CCA backs raise of license fee- Thoughts?
 

CCA is backing a bill to raise saltwater fishing licenses 136% from %5.50 to 13. What is yalls thoughts on this and do you see any benefit from the increased revenue or will it just be more money for the politician's pocket?

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.s...se_louisi.html

Gotta keep their pockets fat!

i think its crap... someone needs to find out how to make it stop!

Compared to neighboring states we have the lowest license fees........ With the increase we will still be the lowest. I see no problem with it as long as the money is spent where it needs to be spent and not taken from for non saltwater fishing initiatives.

Just get a lifetime license

youre right... but i just dont think itll go for the right reason at all.

X2

It says in the article Mississippi is the cheapest.

I think it is reasonable IF there is a guarantee that the money will be used to better manage the saltwater fisheries. Wouldn't surprise me if the money just went into a general fund and would be used to pay for something else though.

Yep

I don't mind a higher tax/fee if the funds are used appropriately. Therefore, I am totally against this increase...

Just another reason to not give to cca

Gotta lifetime a long time ago and it has more than paid for itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The illusion of dedicated funds in gov't ends up being a ruse almost every time.

The state can simply cut the funding for saltwater research from other sources, just as it cut education funding (or slowed growth) from other sources to effectively negate lottery revenues.

LA politicians have a long history of failing to respect the idea of dedicated funds in dedicated accounts, sometimes raiding the funds outright to finance other things or balance the budget or whatever.

LA has great fishing, certainly even well worth the cost of out of state licenses, in my opinion. I would not mind paying more personally, but most states are facing the long term issue of declining numbers of anglers. As hunter and angler numbers decline compared with the general population, greater encroachments on hunting and fishing rights are a predictable result.

The percentage of LA citizens who hunt and fish and vote are a more important long term asset to LDWF than license revenues.

Has the money ($26 million) from raiding the artificial reef fund been repaid yet? Increasing license fees with this nonsense still unfixed seems like a bad plan. Adding $3-4 million in additional revenues is not gonna help when the legislature seems willing to steal $26 million at any time.

x2

x100. I don't mind paying to play as long as the money is going for the intended purpose. That's just not the name of the game in Louisiana politics.

what is the intended purpose of increasing license fees?

""

Conservation fund? like trying to apply more strict regulations on snapper and tripletail?

Because they dont require you to purchase a Freshwater License

Life time licences is 500 right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

Money money money....

Yes. I wanna say around $250 if they are under a certain age. Maybe 13-14 years old.

CCA Scammers
 

I quit GCCA when it became a money maker for a few select people and re-formed as CCA. The CCA boys are actually a Texas group, using a 501(C) to circumvent their real goals. CCA has done nothing but caused hardship to its recreational members for benefit of a select few. It is the only 501(C) organization in the ENTIRE country who refuses to provide financial records to its members. It proposed a bow fishing band in conjunction with the Louisiana Landowners Association with data that it admitted was fabricated. It did the exact same thing in its succesful ploy to regulate tripletail creel limits. It refuses to get involved in public waterway disputes, despite its mission statement mandating it will. It refuses to help in the rigs to reefs program because one of its "owners" in Texas has a company which is paid by the federal government to remove rigs from the Gulf. Maybe that is why 6 of 7 fisherman in Louisiana refuse to join the CCA which is affectionaly known in Baton Rouge and Washington as the "C"apitol "C"lowns "A"ssocation.

Before you kool-aid drinkers start fussing, the redfish gillnet issue was NOT promoted by CCA, but by GCCA, a total volunteer organization.

Finally, if you do make a negative statement about CCA, you might get threaten with bodily harm from one of its board members, just as I did. But obviously, I do not scare that easily.

Can you provide links to confirm this information? I'm interested in the back story

To Cajun-Made in Donaldsonville

Why don't U Just State: "U have NO CONNECTION TO CHRIS MORAN's Marina in Fouchon, and CAJUNMADE CHARTERS.

SO U don't have his (Chris's) customers that read this site, calling him canceling charters which is what happened to Him last Yr when U posted On RODNREEL.com last year spouting UR hatred of CCA..


I respect UR right to voice UR opinion on this site as ANYONE DOES..

Respectfully

Biggun

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!!

X2:)

CajunMade you are wrong on so many levels. I was one of the "old GCCA" guys and the organization was brought to Louisiana by a Sulphur family that put their money where their mouth was!!! You don't have a clue whats real and whats fiction. For those of you who doubt CCA's commitment to our resources just sit tight.

