Another Reason to Boycott S.T.A.R.: Tripletail regulations passed

[Natural Light Kid]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Since there are multiple factors in play, multiple steps are needed to improve the fishery in Calcasieu, with a focus on habitat. Here is what I recommend:

1. Raise the limit on specks back to 25. Remove the limit on black drum (including the commercial limit). Double the limit on redfish (10, including two bulls). This will reduce pressure on the oyster reefs and the food supply.
2. End oyster dredging. The oyster reefs provide essential ecosystem services and habitat for much of the food web at lower trophic levels.
3. Line the lower channel with stout rock walls to control erosion and saltwater intrusion. Only have a couple of narrow cuts between lake and channel for boats to pass.
4. Once the salinity in the lake is lower, you can open the weirs for most days each month.
5. Ban tagging of all species for non-scientific purposes.
6. Insist that all future limit changes be based on scientific data assessing the population of all dominant species relative to their food supply.
7. Place a bounty on bull drum to protect the oysters. Perhaps allow an additional limit of specks or reds for each bull black drum in possession.

I promise this is not a smart a$$ question, but what does tagging have to do with anything?

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by Natural Light Kid

I promise this is not a smart a$$ question, but what does tagging have to do with anything?

It's just something he doesn't like. Think of it as a ear mark on a bill.


Spiral Out

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Natural Light Kid

I promise this is not a smart a$$ question, but what does tagging have to do with anything?

It is not in the interest of true conservation to have the lobbying groups in bed with the LDWF. CCA supports license fee increases. LWF Commission passes restrictions with no scientific support and LDWF approves redfish tagging needed for tournament in which CCA generates most of their annual revenues. LDWF should not be giving perks CCA.

Any group should be free to hold a tournament, and any fishing tournament will involve some luck. But the redfish tagging removes all the skill and is functionally equivalent to winning the lottery rather than the more reasonable tournament goal of catching the biggest fish.

The whole "tagged redfish" deal is to circumvent rewarding big bull reds and suggests a long term motive to restrict angler liberties to keep bull reds. CCA has actively campaigned for more restrictive redfish limits in TX and FL, and in the long term I fully expect them to eventually lobby for more restrictive redfish limits in LA.

LDWF should not be assisting with fundraising for a lobbying group focused on restricting angler liberties. This is what the tagged redfish contest amounts to. The "lottery" aspect of the STAR tournament is one of the big challenges to an effective boycott.

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It is not in the interest of true conservation to have the lobbying groups in bed with the LDWF. CCA supports license fee increases. LWF Commission passes restrictions with no scientific support and LDWF approves redfish tagging needed for tournament in which CCA generates most of their annual revenues. LDWF should not be giving perks CCA.



Any group should be free to hold a tournament, and any fishing tournament will involve some luck. But the redfish tagging removes all the skill and is functionally equivalent to winning the lottery rather than the more reasonable tournament goal of catching the biggest fish.



The whole "tagged redfish" deal is to circumvent rewarding big bull reds and suggests a long term motive to restrict angler liberties to keep bull reds. CCA has actively campaigned for more restrictive redfish limits in TX and FL, and in the long term I fully expect them to eventually lobby for more restrictive redfish limits in LA.



LDWF should not be assisting with fundraising for a lobbying group focused on restricting angler liberties. This is what the tagged redfish contest amounts to. The "lottery" aspect of the STAR tournament is one of the big challenges to an effective boycott.

Yeah. Right on.
Prison guards shouldn't lobby to keep laws that the majority of citizens don't like either.


Spiral Out

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Clampy

Prison guards shouldn't lobby to keep laws that the majority of citizens don't like either.

Everyone, even special interests should be free to lobby the legislature for the laws they think are right. This is just free speech and due process.

But wildlife regulations that are set by an executive branch bureaucracy should be subject to stricter scrutiny because they have the force of law (criminal penalties) without the benefit of due republican processes.

When a lobbying group gets too cozy with an executive branch bureaucracy and the bureaucracy is protecting the lobbying group's cash cow, and the lobbying group is supporting revenue increases for the bureaucracy, then due process and transparent government has been circumvented. The tight relations between CCA and LWF Commission has essentially shut out both scientific data and meaningful input from other stakeholders. Prying the lovers apart is the next step in making progress.

[Ratdog]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Since there are multiple factors in play, multiple steps are needed to improve the fishery in Calcasieu, with a focus on habitat. Here is what I recommend:

1. Raise the limit on specks back to 25. Remove the limit on black drum (including the commercial limit). Double the limit on redfish (10, including two bulls). This will reduce pressure on the oyster reefs and the food supply.
2. End oyster dredging. The oyster reefs provide essential ecosystem services and habitat for much of the food web at lower trophic levels.
3. Line the lower channel with stout rock walls to control erosion and saltwater intrusion. Only have a couple of narrow cuts between lake and channel for boats to pass.
4. Once the salinity in the lake is lower, you can open the weirs for most days each month.
5. Ban tagging of all species for non-scientific purposes.
6. Insist that all future limit changes be based on scientific data assessing the population of all dominant species relative to their food supply.
7. Place a bounty on bull drum to protect the oysters. Perhaps allow an additional limit of specks or reds for each bull black drum in possession.

