CCA backs raise of license fee- Thoughts?

[biggun]

CajunMade

U are seriously misguided.. Please explain UR hatred for CCA... Are U a bow-fishing guide??

I'll stood UP at a State committee meeting and expressed by humble opinion about the Bow-fishing bill.. I was AGAINST IT..

I'm not a cool-aid drinker.. I can still support an organization, and disagree with one or 2 things they advocate that I disagree with..

Please, I'm quite intelligent, I can make Up my own mind..

If U think, me saying I'm going to punch ANYONE in the mouth, is a federal offense???

Please!!!!!!!!! Tell me where I find that law???

Again U are serious mistaken about myself and anyone that post on here supporting CCA, If U think we blindly follow CCA.. It's a volunteer organization.. I'm a NON-PAID VOLUNTEER..

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by KDM

The empirical data may support your hypothesis, hence my suggestion regarding research.

GCCA was born in the 1980s centered around putting new regulations in place to protect redfish from commercial over harvesting associated with the blackened redfish craze. Protecting redfish was most of their emphasis in the 1980s and 1990s, along with banning gill nets. In this period, most of their supported political positions were scientifically sound.

Reading CCAs version of their history, one would think that since 2000, they are satisfied with the protection afforded to the fish by the current regulations and are content with improving and protecting habitat (rigs to reefs, oyster reefs, inshore artificial reefs). Their self-described history tends to hide their ongoing involvement in promoting more restrictive regulations and increasing the burden on recreational anglers.

The 2005 speckled trout bag and possession limit changes in Big Lake, the 2013 attempted LA limit change in tripletail, and the 136% license fee increase are only a few examples. They generally have taken a big gov't, anti-science view point of better safe than sorry and shifting the burden of proof to advocates for liberty rather than to advocates for ever increasing restrictions and burdens on recreational anglers. "Erring on the side of caution" as conservation policy loves to say no to harvest and loves to expand regulations when there is no sound support in the data to do so. Thus their positions on tripletail and speck limits in LA.

Following the same approach CCA has also pushed for more restrictive redfish limits in FL. In 2007, they pushed to further restrict the slot limit from 18-27" to 21-27", maintain the limit of one redfish, and close the month of October to recreational harvest. In 2010, they opposed FWC's proposed data-driven limit from 1 to 2 redfish in areas of FL where the data supported an increase. They seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to adopt more restrictive regulations based on observations of increased fishing pressure without fully understanding stock assessments. Banning of all redfish harvest in federal waters and banning all commercial harvest of redfish in state waters has led to a tremendous recovery of redfish stocks thus allowing increased recreational harvests.

Observations of increased fishing pressure was also a motive for the speck limit change in LA in 2005 and for the attempted restrictive limits in tripletail in 2013. This habitual reaction to call for more restrictive regulations neglects the fact that most recreational anglers catch nowhere near the limit on most trips. It also assumes that the stock is incapable of supporting a larger harvest.

CCA would do well to move away from the big gov't approach of conservation via ever increasing regulation of recreational fisheries and stick to habitat conservation and restoration.

[Duck Butter]

just remember that false information spreads just as fast as the truth and the more people spread it the more people believe it as fact


this thread has potential for 20+ pages

[Duck Butter]

For the record, I am for an increase in licenses especially if it is going to research purposes. Our licenses are very cheap comparable to everywhere else. $7.50 would be the least expensive thing I buy to go fishing

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

For the record, I am for an increase in licenses especially if it is going to research purposes.

On what do you base your confidence that the extra $ would go for research rather than being raided just like the $26 Million reef fund was raided?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

On what do you base your confidence that the extra $ would go for research rather than being raided just like the $26 Million reef fund was raided?

I said I would support it to go towards research, nothing more nothing less, the end.


However, if we really wanted to raise some money, every time you type the word 'government' you put a dollar into a fund and everytime you type 'draconian sanctions' a $20 bill goes in, would have unlimited funds by next year

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I said I would support it to go towards research, nothing more nothing less, the end.


