"As to the comments about rigs-to-reefs, I am assuming either you do not know, or you refuse to accept the facts that David Vitter sponsored a bill to stop the destruction of rigs off Louisiana's coast. He begged CCA of Louisiana to appear for the committee hearing, yet CCA failed to show and the bill was deferred (polite way of saying the bill is dead)."

That's pretty poor on CCA's part.

"I do I do have one question though, why is CCA of Louisiana the only 501(C) entity in the entire country that refuses to publish it's finanicial statement on a yearly basis.have one question though, why is CCA of Louisiana the only 501(C) entity in the entire country that refuses to publish it's finanicial statement on a yearly basis."

What's the deal with that?

No one on here is against limits if there is a reason for it. And as far as going to complain at meetings, do you think no one did that before the limit was reduced? Yeah right. A lot of good that did. Everyone on here who thinks that a limit on triple tail isn't a big deal is ridiculous. It's just like the liberal goverment taking over and telling us what we can and can't do. Same concept

I know. It's giving me a headache. We know they reproduce several times a year. Laying up to 9 millions of eggs. They only show up for about 3 months out of the year. Show us where they are being over fished. God, how hard is that to understand!! The scientific data they have means nothing more than what you can find on wiki

Hey "They said its the smart thing to do"

What more do we need!!! Im sold on that :help:

Exactly x10000. But the CCA koolaide flows strong in some.

Can I have a hug??? BINGO we have the winner!!!!

what is this? the WWE? Cause Will Drost said so!!!

Do you people really think it is one man that can set limits to what HE thinks is considered to be right?

get out of here with that sh it..

Imagine the things that could be done if everyone on this site that is vehemently against any changes would actually go to the meeting and let their message be known:D

Exactly the reason Barry O is still in office, everyone was mad but they just didn't voice their opinion in the right spot (at the polls):help:

Its comical yet sad that people think that

I've been to the meetings. It's a waste of time.

I Hunt and Fish in La., and own a Camp there as well. Purchase $480 in Licenses ea. year. I think I should have a say in La. regulations !
Comment about " Mad Texan".....Really ! This is specifically why I NEVER get involved in these type of debates, and rarely post. I have been a member of DU since 1976, and do not agree with everything they have done. My feelings are mutual with respect to CCA.
I often wonder where WE ( La. and TX.) Sportsman would be today without the efforts of DU, Delta,CCA, etc. I doubt you would be able to strap a Canvasback, or even see one now days ! They didn't just come back to huntable numbers because the Hens decided to lay more eggs.

He was the hook n bull for 15trout limit!!! along with HR&G

The purpose of public meetings seems to be to claim after the fact that public meetings were held. The only scientific support for regulations changes you get at public meetings are a few oversimplified platitudes that might seem to make sense at the time, but usually only amount to unsupported claims that the regulatory proposal is a data driven necessity.

But the data and scientific reasons motivating any change really should be published in written and electronic form to be more carefully considered and assessed by independent parties. Otherwise, the public can't tell the difference between sound scientific validation and basing decisions on unvalidated opinions of a few purported "experts."

The triple tail regulations, the red snapper regulations, and the speckled trout regulations all seem to be based on unvalidated opinions of purported experts.

Conservation groups should be demanding better science before restricting access to resources that appear to be sufficiently abundant to allow greater or at least historical levels of access.

:fireworks::amen:

Fair enough, but your say is as a customer or consumer of the resources. Your say should be analogous to a customer at Burger King if they discontinue or restrict access to a product. Your say is nothing more than a recommendation or an expression of your personal preferences.

This is much different than the authoritative say deserved by LA residents and registered LA voters. Citizens of Louisiana should have an authoritative say equivalent to Burger King stockholders.

;), I will go along with them everytime. If there is an issue, its with the LDWF Commission. They listen to their panel of experts who present to them the data and their decision SHOULD be based upon that data (whether it is or not is a different subject). Again, they are the experts in their field and they are presenting to the lawmakers, just like in every form of government

You absolutely DO have as say in that case Camp Canard. I was pointing out the differences in the estuaries and the fact that each state should regulate their resources with sound scientific data pertaining to the location. Not in a me too manner.

When and where is the next meeting. Lets all go. And ask "so if we don't put a limit on tripletail, do you honestly think they will be gone one day? And if you think that, simply tell me why and show me data." I'm a logical guy, prove to me why we need a limit and i'm all for it

Duh

The scientific method is based on skepticism and the demand that assertions be supported with published data and a methodology that allows both replication and review by others.

This is in contrast to believing in viewpoints based on the authority, education, or employment status of those espousing the view.

Responsible PhD Wildlife Professionals should know they need to back up proposed management actions with sound scientific data. Pushing major policy changes without sound scientific support diminishes their credibility. They would be on much more sound footing if they proposed to study the status of the stock with sound scientific methods and suggested delay of consideration of major policy changes until there was more data available.