susceptible to being caught at all for a short time each summer due to their habits. Whether or not you get into a group of smaller ones or a group of larger ones just depends on where you are fishing and which size group one happens to run into.

Reports from a few anglers over a short number of fishing days does not constitute a valid sample of length frequencies, so any inferences regarding the abundance of larger fish is invalid. It's like running into dink trout for a few days in a row and then claiming that there are not many large trout because you keep catching dinks. Being a pelagic species, tripletail are spread over many thousands of square miles of Louisiana waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Running into a few groups dominated by 16-18" fish says nothing about the stocks of larger fish.

Straightforward stock assessment techniques exist for determining length frequencies, spawning stock biomass, reproduction rates, etc. for almost any desired species. This was not done before establishing a limit on tripletail, nor was available data on this species on Louisiana waters consulted before establishing a limit.

The reports on guides catching nice big tripletail (but too short to keep) were intended to emphasize that this foolish and unsupported rule is hurting guides and anglers, especially when combined with the foolish and unsuppported red snapper regulations. There are a number of occasions this time of year when getting into a mess of tripletail can salvage a trip that might otherwise be relatively unproductive (due to the snapper regs). Rather than going home satisfied with a box full of tripletail, a lot of anglers returned to the dock empty handed when they could have shared in Louiaiana's bountiful supply of tripletail. In the long run, this will hurt license sales and guide businesses, as well as supporting industries (fuel, ice, bait, tackle, lodging, etc.)

Damaging these industries by imposing unscientific limits is foolish.

Right, but red snapper and other species are currently close to their maximum sustainable biomass. There is a quantity of fish that can be safely harvested from the ecosystem each year without significantly reducing future biomass.

Biomass is dominated by lower levels of the food chain (what fish eat) rather than by how many fish are available to harvest. Letting fish continue to multiply uncontrolled simply puts too much stress of forage sources and leads to lots of little, slow growing fish rather than more fat, happy, fast growing fish. Right now, black drum and red snapper are clearly over stressing their food sources, and there is some risk of real ecological damage if underfishing continues.

Only the ignorant ASSUME that every game species is on the brink of overfishing and in need of additional protections. Since populations of many larger predators (sharks, etc.) are far below historical levels, a high level of fishing pressure is necessary in many cases to maintain balanced populations and prevent too much stress of food sources. NOAA data show tripletail harvests have been steady over time (no over fishing) and ichthyoplankton surveys show that there had been no drop in reproductive rates (future biomass was safe). No limit was needed in Louisiana waters.

You must be from Texas ?

Yes I was a CCA member and yes I did support the CCA , but I learned quickly the CCA is nothing but a social event where guys can get away from the wife once a year and say it's for the fishing


You look around and all you see is people you never see on the water !! But hey it's cool to be CCA


Like Mathgeek said you can write letters to your senators and WL&F ( I prefer emails)

You can still support the CCA and spend you $50 a year and watch nothing unfold here on big lake and if that's cool with you that's your money


I rather talk to other chains of commands who don't have big money individuals from Lake Charles telling them what to do !!



Chenier Energy is more fired up about helping this lake than our own CCA

Chenier had done more for the lake than the CCA

Are only people who fish a certain amount of days a year allowed to be concerned about coastal conservation? (Even though I understand CCA does nothing) Quit making comments about people who "don't even fish Big Lake". You've done that a lot. I might fish it once a year, because i mainly fish the cocodrie area. But I am still very concerned about what's going on there. And would gladly join any grass roots effort to protect it. I am from Louisiana, and that should be good enough!