Will you continue to Support CCA?

[I make oil]

Sorry about the typos on a iPad

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

As far as tripletail - really guys? You are upset that the Coastal CONSERVATION Association is on board with CONSERVING fishing for future generations? There are new studies coming out on tripletail (finally) and CCA is just going along with scientific data to manage our fisheries. Oh no, the sky is falling


After all thats what 'WE' want right? Management of our fisheries to be based on science? There have been numerous discussions about the 15 trout limit on Big Lake, and most of you on here say that 'limits should be based on science', well here you go whats the problem

Is it really going to effect anyone here that much if there is a limit on tripletail now?

My problem is not the limit my problem is the way they go about it. If there are new studies coming out, and youve seen them can you post a copy or a link to them? If there is data to support a limit I can accept that. Is there some kind of stock assessment included in this data? I would like to know how they came up with the number 5. If there is no stock assessment than maybe 5 is too many. That is the point I'm trying to make. CCA has a track record of not following scientific data so why would they start now?

[CAMP CANARD]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

As far as tripletail - really guys? You are upset that the Coastal CONSERVATION Association is on board with CONSERVING fishing for future generations? There are new studies coming out on tripletail (finally) and CCA is just going along with scientific data to manage our fisheries. Oh no, the sky is falling


After all thats what 'WE' want right? Management of our fisheries to be based on science? There have been numerous discussions about the 15 trout limit on Big Lake, and most of you on here say that 'limits should be based on science', well here you go whats the problem

Is it really going to effect anyone here that much if there is a limit on tripletail now?

X2 !
Yea lets just go out and load our Boats with TT's, and then you can tell your grandkids how there was no limit in our day, and that's why you can't keep 1 now.
Bottom line is many outdoorsman.....Fisherman or Hunters do not like to be regulated/told what they can and can't do with our natural resources ! GAMEHOGS ! Get as many as you can on your stringer or strap, take some pictures to show all of your buds what I...I ....I did !! I know of plenty of these types and I am not impressed at all.

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by CAMP CANARD

X2 !
Yea lets just go out and load our Boats with TT's, and then you can tell your grandkids how there was no limit in our day, and that's why you can't keep 1 now.
Bottom line is many outdoorsman.....Fisherman or Hunters do not like to be regulated/told what they can and can't do with our natural resources ! GAMEHOGS ! Get as many as you can on your stringer or strap, take some pictures to show all of your buds what I...I ....I did !! I know of plenty of these types and I am not impressed at all.

I would support a limit if they had the scientific data to back it up. I do NOT support this "Will Drost said so BS"

[Gottogo49]

I have made a personal choice not to gamble. I do not purchase state lottery tickets. I don't like the fact that by fishing in the waters of Louisiana, I am entered into the CCA redfish lottery, like it or not. I have been a CCA member in the past but I do not agree with some of their latest decisions, therefore I am not a current CCA member. Without the redfish lottery, I think that the CCA membership would be much lower. I wonder if someone could capture 10 ducks, band them with a special band and charge all hunters $50 to enter their forced lottery? Sorry, just my 2c.

[all star rod]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

. I do NOT support this "Will Drost said so BS"

Lmao....post of the week..

[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.

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

I would support a limit if they had the scientific data to back it up. I do NOT support this "Will Drost said so BS"

exactly

[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)

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by CAMP CANARD

X2 !
Yea lets just go out and load our Boats with TT's, and then you can tell your grandkids how there was no limit in our day, and that's why you can't keep 1 now.
Bottom line is many outdoorsman.....Fisherman or Hunters do not like to be regulated/told what they can and can't do with our natural resources ! GAMEHOGS ! Get as many as you can on your stringer or strap, take some pictures to show all of your buds what I...I ....I did !! I know of plenty of these types and I am not impressed at all.

And you have scientific evidence that this will happen right? Another Texan mad about their conservative limits.

[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.

[CAMP CANARD]

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag

And you have scientific evidence that this will happen right? Another Texan mad about their conservative limits.

Obviously you didn't read, or can't read my post.
And as always.....bring Texas up in the conversation. I bet money it would come up !

[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

[3FLa]

With all due respect, duck buttter you must be drinking more than kool-aid. Please do not confused "or" with the word "and".

CCA mission, as per its website is "conserve, promote and enhance the present and future availability of these coastal resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public.

So, I guess CCA does not think that when the general public cannot fish in a public waterway it is promoting or enhancing coastal resources (Fish are coastal resources).

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). He

I am well aware that CCA likes to neglect to tell its members of its self serving agenda, but please gets your facts straight before you get in this argument.

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.

Finally, please understand that everything I posted is public record, not what I think, hope to believe or dream in a drunken stuper.

[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]

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 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.

["W"]

I think WD hacked Duck Butters account