However, if we really wanted to raise some money, every time you type the word 'government' you put a dollar into a fund and everytime you type 'draconian sanctions' a $20 bill goes in, would have unlimited funds by next year

lmao..now thats a great idea

[MathGeek]

Money is fungible. Dedicated funds and lock boxes of government funds are myths designed to take more hard earned money from citizens.

Money in gov't hands is used to grow the size of government. Growth in government usually leads to more restrictive regulations as all those government employees seek to justify their existence.

Examples are abundant, exceptions are rare.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Money is fungible. Dedicated funds and lock boxes of government funds are myths designed to take more hard earned money from citizens.

Money in gov't hands is used to grow the size of government. Growth in government usually leads to more restrictive regulations as all those government employees seek to justify their existence.

Examples are abundant, exceptions are rare.

5 times right there in just 4 sentences We got this y'all, we gonna have so much research money

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

5 times right there in just 4 sentences We got this y'all, we gonna have so much research money

A big gov't initiative to tax free speech would likely fail. A big gov't push to mock free speech will at least distract attention from the real issues while gov't continues to grow under increasing regulatory, fee, and tax burdens. Congratulations on your ability to obfuscate the issues by avoidance.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

A big gov't initiative to tax free speech would likely fail. A big gov't push to mock free speech will at least distract attention from the real issues while gov't continues to grow under increasing regulatory, fee, and tax burdens. Congratulations on your ability to obfuscate the issues by avoidance.

The bill says $7.50 for the purpose of research. I am all for that, look at our snapper issue. There is very much a lack of data out there (on both the feds and state). Its very expensive to conduct research offshore (look at how much fuel costs have gone up in recent years). With extra money, LDWF can conduct research and have sufficient data that they can use in defense of setting regulations for us and get the feds out of it. When you go to a meeting with the feds to try and prove a point that red snapper or whatever seasons are not justified, it really helps to have a ton of data to drive home your point.

Where that money actually goes to is another story altogether. I don't trust politicians at all especially Louisiana ones Just saying I support extra money to go towards research. If $7.50 keeps you from fishing saltwater, then just think before you buy that one 6 pack of beer or 2 cans of skoal, 5 packs of M&Ms, one pack of Vudu Skrimps, etc. and you can afford it.

[3FLa]

Biggun, as I said, you like to run your mouth on a keyboard but keep in shut in public when I am around. As to federal law, when you use the internet to get a group of people to conspire to physically harm someone, then you have broken federal and state law. You may not be as smart as you think you are.

It is typical CCA mentality that when you cannot argue the facts attack someone personally. Well your mouth and fingers do not scare me.

I dislike CCA of Lousiiana because it is a self serving group of liars. Nothing more, nothing less. I am a heavy supporter of CCAUSA, because it is real. You want to know how their funds are spent, ask them, they will tell you, verbally and in writing. Go ask CCA of Louisiana that question, and see if you get an answer.

Here are facts, not my opinion:

(1) CCA fabricated the data it had on bowfishing, then lied in a legislative hearing, under oath, about the data;

(2) CCA lied about the data it had on tripletail;

(3) CCA, despite its mission statement, refuses to take a stand on public vs. private waterways;

(4) Despite constant pleading from Ted Venker (V.P. CCA USA), and Vitter's office, CCA of Louisiana failed to appear at a United States Enviromental and Public Works committee hearing on SB 1079 (Rigs to Reef); thus the bill died in committee;

(5) Just recently (March 26, 2014) CCA of Louisiana failed to appear, despite multiple request to do so, at a Washignton D.C. administrative hearing on catch shares. Commercial fishermen, in a suit by Gary Jarvis, were cleary successful regarding red snapper. That decision, which will greatly restrict the recreational fishermen, was just confirmed by a D.C. federal court on Monday;

(6) CCA of Louisiana is owned by a group of individuals from Texas(Louisiana Sec. of State records), who owned interest in companies that remove oil rigs from the Gulf of Mexico at a great profit (La. Mineral Board lease argeements and Texas Sec. of State records;

(7) CCA lied to its membership about its relationship with the Louisiana Landowners Assocaition until your Grand PuPyia was put under oath and had to admit it works with LSA on numerous projects. (Maybe that explains fact #3).

I was at every one of the above mentioned hearings, and have copies of all transcripts, which are public record. I also heard numerous lawmakers in Washington and Louisiana refer to your little group as the Capitol Clowns Association, references which still remain on public record at the Library of Congress.

You see, bigmouth, we spent a considerable about of money to investigate CCA of Louisiana before we make allegations. What I stated above are facts, not opinions. Your very latest post states a whole lot about CCA of Louisiana. You and others admit you protested bowfishing ban, yet your "board" went against its very own membership in pushing that issue. Oh, I sorry, the membership did not get a vote, the board made the decision in executive session re: the bowfishing ban.

Again your threats have fallen on deaf ears. So go to your little revivals, get lied to, then appear on CCA's behalf at public functions.

For those who cannot t recognize the "board" members, here is a tip: They are the grown men, who are wearing heavily starched purple Cabelas' fishing shirts, with an embroided gold "CCA" on the front. These grown men, will be wearing goofy looking fishing shorts, with a belt that has either colored fish on it or bearing a multiple silver stamped "LSU". These guys will also have some type of strange fishing shoes on.

As a whole, these clowns will look like illegitmate queer offspring from an illicit affair involving Mike the Tiger and Wilma Flintstone.

And if that is not enough info, these clowns will be the arrogant, want-to-be fishermen, who think they fish better than anyone else because of the before mentioned costume.

Caveat: This in by no means bash of my beloved Tigers, I have two degress from LSU. It is just an statement of fact about CCA.

["W"]

I stopped supporting Cca ( which I donated a fair share amount every year) when they spent 600,000 on a reef to sunshine pump a former members name with bouys but yet done ZERO to stop oyster fisherman raping our Lake!!!!!!!

Reefs do noting with out resources


That's when my $$$ stopped



When CCA starts showing up for some good and not for a front page look at us story about a 600,000 plus reef which is useless if you can't stop erosion or rapping

[biggun]

CCA and its volunteer members Are Leading the fight to free our state from the Red Snapper debacle.. The Gulf Council are having public meetings concerning the limits and seasons..

I've attended the 2 Gulf Council public meetings, that I was home for... During the Public comment meeting held in New Orleans concerning Amendment 28 alternative 5. Which states that If More Than 9.2 million pds of Snaps are allowed? Rec.'s would get 75 % of that overage allotment; Commercial 's25%..

They had way more recreational fisherman there in N. O. than commercial..

I don't think there were any REC.s there that were NOT CCA supporter or members.

CCA Louisiana is LEADING THE FIGHT TO Get Snap assessments data updated to new science data collecting..

As well as getting longer seasons an more reasonable limits..

If anyone feels like they want to affect chance?? Get INVOLVED... I didn't see one Other Member of SC at that Public Meeting on Red Snaps ....

Several months ago CCA sponsored a public meeting (public comment) which as held in Lafayette.. Many local SC members attended that meeting..

If we all banded together, We can EFFECT Chance..

Thks

Biggun

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by biggun

If we all banded together, We can EFFECT Chance..

Thks

Biggun

Maybe change too.

The red snapper issue is probably my area of greatest agreement with CCA. However, not that the issue seems bound up in the courts, it's going to be driven by what expert witnesses say on the stand rather than by what citizens say at meetings. Citizen pressure is best applied to Congress to get laws changed and to get the new boundary approved. The Gulf council is deaf, deaf, deaf to both citizens and science. Their scientists are deaf, deaf, deaf.

Results and data from as yet unperformed and not yet funded studies is unlikely to be complete and published in time to impact the outcomes of ongoing red snapper court battles. Fortunately, there is plenty of data in the GMFMC data bases, in the SEAMAP data, in published theses, in the LDWF data, and in the data compiled by Alabama based scientists (Szedlmayer, Shipp, etc.) already in hand to make these main points:

1. The unit stock hypothesis is wrong. This was the original justification for federalizing red snapper management in the Gulf of Mexico.

2. Current red snapper populations in the northern and western Gulf are abundant and will support much higher harvest levels.

3. The models used by GMFMC result from cherry picking the data most favorable to Crabtree and Cowan's viewpoints and excluding the data supporting points 1 and 2 above.

