Originally Posted by simplepeddler (Post 707378)

oil spill affected habitat maybe?

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707386)

You are 100% right ducks are a whole diffrent ball game

But fish are not

I actually believe the whole state including big lake goes by the 25 fish possession law
Not 100% on that but I think I read that a person can have up to 2 daily possession limits (25per person) which means if true 50 cleaned trout per person instead of 30 state wide

I will have to recheck but I believe it's read like that

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707386)

You are 100% right ducks are a whole diffrent ball game

But fish are not

I actually believe the whole state including big lake goes by the 25 fish possession law
Not 100% on that but I think I read that a person can have up to 2 daily possession limits (25per person) which means if true 50 cleaned trout per person instead of 30 state wide

I will have to recheck but I believe it's read like that

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 707392)

I doubt it. There were several studies attempting to connect the oil spill with speckled trout condition, reproduction, etc.

They were negative. The oil spill is a convenient target, but the careful science doesn't show any real link or even any problem with the trout on the E side of the state. They had a cold weather and a slow start, just like SW LA, but is was the weather rather than an anthropogenic factor.

Originally Posted by simplepeddler (Post 707393)

Ducks are federal.........sound familiar......with the ARS?

But the law reads the same on possesion limits.........if you get caught opening day with more than a days limit.....you are screwed......

same with fish in and out of season.........

I admit I'm not a "limit" guy anymore......but I was for years..........
I just don't like the taste of frozen anymore.....

I am not making some emotional plea to take a guides limit away......just don't think it's impossible to see them taken away ........and I don't think it's unreasonable.........

It has to be sustainable or you will be taking people on gafftop trips.......

It was the alligator poachers who are highly credited with saving the alligator population

It will be the guides and captains that will need to take the lead to save our fisheries........arguably they may not need saving right now........

What I can tell you all, is that if you go to bat with the feds the way you go to bat here.......you will not be taken reasonably........unreasonable people are treated unreasonably

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 707390)

If CCA wants support from Lake Area

It 1st needs to

Ban oyster dredging

2nd
Revoke the triple tail size limit from 18inchs to none and keep 5 fish per person ( this would make 100% of the people happy )

If CCA does this I will donate $1000 every year to them

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 707397)

Saving the fisheries is about the habitat, not about the stocks. THere are plenty of spotted seatrout, redfish, etc. There is zero evidence of overfishing, but there is lots of evidence of habitat degradation.

Originally Posted by BuckingFastard (Post 707185)

What if Rex is actually "w"

MIND BLOWN:fireworks::beathorse:

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 707391)

http://www.joincca.org/about

Read the history portion

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 707397)

Saving the fisheries is about the habitat, not about the stocks. THere are plenty of spotted seatrout, redfish, etc. There is zero evidence of overfishing, but there is lots of evidence of habitat degradation.

Originally Posted by keakar (Post 707403)

yes they lie about it on their own website (its their website so who is going to stop them?) and they also regularly repeat this lie to reporters all the time so there are numerous stories falsely attributing CCA with being GCCA with a new name but lies don't make it true any more then if the website claims to have flying monkeys. but claiming to be the new GCCA helps them raise money and lets them lie and say "look we banned gill nets"

they get away with this lie because back in 1995 there wasn't the internet coverage there is today so if you google GCCA you cant even find any info on it because back then people weren't online 24/7 where everything was recorded and talked about instantly. heck you cant even find info on the gill net ban itself other then government copies of the actual law.

they were smart and they took advantage of a situation where they could steal claim to someone elses work and since GCCA was all volunteer and had disbanded there was no one around and no paperwork around to fight this false claim other then the GCCA members who knew better.

CCA never took over from GCCA because GCCA no longer existed when CCA was formed and no one from the GCCA organization was part of creating CCA, plain and simple as that.

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 707413)

I think you are confused... I could be wrong, but probably not.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by KDM (Post 707482)

GCCA and CCA are the exact one in the same. Always has been. You boys keep smoking your crack!!!! Sit tight!!!!!!

Originally Posted by noodle creek (Post 707189)

Let me go ahead and tell yall how absolutely f***ing stupid the triple tail limit is. Caught 43 the other day, 3 were keepers. It's about equivalent to saying you can only keep a trout 6 lbs or bigger. What's even better is when we got back to spicers and the wildlife and fisheries biologist was taking surveys, we told him we didn't catch sh** because of their stupid triple tail limit. He was so quick to shut us down and say "woahh hold up, it was soley CCA that pushed for that." He then went on to say that there is nowhere near enough data to have a limit in effect.

So thanks Raymond, I'm glad this is how yall choose to spend money, even though there are much, MUCH bigger issues. I also love the fact that probably 5% of the active CCA committee has even been triple tail fishing in the last few years.

How do yall plan on using this money to benefit our estuary? There isn't a single person that gets on here and gives us updates. Larry Reynolds takes time out of his day to interact on public forums, give is facts, and present data. You would think that if the CCA is supposed to represent recreational anglers, they would at least maybe come on here and other public forums and give an update every now and then. You're quick to back up CCA, but I doubt you can even give us maybe one or two examples of something yall are currently working on to improve our estuary.

So hurry up, call up your CCA big wigs and come up with an answer.

Originally Posted by bobo23 (Post 707250)

I think "W" is JAdams..... Or maybe "W" is Inchspinner. Now that would be something....Saltygate was just a figment of our imagination. :spineyes: