Will you continue to Support CCA?

["W"]

Box of lead shot $7
Box of Stell shot $20

I would say out law of lead has driven the price of duck hunting a lot, my dad said they woud get boxes of lead shot for $2 a box and when Steel came out it was around $15 a box

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by "W"

Box of lead shot $7
Box of Stell shot $20

I would say out law of lead has driven the price of duck hunting a lot, my dad said they woud get boxes of lead shot for $2 a box and when Steel came out it was around $15 a box

we all know lead is cheaper than steel.. thanks for stating the obvious.

all im saying is that there are more factors that contribute to the price increase of duck hunting.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

we all know lead is cheaper than steel.. thanks for stating the obvious.

all im saying is that there are more factors that contribute to the price increase of duck hunting.

Sure, but let me put it this way. Suppose that it were certain that the price accessing to land for deer hunting were to increase by 1000% over the next 20 years, would that make it reasonable to ban the use of lead in deer hunting bullets even though that might also increase ammo prices by 1000% over the same time period?

Do the non-governmental factors driving up the cost of land access justify or mitigate the governmental factors driving up the cost of ammunition? Of course not.

Compared with the overall costs of fishing, banning lead in lures and sinkers will only be an incremental cost to the average angler. So are we all in agreement to ban lead in lures and sinkers?

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Sure, but let me put it this way. Suppose that it were certain that the price accessing to land for deer hunting were to increase by 1000% over the next 20 years, would that make it reasonable to ban the use of lead in deer hunting bullets even though that might also increase ammo prices by 1000% over the same time period?

Do the non-governmental factors driving up the cost of land access justify or mitigate the governmental factors driving up the cost of ammunition? Of course not.

Compared with the overall costs of fishing, banning lead in lures and sinkers will only be an incremental cost to the average angler. So are we all in agreement to ban lead in lures and sinkers?

I agree. All im saying is, now days there are MANY factors that contribute to the higher price people are paying to duck hunt, and it is not just because lead is banned.

[Msucowpoke51]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

we all know lead is cheaper than steel.. thanks for stating the obvious.

all im saying is that there are more factors that contribute to the price increase of duck hunting.

kind of like when gas goes up and then out comes a BS excuse that the prices of oil are up because some kid in the middle east took a dump in a puddle of oil .. or at least thats about how all the excuses sound to me lol

["W"]

Kill 1,000 doves in bean field with lead... Flood next year for ducks have to shoot Steal shot

Save the polar bears

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by "W"

Kill 1,000 doves in bean field with lead... Flood next year for ducks have to shoot Steal shot

Save the polar bears

go catch a fish or something

["W"]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

go catch a fish or something

Will ....should you be in Baton Rouge today??

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by "W"

Will ....should you be in Baton Rouge today??

dude must have a man crush on WD...

[southern151]

Originally Posted by "W"

Kill 1,000 doves in bean field with lead... Flood next year for ducks have to shoot Steal shot

Save the polar bears

While I agree with you on very few of the things we often debate here, this really does point out the hypocritical ways of some of our governing bodies.

Now, back to more of "Do you support the CCA?"

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by southern151

While I agree with you on very few of the things we often debate here, this really does point out the hypocritical ways of some of our governing bodies.

Now, back to more of "Do you support the CCA?"

I don't think I can.

I applaud their efforts to improve habitat by reef development and deployment.

But manipulation of political process by pseudoscience to criminalize honest and reasonable sporting and commercial harvests of abundant and available resources earns my disdain.

This is not 1970 or 1980 any more. Conservation groups should be able to foresee how the misuse of governmental power toward ends which seem quite measured and reasonable at the time can set dangerous precedents for more exhaustive and totalitarian power grabs later on.

I recommend Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny" for documentation and descriptions on how past conservation efforts lead to current and future power grabs.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I don't think I can.

I applaud their efforts to improve habitat by reef development and deployment.

But manipulation of political process by pseudoscience to criminalize honest and reasonable sporting and commercial harvests of abundant and available resources earns my disdain.

This is not 1970 or 1980 any more. Conservation groups should be able to foresee how the misuse of governmental power toward ends which seem quite measured and reasonable at the time can set dangerous precedents for more exhaustive and totalitarian power grabs later on.

I recommend Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny" for documentation and descriptions on how past conservation efforts lead to current and future power grabs.

MG the problem with what your stating here remains the same, If we use a flood of anger to defund CCA and nothing is around to "take the reigns" on the good that they do. The net is going to be a huge loss. I think it's very very fair to say that the lobbying work the CCA does to prevent commercial interest's taking hold of gamefish populations like they did 15 years ago, is worth it's weight in gold.

I have always lived a good bit away from the coast so to me it's only a few times a year that i get to come see what the fun really is like in south LA. But i know i have heard many people say that when the Blackened Redfish Craze took over and commercial harvesters kicked it into high gear.... there were some times before CCA started up where redfish became somewhat of a rarity.

(if i am wrong on that someone please correct me) (I lived far away during said time period and only have heard the stories)

Therefore the only viable options are to find some way to get CCA to sing the correct tune.... or to start another organization to do it for them.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

MG the problem with what your stating here remains the same, If we use a flood of anger to defund CCA and nothing is around to "take the reigns" on the good that they do. The net is going to be a huge loss. I think it's very very fair to say that the lobbying work the CCA does to prevent commercial interest's taking hold of gamefish populations like they did 15 years ago, is worth it's weight in gold.

