This really is the fundamental issue with CCA.

There can be no compromise, no moving forward, no "working together" until they acknowledge past transgressions and make firm, binding, and accountable commitments that their conservation efforts will never again include pushing for restrictions that are not shown to be necessary in compelling scientific data.

Once they do this, they are welcome to pay me $60 and come to my meeting so we can begin working together.

Hay I get what your saying .i just wonder if you are going to do something with my 60$ that benefits me like give me some crocks with calculators built in.

I need to say we're did the money go and what bin infect did I get for its use. And if all I get is a fing were I coment I'm pissed then I was jibed led on and miss represented. I guess my lawyer needs to collect court fees too.

W, very proud of you taking the time to contact CCA and talk with David. What did he tell you???

If you get some let me know cause I'd be all over that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have A SIMPLE QUESTION FOR ALL U ARM-CHAIR QB's....

Tell Me HOW CCA's Is to BLAME for:

1. The WEIRS Closing & Opening??

2. The Legislation that UR Representative from Jennings CAVED ON about the Use of Oyster Dredges in the Lake and WEST COVE??

3. The Land Eroison along the Ship Channel??? Who is in Control of the maintenance and WHAT HAPPENS Along Said Channel ????

Please Just Answer the 3 questions... And PLEASE Stick to Answering the Questions..

PS.. If any haters on here Think for ONE MOMENT MYSELF OR Raymond ARE Yes Men or paid in any way by CCA.. They are SADDLY Mistaken... MISGUIDED AN SADDLY Mistaken.. I'm a Volunteer Only.. Like everyone else that volunteers..

I'm only PAID by one of the Largest Oil company's in the World TO Keep People LIKE U ALL Safe and going home to UR family's every night.. FOR all U guys that work in Plants in the Lake Chuck area..

I'm Passionate about my JOB..

What have they done to help ensure data driven openings and closings in accordance with the management plan?

Isn't this issue at least as important (since it has a bigger impact on the ecosystem) as pushing for a reduced limit on specks?

Isn't failing to act also a decision? They decided the speck limit was more important.

This happened about the same time as the speck limit was reduced from 25 to 15. Clearly CCA through the speck limit was more important, because they focused on restricting limits of recreational anglers and ignored the more important issue of conserving essential habitat.

Again, it has been a failure to act. Are you saying that the biggest conservation association in the state has no responsibility to act, but should not be bothered when ecological disasters of this scale are occuring?

That they should spend their time and efforts pushing for tripletail limits instead?

It's not that CCA is completely responsible for any public policy or negative outcome. But these issues reveal that CCA's priorities are misplaced.


Well, there are a dozen Texans making six figure salaries.

In the end, capitalism works. W will succeed in his guide business because he knows the lake, he puts clients on fish, and he teaches his clients a lot in the process.

Maybe. Time will tell. Lots of groups with public plans have non-disclosures in place to keep certain details private until an agreed upon time.

I have 3 questions also:

#1 Why did CCA push for a reduction in the trout limit on big lake when Biologists said it wasn't warranted?

#2 Why is CCA pushing for a limit on triple tail with ZERO scientific data to back such?

#3 Why is CCA pushing for an increase in salt water license fees?

#4 On what grounds was CCA pushing for a ban on bow fishing for?

#5 Where was CCA when us recreational guys were getting the shaft on the red snapper season?

I realize this is more than 3 questions so feel free to pick out the three u would like to answer.

What have they done for me lately?

It seems they are getting more rules passed quietly so as to benefit LWF ability to collect fines .

And to me it seems we got enough rules that are laws that they can collect on.

Soon the famed speckled red tail will be on the endangered list so no one can take a leek in a portalet.

This **** is out of hand and they the CCA need to protect the privet angler as natural conditions prohibit the enjoyment of fishing.

Do something that supports the angler instead of the speckled red tail.


All in favor of the angler say I

I don't see anyone on SC Slamming the US Fish and Wildlife Serv... THEY CONTROL THE WEIRs.. THE FEDERAL GOV...

I Don't see anyone on here Protesting and Boycotting the Lake Chuck Port Commission.. If I'm not Mistaken; They Control the Channel... Plus the Army Corp of Eng. Again the Fed.'s

CCA Is in the Business Granting of State Water Bottoms for Oyster Leases NOW??? Come ONNNNN....

HOW come U All are not Protecting or boycotting the WL&F office on the Lake.. They control the state oyster leases..

Why not get everyone NOT TO Purchase a fishing license???

Stop Blaming CCA FOR EVERTHING... Call a meeting, call UR area legislatrative reps., Call Port Commission members, Ask CCA leadership to Attend..,.Ask Questions of ALL Officials. Voice Concerns...

MathGeek.. Bring UR graphs.. Share with a WLF Fisheries Biologist .. I for ONE, find them compelling....

GET OFF UR AZZ's and DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE ABOUT UR CONCERNS....

I see you don't read, because this has been refuted numerous times.

So, you're wrong. And there has been plenty of slamming of the operation of the weirs, but no one knew who was operating them.

Aren't they all the same entity? They all seem to rub elbows pretty regularly.

The issue ol boy was referring to is the issue in SE Louisiana where landowners are losing their land fast. Its the reason CCA and LaSportsman broke ties with one another. The fishermen think they should be able to fish on private property because its navigable water. Its still private property and if you owned that land (now covered with water) you would likely not want folks on it either. Its a tired old story really.

When did CCA become LDWF? I didn't realize that CCA had the power to change limits:rolleyes:

Well then ur head is in the sand ol boy!

Nice rant but U forgot to address any of the questions I asked

Since most, if not all, of the LWC members are also members of CCA then they kind of do

Never Will
 

Biggun will never answer your issues, because he cannot. What will happen you will be personally attacked or threaten, as I was by CCA and biggun.

I often get the feeling that the kool-aid drinkers have never read CCA's very own mission statement on its website, nor is it ever addressed doing their revivals.

Fear not my freinds, the Galaxy is coming!

X1000


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

CCA should be for our best interest and thats what this is all about you tool. they are supposed to be our voice.

itd be like the nra being in support of bans on guns or magazines.

they are our voice in many matters.

Another Two Issues
 

(1) We plan on spending a significant sum of money on making the sponsors of the STAR realize what they think CCA is doing is not exactly what is being done.

For example, once the license increase takes effect, we have secured media reps to prepare a full page ad in every magazine and newspaper that circulates south of Interstate 10. The page will reflect the names of every sponsor to the STAR and inform every read that the mentioned names are in part responsible for the increase in YOUR cost to fish in this State. We will also make a humble request that all readers cease business with these entities.

We have cleared this with legal, so this is a go. If approved, the law will go in effect on August 15, 2014 and the ad will appear on the following weeks/months publications.

(2) Many of you raised the fact that CCA is a political organization. In fact, we have evidence, testimony and recordation of CCA staff and directors stating such.

We are compiling such evidence to present to the IRS since a 501(C) corp. cannot be political in nature.