Will you continue to Support CCA?

[MathGeek]

The burden to provide sound scientific support should always be on those suggesting increased regulation.

A Constitutional Republic is based on the idea that the liberty of individuals should only be restricted in cases of demonstrated necessity. The position that tighter limits are always good conservation is not only bad science, it is contrary to the ideas of liberty that the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve.

Copying other states is rarely sound science based wildlife management. Asserting the sexual maturity of a fish as the basis for a minimum length limit is not scientific management. For example, it has been shown and is well known that the sexual maturity of redfish is actually a good cause to restrict harvest of sexually mature fish.

Restrictions on liberty (tighter limits) that carry criminal penalties should be supported with good science, including stock assessments, condition indices, and understanding the role of the species in the overall food web.

The debacle with red snapper is actually endangering other species because the Draconian restrictions on red snapper are allowing them to become overpopulated in some areas to the detriment of their food sources and to the harm of other species that red snapper compete with for food and habitat.

Overly restrictive harvest limits is not good conservation. Good conservation allows sustainable harvests to prevent overpopulation for the benefit of the overall habitat and food web.

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The burden to provide sound scientific support should always be on those suggesting increased regulation.

A Constitutional Republic is based on the idea that the liberty of individuals should only be restricted in cases of demonstrated necessity. The position that tighter limits are always good conservation is not only bad science, it is contrary to the ideas of liberty that the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve.

Copying other states is rarely sound science based wildlife management. Asserting the sexual maturity of a fish as the basis for a minimum length limit is not scientific management. For example, it has been shown and is well known that the sexual maturity of redfish is actually a good cause to restrict harvest of sexually mature fish.

Restrictions on liberty (tighter limits) that carry criminal penalties should be supported with good science, including stock assessments, condition indices, and understanding the role of the species in the overall food web.

The debacle with red snapper is actually endangering other species because the Draconian restrictions on red snapper are allowing them to become overpopulated in some areas to the detriment of their food sources and to the harm of other species that red snapper compete with for food and habitat.

Overly restrictive harvest limits is not good conservation. Good conservation allows sustainable harvests to prevent overpopulation for the benefit of the overall habitat and food web.

My point exactly

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The burden to provide sound scientific support should always be on those suggesting increased regulation.

A Constitutional Republic is based on the idea that the liberty of individuals should only be restricted in cases of demonstrated necessity. The position that tighter limits are always good conservation is not only bad science, it is contrary to the ideas of liberty that the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve.

Copying other states is rarely sound science based wildlife management. Asserting the sexual maturity of a fish as the basis for a minimum length limit is not scientific management. For example, it has been shown and is well known that the sexual maturity of redfish is actually a good cause to restrict harvest of sexually mature fish.

Restrictions on liberty (tighter limits) that carry criminal penalties should be supported with good science, including stock assessments, condition indices, and understanding the role of the species in the overall food web.

The debacle with red snapper is actually endangering other species because the Draconian restrictions on red snapper are allowing them to become overpopulated in some areas to the detriment of their food sources and to the harm of other species that red snapper compete with for food and habitat.

Overly restrictive harvest limits is not good conservation. Good conservation allows sustainable harvests to prevent overpopulation for the benefit of the overall habitat and food web.

Thank you

[I make oil]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The burden to provide sound scientific support should always be on those suggesting increased regulation.

A Constitutional Republic is based on the idea that the liberty of individuals should only be restricted in cases of demonstrated necessity. The position that tighter limits are always good conservation is not only bad science, it is contrary to the ideas of liberty that the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve.

Copying other states is rarely sound science based wildlife management. Asserting the sexual maturity of a fish as the basis for a minimum length limit is not scientific management. For example, it has been shown and is well known that the sexual maturity of redfish is actually a good cause to restrict harvest of sexually mature fish.

Restrictions on liberty (tighter limits) that carry criminal penalties should be supported with good science, including stock assessments, condition indices, and understanding the role of the species in the overall food web.