What he said. Stop making new laws to feed the never ending cycle of inforcement.
Or there will be turits on LwF patrol boats.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Since there are multiple factors in play, multiple steps are needed to improve the fishery in Calcasieu, with a focus on habitat. Here is what I recommend:

1. Raise the limit on specks back to 25. Remove the limit on black drum (including the commercial limit). Double the limit on redfish (10, including two bulls). This will reduce pressure on the oyster reefs and the food supply.
2. End oyster dredging. The oyster reefs provide essential ecosystem services and habitat for much of the food web at lower trophic levels.
3. Line the lower channel with stout rock walls to control erosion and saltwater intrusion. Only have a couple of narrow cuts between lake and channel for boats to pass.
4. Once the salinity in the lake is lower, you can open the weirs for most days each month.
5. Ban tagging of all species for non-scientific purposes.
6. Insist that all future limit changes be based on scientific data assessing the population of all dominant species relative to their food supply.
7. Place a bounty on bull drum to protect the oysters. Perhaps allow an additional limit of specks or reds for each bull black drum in possession.

1,000% agree with everything on that list and it is well thought out and all will have the desired resulting impact except for #7 and I would amend #1 part "b" as it pertains to red limits to reduce the size limit to 14". I only keep 16-18" reds because those are the best eating and I would love to have a 14-18" slot to be able to keep because finding something in that 16-18" slot isn't easy to do.

I think promotion of black drum as good to eat and a strong effort to get people to stop calling it and treating it as trash fish will do more to get people to start keeping and eating them and "maybe" even targeting them as a food item. this can and should be done weather they make any changes to the present system or not but there needs to be a change in peoples opinions of black drum as good to eat so people start removing them from the water.

I just don't see the bounty idea being feasible or practical and you definitely cant double other limits as a reward without having cheaters keep one big drum in the freezer so every trip they just bring it with them to be able keep double limits. i'll admit it now that if that were the system I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to cheat as I described because my fishing activities provide me with a much needed and depended on food source.

[meaux fishing]

The LWF commission is composed almost entirely of CCA members... Coincidence? I think not

[mr crab]

Originally Posted by meaux fishing

The LWF commission is composed almost entirely of CCA members... Coincidence? I think not

ok....so how does LWF comission directly benefit monetarily from decreasing the limits? I've been thinking about this for a while....can't figure it out....Could there be very wealthy fishermen and or guides willing to make large contributions to CCA and politicians campaign funds just so they can say they caught a limit? This seems unlikely to me...but its the best I've come up with. Who stands to benefit from the average joe only keeping 5 triples or 15 trout instead of 25? And why would he be willing to pay big money for it?

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by mr crab

ok....so how does LWF comission directly benefit monetarily from decreasing the limits? I've been thinking about this for a while....can't figure it out....Could there be very wealthy fishermen and or guides willing to make large contributions to CCA and politicians campaign funds just so they can say they caught a limit? This seems unlikely to me...but its the best I've come up with. Who stands to benefit from the average joe only keeping 5 triples or 15 trout instead of 25? And why would he be willing to pay big money for it?

I really think they believe that they know what is best for everybody, so they will use their influence to "help" the state

[Ratdog]

Originally Posted by mr crab

ok....so how does LWF comission directly benefit monetarily from decreasing the limits? I've been thinking about this for a while....can't figure it out....

Well let's see. As we all know there are good great and stinky years,there are good great and stinky days. Drop the limit on a stinky day year and in the next great good day year saturate the water with patroles and rack up on fines. Oops I miss counted by one fish osifer and you pay hefty fine and at the rate it's going the fine will increese too. I wonder why w&f needs so many bullets they have requested.? In my day flack jackets and armed patrols were never seen . Has regulation gotten so tight the people are fighting back?
I wonder as mentioned too many organizations involved in one.


So I support the law that if you work for any branch of LWF you can belong to no other organization due to conflict of intrest and jail time pen. An fines. Not even the boyscouts. Let's limit there associations as they limit my meals.

Stop the armed patrols

Set a moratorium on new regulations and allow only new regs with sound multi year data.

Allow the natural flow of water to return to areas and stop the stoppage without sound data

Make them educate the public by only allowing expenditure of funding for news paper articals and commercials about species as they might educate themselves more.