I have always lived a good bit away from the coast so to me it's only a few times a year that i get to come see what the fun really is like in south LA. But i know i have heard many people say that when the Blackened Redfish Craze took over and commercial harvesters kicked it into high gear.... there were some times before CCA started up where redfish became somewhat of a rarity.

(if i am wrong on that someone please correct me) (I lived far away during said time period and only have heard the stories)

Therefore the only viable options are to find some way to get CCA to sing the correct tune.... or to start another organization to do it for them.

I understand the possible dilemma, but I'm not convinced it's real. Consider some imperfect analogies: I'm a life member of the NRA, but in recent years I've sent more money to GOA and JFPO. However, I think my more enduring contributions to RKBA will be through my individual efforts which include:
1. Voting.
2. Training my children, not just in the shooting sports, but also in teaching them the key critical thinking skills to spot political trickery.
3. Bringing my children to Project Appleseed events.
4. Supporting my brother's efforts to use GI Bill funds (through the VA) to train veterans to be NRA instructors.
5. Debunking the bad science behind computerized ballistic identification systems and mandatory registration of ballistic ids (I was a peer reviewer)
6. Raising awareness (at the grassroots level) that the expansion of governmental power at all levels invites tyranny and endangers liberty.

By analogy, I think that organizations that complement CCA and compete for their funding base may well help keep them honest. But real political power still rests predominantly with the voters, so my proposed plan would focus instead on:
1. Voting
2. Training my children, not just in the angling sports, but in critical thinking skills to spot the political trickery.
3. Bringing my children to events that include a great time fishing but also incorporate fundamental aspects of preserving the heritage of fishing for future generations without trampling on the rights of others in the process.
4. Debunking bad science that is used to manipulate environmental and conservation regulations.
5. Beyond this, I am open to suggestions and discussions.

Why do you think an organized group is essential to success? I think most elected officials really fear what the NRA membership will do at the polls more than they fear what the NRA will say about them.

Is the clout of CCA really how they influence regulatory decisions or the fear politicians have about what anglers (including the CCA membership) will do at the polls?

There is one theory that NRA does not really want the Supreme Court to rule in a final and definitive way on the 2nd amendment, because that would deplete their membership and rob their power. Might it be possible that CCA is more interested in the exercise of political clout than in the conservation principles it espouses?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Kill 1,000 doves in bean field with lead... Flood next year for ducks have to shoot Steal shot

Save the polar bears

You bring up an excellent point. On most federal lands, lead shot is not allowed for shotguns and it is rightfully so in my opinion (study after study will show you that spent lead kills birds)


BUT, could you imagine the butthurt if LDWF came out and said that lead shot could no longer be used for doves It would be a riot in Baton Rouge, and every sportsmens website would be blowing up - BUT it makes total 'cents', the science is there and it makes sense but this is where the general public voicing their opinions comes into play (just like the tripletail thread). What would MG say about that I wonder? The science supports it? Hmm, what you say MG?

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You bring up an excellent point. On most federal lands, lead shot is not allowed for shotguns and it is rightfully so in my opinion (study after study will show you that spent lead kills birds)


BUT, could you imagine the butthurt if LDWF came out and said that lead shot could no longer be used for doves It would be a riot in Baton Rouge, and every sportsmens website would be blowing up - BUT it makes total 'cents', the science is there and it makes sense but this is where the general public voicing their opinions comes into play (just like the tripletail thread). What would MG say about that I wonder? The science supports it? Hmm, what you say MG?

So you are saying that "political agenda" is holding the state back from banning lead for doves. You're catching on now

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

So you are saying that "political agenda" is holding the state back from banning lead for doves. You're catching on now

Interesting question. Is lead shot used in upland hunting having a negative impact on given species at the population level? Which species? Cite the studies. Does the negative impact justify the increased costs of banning lead?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

So you are saying that "political agenda" is holding the state back from banning lead for doves. You're catching on now

Nice try

No one has presented a case for it yet. The data is there though, its 'the elephant in the room', (much like blinds on Catahoula Lake). Everyone is aware of it, but until someone starts pushing, its not going to be brought up, BUT it will be brought up eventually and the data will support a ban if they really push it Oh what a sihtstorm that will be, oh lawd!

I think its ridiculous that we can shoot lead at doves and then flood a field right behind it, or shoot snipe with lead on the very field we just duck hunted on Its common sense

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Nice try

No one has presented a case for it yet. The data is there though, its 'the elephant in the room', (much like blinds on Catahoula Lake). Everyone is aware of it, but until someone starts pushing, its not going to be brought up, BUT it will be brought up eventually and the data will support a ban if they really push it Oh what a sihtstorm that will be, oh lawd!

I think its ridiculous that we can shoot lead at doves and then flood a field right behind it, or shoot snipe with lead on the very field we just duck hunted on Its common sense

Exactly. The evidence is there, but they keep their mouth shut about it. May be the same reason we still have to wait until 12:00 noon to shoot doves. Lol

[Super Spook]

I also think it is more expensive to most everything than it was 20 years ago. Steel shot has certainly helped, but land/ lease cost and access have more to do with than anything I would think.

Back on topic, I will say that CCA has done a bunch of good for our state and fisheries. I know they have treaded in areas that all don't agree with and they should be held accountable if they are backing something without the proper science to enforce regulation. All who disagree need to go to the meeting, form a petition, make sure MG is there and try to get the answers you want to hear. They ask and want public comment. I know there are politics involved this is Louisiana people. At least you can say you tried.

[Spunt Drag]

Duck butter is drunker than Cooter Brown from the Kool-Aid I don't even know where to begin.