4. Mathematical models better designed to produce probabilistic projections accurately reflecting the uncertainties in the underlying data have been ignored in favor of models producing overly confident projections better suited to manipulating regulations.

Discrediting Cowan, Crabtree, and their co-conspirators handling of the data would be much more productive than the expensive and time consuming process of designing new experiments and collecting additional data.

[keakar]

CCA like any other organization can be corrupted by politics and voices that don't speak for the majority.

if you like the positions they stand for then join, be a member, be a volunteer.

but if you don't like the positions they stand for, then,use your voice to openly oppose their positions on things and clearly and publicly voice your reasons for doing so.

when they see large numbers of people take notice and it shows up in the form of the revenue streams start drying up, they will have to rethink their positions and return to those issues the majority of their supporters care about and be on their side of the arguments and not trying to restrict our fishing rights for no science based reason other then just because it feels like its a good idea to do so. if revenue streams aren't affected then they know they are on the right path and their supporters like the positions they are taking on things.

I don't want to hurt CCA and I think they mean well, but ...

IMO they have become more about political activism and feel good legislations then science based conservation now. I think the way to return them to what we think is the right path is to work from within and from the outside to let them know they no longer speak for the majority of their supporters when they take the positions they do on certain things.

IMO instead of working to protect fishermans rights they have become environmentalists who often look to restrict those rights through increased fees and regulations.

maybe they haven't changed at all and they never were on our side but rather we had a few interests that happen to be the same so we mistakenly "thought" they think like we do? who knows for sure but like them or don't like them, support them or don't support them, its as simple as that.

one thing is true, they stand for the positions they take and the positions they take speaks volumes as to their goals and agendas so opinions don't really matter, just look at what they do and are trying to do.

["W"]

Originally Posted by biggun

CCA and its volunteer members Are Leading the fight to free our state from the Red Snapper debacle.. The Gulf Council are having public meetings concerning the limits and seasons..

I've attended the 2 Gulf Council public meetings, that I was home for... During the Public comment meeting held in New Orleans concerning Amendment 28 alternative 5. Which states that If More Than 9.2 million pds of Snaps are allowed? Rec.'s would get 75 % of that overage allotment; Commercial 's25%..

They had way more recreational fisherman there in N. O. than commercial..

I don't think there were any REC.s there that were NOT CCA supporter or members.

CCA Louisiana is LEADING THE FIGHT TO Get Snap assessments data updated to new science data collecting..

As well as getting longer seasons an more reasonable limits..

If anyone feels like they want to affect chance?? Get INVOLVED... I didn't see one Other Member of SC at that Public Meeting on Red Snaps ....

Several months ago CCA sponsored a public meeting (public comment) which as held in Lafayette.. Many local SC members attended that meeting..

If we all banded together, We can EFFECT Chance..

Thks


Biggun

Screw snapper, how many days a year can one get out and fish snapper??? You can fish speckle trout, reds and flounder just about 300 days a year

Fight to save that.... talked to an offshore charter boat guide who said he might have 60 days give or take of days with good weather to make successful trips with customer

[Top Dawg]

The tripletail issue was the last straw for me I too have washed my hands with CCA

[mr crab]

Im done with CCA too....they just emailed me a couple weeks ago to tell me how to vote on proposed changes to TPWD trout and flounder limits. I followed the link, and voted the opposite way of everything they were pushing. I was in the extreme minority however....next year, from just south of galveston to brownsville, the daily bag limit on trout is 5. and they have extended the stupid azz 2 flounder limit in november into december a couple weeks. cca can forget about any money they used to get from me

[mr crab]

The law makers are about to "manage" themselves right out of fishermen. Making the limits so small is gonna keep a lot of people off the water. They gonna end up with a bay full off fish that nobody is interested in catching. And if y'all think Galveston and Sabine ain't next, just wait and see. Does this sound like deceased snapper regs to anybody? Lower the limit to where most people aren't interested in spending the time or money to catch em, then boom extreme overpopulation, causing deceased forage for other species. Recreational harvest is a tool that can help keep things in balance.