Is that why you don't use your real name? It's very clear your grinding an ax, why don't you come out of the closet Skippy?

TO Cgood and all CCA haters...

Why don't U read the link(article) at top of Post... It's pretty self explanatory why CCA is for this Bill...

U are So Right; KDM...

Biggun

I can't put my finger on it, but something doesn't smell right with CCA.

Pushing limits not supported with science is just part of it. Buying into the license increase when it should be clear to everyone that "dedicated funds" is a shell game. Are they too stupid to see this, or do they have a hidden agenda?

To early to be sure, but it would be interesting so see if the claim that a non-profit keeps their books closed even to members can be supported.

Mathgeek, I have read a lot of your posts and you seem like and educated person but your last post regarding this matter would leave me to believe that you aren't quite up to speed. Do some research of GCCA and CCA. I think once you have all the facts you will find that they more than pass the "smell test".

Chris Moran
 

I have no connection with Chris Moran and respect him and his operation greatly.

Biggun, you have no clue what you are talking about, in fact you were involved in the physical threat to me ( in your indivudal capacity and as Board Member of CCA). That is when your fearless leader had to call and apologize and beg that I not press state and federal charges against you and your little posse of kool-aid drinkers. An action I have not ruled out yet. And as to threat, it has fallen on deaf ears.

I suggest you change your name to big mouth, as opposed to big gun, because your threats seem to never exist when you and I are in public together.

As to any axe I have to grind, there is none. CCA is disrespected by the majority of recreational fisherman in this state (proven fact, only 1 of 7 fisherman actually fish the STAR, and are members of the CCA); it is the laughing stock in Baton Rouge (public record of committee hearings re: bowfishing ban); it is the laughing stock in Washington D.C. (public record of Clean Water Act subcommittee hearings, and Rigs to Reef bill, general debate, Senate Bill 1050, 2004, and again during amendment of bill in 2012).

As to the Washington hearing, Vitter, begged CCA of Louisiana to support the bill, and it failed to show up for the hearing in committee. (Public record, same reference as above)

I've never heard of a non profit organization refusing to divulge their records. I don't know that a 501c(3) is a license to steal and if any one thinks that non-profit means no one gets rich, they are wrong. Board members can name their own salaries as long as the net for the entity ends at zero. But seriously though. It costs me $300 to drag my boat from Prairieville to coast x number of times a month. Not to mention the boat itself and the maint. So your gonna hit me for another ~$10 a year to fish? Here's a twenty. Keep the change and GFY.

I don't need a detailed history when CCA is consistently taking positions on public policies that don't make sense. Why back a license increase when LA has proven to be so unfaithful and abusive in raiding dedicated funds in the past? Wouldn't efforts be better spent getting the $26 million returned that the legislature already raided from the artificial reef fund?

Why did CCA support the limit change in Big Lake from 25 down to 15 specks without the scientific data to support it?

Why did CCA support imposing a tripletail limit in Louisiana waters without stock assessments or any sound science?

I'm not sure if there is a hidden agenda or not, but it is a reasonable hypothesis when a "conservation" group consistently takes policy positions that are not supported by sound science or common sense.

glad I bought my lifetime license for $300 back in 1999, at that point I figured I break even if prices didn't go up and at that time it was $5.50 each for salt and fresh so at least im not going to get fleeced by this money grab.

you guys ought to do some quick math before the lifetime licenses double in price too, maybe you can get in before the price hikes

really!!! this is right out of the LAS handbook of demanding real names of people who post something you do not like or disagree with. you have NO NEED for real names unless you plan to target them and harass them outside the website and that is the ONLY reason you or anyone else would want or need his real name. BS harassment and demanding real names of people like this is why I left LAS.

you have his member name and that's all you should ever want or need from another member, his reputation here is forever linked with that name.

The empirical data may support your hypothesis, hence my suggestion regarding research.

Lifetime Hunting - $300
Lifetime Fishing - $300
Lifetime Hunt/Fish Combo - $500
Lifetime Combo age 5-13 - $300
Lifetime Combo age 0-4 - $200

I have my Lifetime Combo and I bought the Lifetime for my first 2 kids before they turned 5... one of the best investments you can ever give to a kid in my opinion. Covers Big Game, Primitive weapon, Turkey stamp, WMA permit, Archery, etc etc... The only thing it does not cover is your federal duck stamp.

CajunMade

U are seriously misguided.. Please explain UR hatred for CCA... Are U a bow-fishing guide??

I'll stood UP at a State committee meeting and expressed by humble opinion about the Bow-fishing bill.. I was AGAINST IT..

I'm not a cool-aid drinker.. I can still support an organization, and disagree with one or 2 things they advocate that I disagree with..

Please, I'm quite intelligent, I can make Up my own mind..

If U think, me saying I'm going to punch ANYONE in the mouth, is a federal offense???

Please!!!!!!!!! Tell me where I find that law???

Again U are serious mistaken about myself and anyone that post on here supporting CCA, If U think we blindly follow CCA.. It's a volunteer organization.. I'm a NON-PAID VOLUNTEER..

GCCA was born in the 1980s centered around putting new regulations in place to protect redfish from commercial over harvesting associated with the blackened redfish craze. Protecting redfish was most of their emphasis in the 1980s and 1990s, along with banning gill nets. In this period, most of their supported political positions were scientifically sound.

Reading CCAs version of their history, one would think that since 2000, they are satisfied with the protection afforded to the fish by the current regulations and are content with improving and protecting habitat (rigs to reefs, oyster reefs, inshore artificial reefs). Their self-described history tends to hide their ongoing involvement in promoting more restrictive regulations and increasing the burden on recreational anglers.

The 2005 speckled trout bag and possession limit changes in Big Lake, the 2013 attempted LA limit change in tripletail, and the 136% license fee increase are only a few examples. They generally have taken a big gov't, anti-science view point of better safe than sorry and shifting the burden of proof to advocates for liberty rather than to advocates for ever increasing restrictions and burdens on recreational anglers. "Erring on the side of caution" as conservation policy loves to say no to harvest and loves to expand regulations when there is no sound support in the data to do so. Thus their positions on tripletail and speck limits in LA.

Following the same approach CCA has also pushed for more restrictive redfish limits in FL. In 2007, they pushed to further restrict the slot limit from 18-27" to 21-27", maintain the limit of one redfish, and close the month of October to recreational harvest. In 2010, they opposed FWC's proposed data-driven limit from 1 to 2 redfish in areas of FL where the data supported an increase. They seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to adopt more restrictive regulations based on observations of increased fishing pressure without fully understanding stock assessments. Banning of all redfish harvest in federal waters and banning all commercial harvest of redfish in state waters has led to a tremendous recovery of redfish stocks thus allowing increased recreational harvests.

Observations of increased fishing pressure was also a motive for the speck limit change in LA in 2005 and for the attempted restrictive limits in tripletail in 2013. This habitual reaction to call for more restrictive regulations neglects the fact that most recreational anglers catch nowhere near the limit on most trips. It also assumes that the stock is incapable of supporting a larger harvest.

CCA would do well to move away from the big gov't approach of conservation via ever increasing regulation of recreational fisheries and stick to habitat conservation and restoration.

just remember that false information spreads just as fast as the truth and the more people spread it the more people believe it as fact;)


this thread has potential for 20+ pages:rotfl:

For the record, I am for an increase in licenses especially if it is going to research purposes. Our licenses are very cheap comparable to everywhere else. $7.50 would be the least expensive thing I buy to go fishing:)

On what do you base your confidence that the extra $ would go for research rather than being raided just like the $26 Million reef fund was raided?

I said I would support it to go towards research, nothing more nothing less, the end:).


However, if we really wanted to raise some money, every time you type the word 'government' you put a dollar into a fund and everytime you type 'draconian sanctions' a $20 bill goes in, would have unlimited funds by next year:rotfl:

lmao..now thats a great idea

Money is fungible. Dedicated funds and lock boxes of government funds are myths designed to take more hard earned money from citizens.

Money in gov't hands is used to grow the size of government. Growth in government usually leads to more restrictive regulations as all those government employees seek to justify their existence.

Examples are abundant, exceptions are rare.

5 times right there in just 4 sentences:rotfl: We got this y'all, we gonna have so much research money:spineyes:

A big gov't initiative to tax free speech would likely fail. A big gov't push to mock free speech will at least distract attention from the real issues while gov't continues to grow under increasing regulatory, fee, and tax burdens. Congratulations on your ability to obfuscate the issues by avoidance.