Another Reason to Boycott S.T.A.R.: Tripletail regulations passed

["W"]

Texas guys post pictures of huge trout on stringers
CCA says cut limit

Few Guides go rape 3tail on a once in lifetime trip and post pictures
CCA says need limit

I'm going catch 500 sheephead and post pic to see of we can get limit

[keakar]

dats about da size of it

[Reefman]

I see there are quite a few fishermen with valid concerns toward the future of fishing on BL. I also see there is quite a lot of bashing aimed at the one conservation organization that is in place that can give almost immediate help in our efforts to improve and turn around conditions on BL.
I strongly recommend a sit down with the Lake Charles chapter of CCA and prioritize exactly what we want done on BL....Stop Oyster dredging, repair the wash-outs and address the openings of the weirs. I feel that once the ship channel has been contained with just a few openings to the lake, salinities will drop in the lake proper allowing free flowing water through the weirs for most of the year.
I hate the idea of re-inventing the wheel but if CCA doesn't want to get involved in our plight, then by all means stop giving them your money and re-direct these funds to a more local, focused grass roots organization that will stand up for our issues. This organization might have to be started up by concerned outdoorsman such as ourselves. BL Preservation Association might work. Keep objectives simple and few with everyone on board in agreement. A house divided can't accomplish a thing.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reefman

I strongly recommend a sit down with the Lake Charles chapter of CCA and prioritize exactly what we want done on BL....Stop Oyster dredging, repair the wash-outs and address the openings of the weirs. I feel that once the ship channel has been contained with just a few openings to the lake, salinities will drop in the lake proper allowing free flowing water through the weirs for most of the year.

This approach seems to down play the fact that numerous concerned anglers and guides have already been doing this for many years. This isn't 2005. CCA has been informed of and has chosen to ignore these important concerns for a looooooong time in favor of other priorities (decreasing speck limits, imposing tripletail limits, banning bowfishing, increasing fees, etc.)

How is your approach different from "give CCA your money for one more year"?

How many years is enough?

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

How is your approach different from "give CCA your money for one more year"?

How many years is enough?

If an open meeting with concerned BL fishermen and the LC CCA chapter cannot come up with an agreement of total support of our issues then we know our efforts will have to come from a new grass roots front. I feel this can be set up within a month giving ample time to schedule such a meeting. I would strongly suggest the State Director of CCA be in attendance to give a thumbs up or down to our requests.

I do agree time is of the essence. By mid summer we should all know exactly where the State and CCA stands on BL fishery resources. I would be very careful in biting the hand that feeds the money to accomplish building of rock banks along with closing oyster dredging in BL namely WLF. We must maintain a working and amiable relationship with this State Dept.....just like CCA has done.

I see nothing wrong with having an additional conservation group that is focused and solely committed to the betterment of BL. Pontchartrain has a very active one that seems to be working well.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reefman

If an open meeting with concerned BL fishermen and the LC CCA chapter cannot come up with an agreement of total support of our issues then we know our efforts will have to come from a new grass roots front. I feel this can be set up within a month giving ample time to schedule such a meeting. I would strongly suggest the State Director of CCA be in attendance to give a thumbs up or down to our requests.

I do agree time is of the essence. By mid summer we should all know exactly where the State and CCA stands on BL fishery resources. I would be very careful in biting the hand that feeds the money to accomplish building of rock banks along with closing oyster dredging in BL namely WLF. We must maintain a working and amiable relationship with this State Dept.....just like CCA has done.

I see nothing wrong with having an additional conservation group that is focused and solely committed to the betterment of BL. Pontchartrain has a very active one that seems to be working well.

We already know where CCA stands, as past actions are more telling than present promises. Progress might be possible, but only if CCA realizes that maintaining their present course is going to start costing them in terms of reduced membership. It is a mistake to let them get through most of their fundraising in the current year.

I expect CCA to continue to give lip service to keep membership high and dues flowing in, mainly through S.T.A.R. participation. We really need them to commit to immediately CEASE and DESIST pushing increased regulations without sound scientific support.

Adding agenda items that support habitat issues in Big Lake would be unconvincing without simultaneously renouncing past support for bad policies.

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

We already know where CCA stands, as past actions are more telling than present promises. Progress might be possible, but only if CCA realizes that maintaining their present course is going to start costing them in terms of reduced membership. It is a mistake to let them get through most of their fundraising in the current year.

I expect CCA to continue to give lip service to keep membership high and dues flowing in, mainly through S.T.A.R. participation. We really need them to commit to immediately CEASE and DESIST pushing increased regulations without sound scientific support.

Adding agenda items that support habitat issues in Big Lake would be unconvincing without simultaneously renouncing past support for bad policies.

Meaning no disrespect MathGeek but I feel there is an undercurrent of a vendetta placed on CCA by your posts. I would have nothing to do with that. I would rather go forward in the hopes of bettering BL by working with State/CCA and other agencies in an amiable fashion. You seem hell bent on destroying any credibility that CCA has earned in this State. I still believe that CCA has been doing a good job in conservation issues affecting our whole coast as well as our neighbors in the Gulf.