Heck I have not run into a LWF agent unarmed or armed that could give the same info other than call this number. What use is that other than a hired gun and phone book. I'm not jokeing and if you are WLF and you have your feelings hurt becouse of that statement then I'm sorry don't tase me bro.

Lastly has every one in a government position traded common sence for a pay check. Or there respect for other living humans for a screwed up law.

Shame shame shame lets fix this and if it were to happen from within I might gain respect again but to use enforcement to make money and laws to increese inforcement then dang it's hopeless now.

I am so worried that one day ,might not be in my life time but just the stepping aboard a boat will constitute the intention to go fishing and you go to jail . Is itmy intention to catch fish yes . Is it my intention to follow the rules yes as best I can as there are so many conflicting . Is it my intention to follow the laws ...I better as the rules are now laws inforced with guns.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by keakar

I just don't see the bounty idea being feasible or practical and you definitely cant double other limits as a reward without having cheaters keep one big drum in the freezer so every trip they just bring it with them to be able keep double limits. i'll admit it now that if that were the system I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to cheat as I described because my fishing activities provide me with a much needed and depended on food source.

Bull drum have a lot of meat and are not hard to catch. If I were fishing mainly for meat I think I would tend to target them first on most days out. Targeting bull drum would also produce significant catch of reds and gafftops also. It's just not that hard to catch a lot of meat in a little time once you have a bit of experience targeting them. Guys who run trot lines can catch thousands of pounds of drum every day. Remove the limit on drum and no one fishing in Big Lake would ever be hurting for meat.

[mr crab]

Can anybody tell me what monetary or political gain cca leadership, or politicos involved in these limit reductions have received? Just trying to locate the money trail. I know that a certain guide service was documented supporting limit reductions. But does one guide service have enough stroke to change things like this? Also I keep hearing "WD"..... how or what would he personally gain from these decreases? This b.s. is happening in tx to a greater extent, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from these changes, and what motivates cca to back it up even when a lot of the membership clearly disagrees with it. I know the answer is $$$$, but I'm not smart enough to figure out who's getting paid and who is footing the bill? Maybe yall are?

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by mr crab

Can anybody tell me what monetary or political gain cca leadership, or politicos involved in these limit reductions have received? Just trying to locate the money trail. I know that a certain guise service was documented supporting limit reductions. But does one guide service have enough stroke to change things like this. Also I keep hearing "WD" how our what would he personally gain from these decreases? This b.s. is happening in tx to a greater extent, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from these changes, and what motivates cca to back it up?

they are saving us from ourselves, because its the "right thing to do"

[meaux fishing]

They are the democrats of coservation

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mr crab

Can anybody tell me what monetary or political gain cca leadership, or politicos involved in these limit reductions have received? Just trying to locate the money trail. I know that a certain guise service was documented supporting limit reductions. But does one guide service have enough stroke to change things like this. Also I keep hearing "WD" how our what would he personally gain from these decreases? This b.s. is happening in tx to a greater extent, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from these changes, and what motivates cca to back it up?

CCA raises most of their $$$ from the STAR tournament. A number of positions within CCA are paid. The STAR tournament is possible because the state wildlife agencies approve the tagging and other aspects of the tournament.

It is a back scratching fest. The state agencies support CCA fundraising efforts (redfish tagging, tournaments), and CCA supports license increases and more restrictive regulations. More restrictive regulations carry the illusion of conservation progress to keep the fundraising cycle going.

[mr crab]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

CCA raises most of their $$$ from the STAR tournament. A number of positions within CCA are paid. The STAR tournament is possible because the state wildlife agencies approve the tagging and other aspects of the tournament.

It is a back scratching fest. The state agencies support CCA fundraising efforts (redfish tagging, tournaments), and CCA supports license increases and more restrictive regulations. More restrictive regulations carry the illusion of conservation progress to keep the fundraising cycle going.

Honestly mg...sounds kinda weak...not saying that you are wrong at all, I just think there is something more sinister than the "illusion of conservation progress" that's driving this. Especially when the TPWD hosted local (Port Arthur) public meeting on decreasing the flounder and trout limits here in TX had 0% support, and it still passed by a landslide because CCA backed the recomendation. How does CCA directly benefit monetarily from lower limits? I, like many on this site, will not be chipping in this year, which I think would be a negative impact on their bottom line???

[Goooh]

MathGeek is on a rolllll

["W"]

Got some great news, just talked to a guide who said the weirs are all closed up, awesome full moon great tides

Choke lake out again

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by "W"

Got some great news, just talked to a guide who said the weirs are all closed up, awesome full moon great tides

Choke lake out again

Evidence that the weirs are not being operated the way they were meant to.

If the weirs were operated properly, the fisheries population would not be negatively impacted. The weirs were supposed to open around new and full moon, and remain open for a period before and after the date of the full or new moon.

Sadly, that appears to not be the case.