Will ....should you be in Baton Rouge today??

While I agree with you on very few of the things we often debate here, this really does point out the hypocritical ways of some of our governing bodies.

Now, back to more of "Do you support the CCA?":cool:

I don't think I can.

I applaud their efforts to improve habitat by reef development and deployment.

But manipulation of political process by pseudoscience to criminalize honest and reasonable sporting and commercial harvests of abundant and available resources earns my disdain.

This is not 1970 or 1980 any more. Conservation groups should be able to foresee how the misuse of governmental power toward ends which seem quite measured and reasonable at the time can set dangerous precedents for more exhaustive and totalitarian power grabs later on.

I recommend Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny" for documentation and descriptions on how past conservation efforts lead to current and future power grabs.

kind of like when gas goes up and then out comes a BS excuse that the prices of oil are up because some kid in the middle east took a dump in a puddle of oil .. or at least thats about how all the excuses sound to me lol

MG the problem with what your stating here remains the same, If we use a flood of anger to defund CCA and nothing is around to "take the reigns" on the good that they do. The net is going to be a huge loss. I think it's very very fair to say that the lobbying work the CCA does to prevent commercial interest's taking hold of gamefish populations like they did 15 years ago, is worth it's weight in gold.

I have always lived a good bit away from the coast so to me it's only a few times a year that i get to come see what the fun really is like in south LA. But i know i have heard many people say that when the Blackened Redfish Craze took over and commercial harvesters kicked it into high gear.... there were some times before CCA started up where redfish became somewhat of a rarity.

(if i am wrong on that someone please correct me) (I lived far away during said time period and only have heard the stories)

Therefore the only viable options are to find some way to get CCA to sing the correct tune.... or to start another organization to do it for them.

Woah Nelly- I think that $15 bucks we pay for a Federal Duck Stamp is one thing that has been good for ducks and duck hunters. Sorry that $15 helped run you out of duck hunting, but that has accounted for 5.2 million acres for the National Refuge System and valuable Waterfowl Production Areas.

For every dollar you spend on Federal Duck Stamps, ninety-eight cents goes directly to purchase vital habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC) oversees the use of Federal Duck Stamp funds for the purchase and lease of wetland habitat. The MBCC also reviews, but does not approve, the use of Federal Duck Stamp dollars for the purchase of small natural wetlands and their associated uplands for preservation as Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs).

I understand the possible dilemma, but I'm not convinced it's real. Consider some imperfect analogies: I'm a life member of the NRA, but in recent years I've sent more money to GOA and JFPO. However, I think my more enduring contributions to RKBA will be through my individual efforts which include:
1. Voting.
2. Training my children, not just in the shooting sports, but also in teaching them the key critical thinking skills to spot political trickery.
3. Bringing my children to Project Appleseed events.
4. Supporting my brother's efforts to use GI Bill funds (through the VA) to train veterans to be NRA instructors.
5. Debunking the bad science behind computerized ballistic identification systems and mandatory registration of ballistic ids (I was a peer reviewer)
6. Raising awareness (at the grassroots level) that the expansion of governmental power at all levels invites tyranny and endangers liberty.

By analogy, I think that organizations that complement CCA and compete for their funding base may well help keep them honest. But real political power still rests predominantly with the voters, so my proposed plan would focus instead on:
1. Voting
2. Training my children, not just in the angling sports, but in critical thinking skills to spot the political trickery.
3. Bringing my children to events that include a great time fishing but also incorporate fundamental aspects of preserving the heritage of fishing for future generations without trampling on the rights of others in the process.
4. Debunking bad science that is used to manipulate environmental and conservation regulations.
5. Beyond this, I am open to suggestions and discussions.

Why do you think an organized group is essential to success? I think most elected officials really fear what the NRA membership will do at the polls more than they fear what the NRA will say about them.

Is the clout of CCA really how they influence regulatory decisions or the fear politicians have about what anglers (including the CCA membership) will do at the polls?

There is one theory that NRA does not really want the Supreme Court to rule in a final and definitive way on the 2nd amendment, because that would deplete their membership and rob their power. Might it be possible that CCA is more interested in the exercise of political clout than in the conservation principles it espouses?

I also think it is more expensive to most everything than it was 20 years ago. Steel shot has certainly helped, but land/ lease cost and access have more to do with than anything I would think.

Back on topic, I will say that CCA has done a bunch of good for our state and fisheries. I know they have treaded in areas that all don't agree with and they should be held accountable if they are backing something without the proper science to enforce regulation. All who disagree need to go to the meeting, form a petition, make sure MG is there and try to get the answers you want to hear. They ask and want public comment. I know there are politics involved this is Louisiana people. At least you can say you tried.

I sure didn't want to get into this but this is wrong on so many levels, its like "W" has gotten into your brain or something:rotfl:

[QUOTE=MathGeek;615330]Correct me if I am in need of a history lesson, but didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?

Didn't this have the effect of driving up the price of duck hunting and effectively restricting access to the more affluent? Duck hunting is surely much more of a rich man's sport in 2013 than when my dad introduced me to duck hunting in 1978.

There are many many factors behind why leases are skyrocketing. One of them is because they can get it. If I was a farmer I would flood every bit of my land and lease it to the highest bidder, because people will pay it just to have a spot to sit. Duck hunting has become the 'cool thing' to do and a case of shells is the least expense for a duck hunter:help:

Don't get me wrong, the science showed a genuine need to reduce the use of lead shot in areas where it was being ingested by waterfowl.