The debacle with red snapper is actually endangering other species because the Draconian restrictions on red snapper are allowing them to become overpopulated in some areas to the detriment of their food sources and to the harm of other species that red snapper compete with for food and habitat.

Overly restrictive harvest limits is not good conservation. Good conservation allows sustainable harvests to prevent overpopulation for the benefit of the overall habitat and food web.

Excellent post. Two thumbs up.

[toodeep]

I have not supported them in the past 5 years. they are an organization that is like watch my right hand and no the left. the members on the board are profiting from the removal of the platforms in which all of us fish. I can not see how anyone can just turn their head because of a few prizes.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by toodeep

I have not supported them in the past 5 years. they are an organization that is like watch my right hand and no the left. the members on the board are profiting from the removal of the platforms in which all of us fish. I can not see how anyone can just turn their head because of a few prizes.

, CCA is very very much against removing platforms, its in every issue of their magazine, all on their website, and they are very vocal about getting this stopped. Try again. If you will dig a little deeper, you will see that the Rigs to Reefs Program was actually raided by our very own Bobby Jindal, there is no money in the program and the oil companies are doing what they are REQUIRED BY LAW to do. CCA is trying to be the go between and figure out how to get past the liability issue of leaving these rigs standing)

[Duck Butter]

There IS scientific data You guys posted it, it shows the whole ecology/biology of tripletail (when they breed, how much they breed, age at sexual maturity, etc.) and that data will be examined, discussed, and a best management strategy will be proposed on the information that is provided. THIS is how regulations are proposed. Its not that big a deal.
The commission hasn't even voted on this yet, just a letter of INTENT. Write them, email them, whatever. Its not time to get up in arms yet.

Oh no, I may only be able keep 5 tripletail, what am I going to do? LDWF and CCA are trying to kill our fisheries

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

There IS scientific data You guys posted it, it shows the whole ecology/biology of tripletail (when they breed, how much they breed, age at sexual maturity, etc.) and that data will be examined, discussed, and a best management strategy will be proposed on the information that is provided. THIS is how regulations are proposed. Its not that big a deal.
The commission hasn't even voted on this yet, just a letter of INTENT. Write them, email them, whatever. Its not time to get up in arms yet.

Oh no, I may only be able keep 5 tripletail, what am I going to do? LDWF and CCA are trying to kill our fisheries

Some people are so dense. Please stop posting about their sexual maturity, we get it, we don't care. Stock Assessments, come back when you have relevant info please, 'cause all you've got right now, is when 3tails hump, and a pic of a dude who caught a 100 of em so lets freak out about it.

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag

Some people are so dense. Please stop posting about their sexual maturity, we get it, we don't care. Stock Assessments, come back when you have relevant info please, 'cause all you've got right now, is when 3tails hump, and a pic of a dude who caught a 100 of em so lets freak out about it.

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

[I make oil]

No offense meant Camp Canard but this discussion on the TT limit is a Louisiana regulatory issue. Texas and the Louisiana are vastly different estuaries. I think that's the purpose of mentioning Texas. Should Louisiana sportsman have a say in your states regulations?

I've never caught a TT. I've seen them and think there cool but have no desire to target them. My issue with CCA is more about the access issue and thier hesitancy to weigh in on current issues pertaining to access and other membership concerns. Red snapper, rigs to reef funds etc. Gill nets are in the past. What have you done for me lately?

I'm a member of DU and Delta Waterfowl. They both work towards conservation of Ducks. I personally think Delta Waterfowl coming on the sceen has snapped DU back into its stated mission. CCA needs something similar to compete for the anglers conservation dollars to get them in line with membership wishes and their own mission statement.

[CAMP CANARD]

Originally Posted by I make oil

No offense meant Camp Canard but this discussion on the TT limit is a Louisiana regulatory issue. Texas and the Louisiana are vastly different estuaries. I think that's the purpose of mentioning Texas. Should Louisiana sportsman have a say in your states regulations?

