Heating up on new fees

[MathGeek]

It is notable that those supporting the increase in fees have gone into attack mode rather that giving fact-based responses to the retired biologist's fact-based assertions.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It is notable that those supporting the increase in fees have gone into attack mode rather that giving fact-based responses to the retired biologist's fact-based assertions.

they are also true blue 100% supporters of CCA and anything it wants to do.

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by keakar

they are also true blue 100% supporters of CCA and anything it wants to do.

Hi Keakar,

You must have not been there when they (the LDWF) fought strenuously against the anti- netting bill for speckled trout. They used every political punch they could muster - including the governor's office at times.
In fact, there was NO biology supporting a net ban for speckled trout. It was purely political, but I am happy CCA won.
Now there was another "speckled trout" group involved that supported the anti-netting bill.
They had some differences with CCA, but people generally belonged to both organizations . . . sorta like DU and Delta Waterfowl.
Anybody remember that trout association's name??? Something like "Louisiana Speckled Trout Association" I think.
And...the only reason "GCCA" changed its name to "CCA" was because there are now active chapters along the southeastern Atlantic Coast. That meant a change in name was necessary since the organization represented more coastal areas of the US than the Gulf Coast.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by keakar

they are also true blue 100% supporters of CCA and anything it wants to do.

I support CCA but do not agree with every single thing (100%) of what they do. I can't think of one single organization, or one person (mayor, senator, congressman, etc.) that I am in 100% agreement with either. Everyone has faults and every organization has faults as well. Anyone can sit back and point it out, its easy. I still don't see the need to have a conservation organization whose sole purpose is to attack another conservation organization, it divides all of us.

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I support CCA but do not agree with every single thing (100%) of what they do. I can't think of one single organization, or one person (mayor, senator, congressman, etc.) that I am in 100% agreement with either. Everyone has faults and every organization has faults as well. Anyone can sit back and point it out, its easy. I still don't see the need to have a conservation organization whose sole purpose is to attack another conservation organization, it divides all of us.

I agree with you.

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I support CCA but do not agree with every single thing (100%) of what they do. I can't think of one single organization, or one person (mayor, senator, congressman, etc.) that I am in 100% agreement with either. Everyone has faults and every organization has faults as well. Anyone can sit back and point it out, its easy. I still don't see the need to have a conservation organization whose sole purpose is to attack another conservation organization, it divides all of us.

It's not dividing anyone, it simply would give people a choice. You say you don't agree 100% with any politician you vote for, but you choose to vote for whoever you feel represents your views best. Same thing here, there is nothing at all wrong with it. If I feel that organization A will do better things with my money than organization B, I will side with them. Simple

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

It's not dividing anyone, it simply would give people a choice. You say you don't agree 100% with any politician you vote for, but you choose to vote for whoever you feel represents your views best. Same thing here, there is nothing at all wrong with it. If I feel that organization A will do better things with my money than organization B, I will side with them. Simple

we are saying the same thing I believe but organization A should just come out with their mission statement of NEW ideas of what they plan to do and not just say we are going to do the opposite of organization B. Organization B shouldn't even be referred to in their mission statement. Just do your own thing, you can actually be a member of both if both have ideas you value. No need to bash organization B, just put out your mission statement and get the word out.

Its similar to people that are members of Delta that hate on DU or vice versa. They are not competing organizations, they are both there for waterfowl and you can be a member of one or both or none, and that is how we get divided.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I still don't see the need to have a conservation organization whose sole purpose is to attack another conservation organization, it divides all of us.

in theory you are right, in a perfect world CCA would mind its own business and not interfere with other organizations efforts to help fishermen but CCA works to undermine them so the CCA by its own actions dictates that it MUST be removed from the position they hold where they can forever no longer dictate the agendas or their opinions hold any sway.

CCA actively works against anyone who speaks out or organizations using science based data to try and help fishermen all the while CCA is lobbying against everything other organizations want to do and paying off politicians to ignore the organizations trying to help fishermen.

so you see when CCA puts a target on other organizations and fights them every step of the way you must first kill off the festering infection that is CCA so an organization that has fishermens interests at heart can do their work without CCA undermining them every step of the way.

it shouldn't be necessary to take down CCA to get responsible resource management action but there really isn't an alternative since CCA cant help fighting against the interests of fishermen.

if CCA would just shut up and stop trying to hurt fishermen and just build their reefs and let other organizations work to help fishermen without interference from CCA then I would support them, not monetarily but in spirit only.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by keakar

in theory you are right, in a perfect world CCA would mind its own business and not interfere with other organizations efforts to help fishermen but CCA works to undermine them so the CCA by its own actions dictates that it MUST be removed from the position they hold where they can forever no longer dictate the agendas or their opinions hold any sway.

CCA actively works against anyone who speaks out or organizations using science based data to try and help fishermen all the while CCA is lobbying against everything other organizations want to do and paying off politicians to ignore the organizations trying to help fishermen.

so you see when CCA puts a target on other organizations and fights them every step of the way you must first kill off the festering infection that is CCA so an organization that has fishermens interests at heart can do their work without CCA undermining them every step of the way.

it shouldn't be necessary to take down CCA to get responsible resource management action but there really isn't an alternative since CCA cant help fighting against the interests of fishermen.

if CCA would just shut up and stop trying to hurt fishermen and just build their reefs and let other organizations work to help fishermen without interference from CCA then I would support them, not monetarily but in spirit only.

and of course you have at least one valid link you post here for your case right? A link to any of this above please

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by keakar

in theory you are right, in a perfect world CCA would mind its own business and not interfere with other organizations efforts to help fishermen but CCA works to undermine them so the CCA by its own actions dictates that it MUST be removed from the position they hold where they can forever no longer dictate the agendas or their opinions hold any sway.

CCA actively works against anyone who speaks out or organizations using science based data to try and help fishermen all the while CCA is lobbying against everything other organizations want to do and paying off politicians to ignore the organizations trying to help fishermen.

so you see when CCA puts a target on other organizations and fights them every step of the way you must first kill off the festering infection that is CCA so an organization that has fishermens interests at heart can do their work without CCA undermining them every step of the way.

it shouldn't be necessary to take down CCA to get responsible resource management action but there really isn't an alternative since CCA cant help fighting against the interests of fishermen.

if CCA would just shut up and stop trying to hurt fishermen and just build their reefs and let other organizations work to help fishermen without interference from CCA then I would support them, not monetarily but in spirit only.

Keakar, you are absolutely correct.
CCA is a political organization and they will tell you that out front.
However, if they would have listened to LDWF biologists during the speckled trout gill net controversy - the nets would still be in the water.
Biology's role is to place the biomass population on the table (like speckled trout). It is not biologists' place to say which sector (commercial vs. recreational) gets the better portion - that's a political decision.

But the fact of the matter is...biology has not provided us recently with the data for the public to ascertain the health of the trout fishery in Big Lake. That's a huge problem, and IMO we need to get those answers from any political organization we can.

That's the first step.