Then why did you say this "didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?" Aren't you adamately FOR science driven regulations, I mean the entire tripletail thread would show that you are. Seems to me that lead was killing ducks indirectly and a conservation organization for ducks stepped in and showed the science that lead does in fact kill ducks (and it does still to this day, there are studies on Catahoula Lake going on yearly that will show this)

But the global ban for waterfowl hunting (global ban:shaking:) that was put in place was overreaching and is serving as a template for current efforts to expand lead bans to include upland game and rifle ammunition as well. RKBA advocates recognize current efforts to bad lead ammunition as aimed at 2nd amendment rights by driving up prices and restricting access. The 1991 waterfowl ban was the camel's nose in the tent.
You are really reaching here. Lead is bad for ducks, period, don't try and put the rest on Ducks Unlimited, they did it for the ducks (DUCKS unlimited). This sounds like that Nazi and Jew thing you posted on the tripletail thread:rotfl:

Why is DU silent on the current issue of banning lead for upland game and rifle ammunition? (Feel free to correct me if my assertion of DU's silence is incorrect.)

Remember that its DUCKS Unlimited, not upland game unlimited or pheasants forever or rifle ammunition unlimited. Their mission is for wetlands and waterfowl. No dog in that fight for them. And why do you want them to be, you just said they were 'overreaching' in the paragraph just above, which is it? Are the overreaching? or are they not doing enough? Can't have it both ways

Also, wasn't DU a player in a lot of the wetland preservation regulations in the 1980s and 1990s that amounted to a major governmental intrusion on private property rights requiring private landowners to jump through hoops to develop their own property?

Oh you mean when we FINALLY found out the real importance of wetlands and people had to actually apply for permits (what you call 'jump through hoops', I call permits, thank goodness this came about). Before this came around, a person could just do anything they wanted to with a wetland - develop it, dam it up, drain it, etc. This affects other people downstream. If you had property downstream of someone who altered their waterway, you could have been flooded downstream

The parallel between DU and CCA is this: supporting restrictive regulations that restrict access beyond the needs supported by sound science sets bad precedents that will be copied and exploited to further restrict hunting and fishing rights in the future.

That is your opinion and everyone is entitled to them, and you do not have to support anything they do;)

Yeah, yeah. And all the lottery proceeds go to support education. And your social security payments are kept in a "lock box" for you to draw on in retirement.

Most "dedicated" governmental funding schemes are shell games. The US treasury (federal funds) are one huge frungible, co-mingled deal.

On the whole, I'm glad the feds bought some wetlands rather than confiscating them through regulation without compensating the orignal owners.

But you are not going to convince me that a Duck Stamp is not just another tax, kinda like Obama Care is just another tax.

You bring up an excellent point. On most federal lands, lead shot is not allowed for shotguns and it is rightfully so in my opinion (study after study will show you that spent lead kills birds)


BUT, could you imagine the butthurt if LDWF came out and said that lead shot could no longer be used for doves:shaking::rotfl: It would be a riot in Baton Rouge, and every sportsmens website would be blowing up - BUT it makes total 'cents', the science is there and it makes sense but this is where the general public voicing their opinions comes into play (just like the tripletail thread:)). What would MG say about that I wonder? The science supports it? Hmm, what you say MG?

You have some reala issues with the government:rotfl:. The duck stamp is not a tax. It goes specifically to wetland conservation, and that is the cheapest thing you will buy to go duck hunting


Some of you guys have got to take a break from Rush Limbaugh, he will have you believing this stuff:spineyes:

So you are saying that "political agenda" is holding the state back from banning lead for doves. You're catching on now

Not saying it's not a tax, but one of the good ones IMO. I don't trust them any more than you, but this is accounted for and put in the ground so I'm told. It has been a good thing for wildlife conservation and well worth $15.

dude must have a man crush on WD...

Actually, a person had to OWN the wetland to do anything with it. After DU, they needed the federal government's permission to do what they wanted with their OWN property.

One can pass laws that reasonably restrict uses of land that might adversely impact neighbors without requiring landowners to obtain federal permission for just about any development or improvement. And how the congressional authority to "regulate interstate commerce" got twisted into the authority to require landowners in a given state to get permission from the federal government to develop their own property is beyond me. The regulation of private land to minimize negative impact on neighboring properties should have remained a state issue rather than a federal power grab.


Regarding lead shot, the science showed that ducks ingesting the lead shot in certain types of habitat was killing the ducks. Reasonable, science based regulation would have banned the use of lead shot for hunting in those kinds of habitat. Banning use of lead shot in midwestern corn fields was an overreach that did not have scientific support.

Criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties should be narrowly tailored to meet the scientific requirements that demonstrate the need without overreaching infringements that restrict liberties in ways that are not demonstrated with the scientific data.

Interesting question. Is lead shot used in upland hunting having a negative impact on given species at the population level? Which species? Cite the studies. Does the negative impact justify the increased costs of banning lead?

You should put that as your mission statement on your non-profit organization you are starting:)

Nice try:rotfl:

No one has presented a case for it yet. The data is there though, its 'the elephant in the room', (much like blinds on Catahoula Lake). Everyone is aware of it, but until someone starts pushing, its not going to be brought up, BUT it will be brought up eventually and the data will support a ban if they really push it:) Oh what a sihtstorm that will be, oh lawd!

I think its ridiculous that we can shoot lead at doves and then flood a field right behind it, or shoot snipe with lead on the very field we just duck hunted on:rotfl: Its common sense

Exactly. The evidence is there, but they keep their mouth shut about it. May be the same reason we still have to wait until 12:00 noon to shoot doves. Lol