I've never caught a TT. I've seen them and think there cool but have no desire to target them. My issue with CCA is more about the access issue and thier hesitancy to weigh in on current issues pertaining to access and other membership concerns. Red snapper, rigs to reef funds etc. Gill nets are in the past. What have you done for me lately?

I'm a member of DU and Delta Waterfowl. They both work towards conservation of Ducks. I personally think Delta Waterfowl coming on the sceen has snapped DU back into its stated mission. CCA needs something similar to compete for the anglers conservation dollars to get them in line with membership wishes and their own mission statement.

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.

[Tomball Tiger]

Originally Posted by CAMP CANARD

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.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by CAMP CANARD

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 !

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.

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

EXACTLY!!!

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by CAMP CANARD

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.

Apples to Bowling balls. Migratory bird populations are extensively researched every year and regulations are managed accordingly. When you come up with a better argument than "Why do y'all need more than 5?" then let us know, TEXAN!!!

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag

Apples to Bowling balls. Migratory bird populations are extensively researched every year and regulations are managed accordingly. When you come up with a better argument than "Why do y'all need more than 5?" then let us know, TEXAN!!!

Migratory bird populations are estimates as well, just as the tripletail studies and there have been extensive studies done as per this:

David Cresson, executive director of the Coastal Conservation Association-Louisiana, told the commission his organization supports the implementation of regulations on tripletail.
"There is limited information in general on tripletail, but it's extensive in other parts of the country," he said. "We've been visiting with scientists, and the information is undeniable: Eighteen inches is where they become sexually mature."

There is no such thing as a Louisiana tripletail, they are a migratory species, they do not know state lines. What is seen in Alabama and Mississippi tripletail populations would be the same here, unlike red snapper which do not migrate and is why I think our state's red snapper fishery should be managed by us

[CAMP CANARD]

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag

Apples to Bowling balls. Migratory bird populations are extensively researched every year and regulations are managed accordingly. When you come up with a better argument than "Why do y'all need more than 5?" then let us know, TEXAN!!!

I don't recall saying "why you need more than 5".
10-4 on the Ducks research and regulations. Would you have a problem with LDWF doing the same with 3 tailers, and manage accordingly ? Does LDWF research Trout, Redfish, etc. ?
My point has not changed. Nobody wants to be told how many you can keep. Lets just catch as many as we can NOW, and the heck with the future of the Fish. Who cares if my kids/grandkids ever know of there existence ?

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by CAMP CANARD

I don't recall saying "why you need more than 5".
10-4 on the Ducks research and regulations. Would you have a problem with LDWF doing the same with 3 tailers, and manage accordingly ? Does LDWF research Trout, Redfish, etc. ?
My point has not changed. Nobody wants to be told how many you can keep. Lets just catch as many as we can NOW, and the heck with the future of the Fish. Who cares if my kids/grandkids ever know of existence ?

Yep, I'm tryin to fish 'em to extinction, I wish these Out-of-Towners would mind their own business and let us exterminate these things. C'mon man, you're gettin a little radical now.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Migratory bird populations are estimates as well, just as the tripletail studies and there have been extensive studies done as per this:

David Cresson, executive director of the Coastal Conservation Association-Louisiana, told the commission his organization supports the implementation of regulations on tripletail.
"There is limited information in general on tripletail, but it's extensive in other parts of the country," he said. "We've been visiting with scientists, and the information is undeniable: Eighteen inches is where they become sexually mature."

There is no such thing as a Louisiana tripletail, they are a migratory species, they do not know state lines. What is seen in Alabama and Mississippi tripletail populations would be the same here, unlike red snapper which do not migrate and is why I think our state's red snapper fishery should be managed by us

Sooooooo.......You're sayin they have no idea, they just S.W.A.G. it. Kind of what we're gettin at.......

["W"]

I think WD hacked Duck Butters account

[noodle creek]

"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