["W"]

Time to cut limits again big lake big trout pics on cover of LSM.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reefman

Meaning no disrespect MathGeek but I feel there is an undercurrent of a vendetta placed on CCA by your posts. I would have nothing to do with that. I would rather go forward in the hopes of bettering BL by working with State/CCA and other agencies in an amiable fashion. You seem hell bent on destroying any credibility that CCA has earned in this State. I still believe that CCA has been doing a good job in conservation issues affecting our whole coast as well as our neighbors in the Gulf.

The main idea of the boycott is to prevent further funding of the group with a proven history of lobbying for restrictive regulations.

CCA cannot correct past wrongs without acknowledging them and being accountable not to repeat past mistakes.

It's not a vendetta (which literally means a blood feud), it's insisting upon moving toward science based management to benefit all stakeholders and away from management based on fear based on the desires of an elite group of stakeholders.

I think of the current boycott efforts as closer to the boycott of Smith and Wesson firearms in 2000 after they got to cozy with the Clinton Administration and the gun grabbers. This boycott was very effective in both sending a message to other companies and also in pressuring Smith and Wesson to publicly renounce their past actions furthering a gun control agenda.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Reefman

If an open meeting with concerned BL fishermen and the LC CCA chapter cannot come up with an agreement of total support of our issues then we know our efforts will have to come from a new grass roots front. I feel this can be set up within a month giving ample time to schedule such a meeting. I would strongly suggest the State Director of CCA be in attendance to give a thumbs up or down to our requests.

I do agree time is of the essence. By mid summer we should all know exactly where the State and CCA stands on BL fishery resources. I would be very careful in biting the hand that feeds the money to accomplish building of rock banks along with closing oyster dredging in BL namely WLF. We must maintain a working and amiable relationship with this State Dept.....just like CCA has done.

I see nothing wrong with having an additional conservation group that is focused and solely committed to the betterment of BL. Pontchartrain has a very active one that seems to be working well.

you get MG to speak out in a public setting on this issue and I will donate all my salty cash to keakar

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

you get MG to speak out in a public setting on this issue and I will donate all my salty cash to keakar

I expect to be at the SC tourney willing to shoot the breeze with anyone who happens by. I don't expect to make many CCA meetings, especially if membership in the group (and payment of a membership fee) is a requirement for a place in the discussion.

I treasure my time in SW Louisiana and I prefer to spend it fishing and with family than with CCA. CCA knows how to reach me if they want to discuss anything.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I think of the current boycott efforts as closer to the boycott of Smith and Wesson firearms in 2000 after they got to cozy with the Clinton Administration and the gun grabbers. This boycott was very effective in both sending a message to other companies and also in pressuring Smith and Wesson to publicly renounce their past actions furthering a gun control agenda.

I hardly see the similarity between the two. On the one hand, you are talking about a non-profit group, and a very localized issue. On the other hand, you have a For-profit company and a national issue.

Two different situations in my opinion.

I get the point you are trying to make, but its just not the same situation.

[MathGeek]

I know few people appreciate gafftops as much as I do, but the condition of gafftops serve as a useful bioindicator of the health of the estuary. Being dominantly a bottom feeder and spending more time in the lake than in the marsh, considering the body condition of gafftops is useful in assessing whether the bigger issues impacting the lake originate in the lake or the marsh and whether they impact species higher or lower in the water column.

Think of a gafftop as a sentinel organism whose relative condition factor can be used to determine how much forage is available lower in the water column. The attached graph shows that gafftops, especially the longer length classes, are having a hard time maintaining healthy body condition over the study period (2011 - 2013).

[lsufish]

Originally Posted by Smalls

I hardly see the similarity between the two. On the one hand, you are talking about a non-profit group, and a very localized issue. On the other hand, you have a For-profit company and a national issue.

Two different situations in my opinion.

I get the point you are trying to make, but its just not the same situation.

It is, but it isn't. Every organization, for profit or non-profit thrive on resources. Resources are man hours and money. Money trumping everything else. The general public has a choice on where to place their charitable/conservation dollars, and in this regard CCA is competing for resources like any for profit company would.

Granted, CCA's goal isn't to hit an earnings target per quarter to please owners/shareholders and receive a positive impact to their stock price, they do aim to please their members and the general public to get what they need most... money.

The term non-profit in and of itself is misleading. While the overall goal isn't to make money, CCA has full time employees that are not volunteers. Their compensation is directly correlated to the success of the organization.

CAA has followed a certain agenda for the past few years, some argue for it, some argue against it, but the organization continues to move forward because of funding. The more funding it receives, the more they want to continue the behaviors that lead to the funding in the first place.
This makes perfect sense.

A public company will stick to the same business model if they see increased demand for their stock based upon their current business strategy.

Everyone knows that the consumer benefits when they have choice and competition. CCA right now has no real completion for these types of dollars.
So the options are as follows:
1. Agree with CCA and support them
2. Disagree, but still support them because no better alternative.
3. Create a new entity and give "consumers" a choice on where they want to spend their conservation dollars and which agenda to support
4. ***** and do nothing

In conclusion, MG's point is right on in that money and donations are CCA's true earnings report. If those continue to increase, they believe they are doing a good job based on the only feedback that matters.

Its up to each individual to decide what "grade" they want to give them.

["W"]

Cca non profit,

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by "W"

Cca non profit,

Nice! 1,000% profit margins too

[eman]

Why won't they release their books to the membership?

[Ratdog]

Man we are screwed.

["W"]

I would like to know what they pay there employees

[lsuriot]

2011 - 990 for CCA