CCA backs raise of license fee- Thoughts?

[alphaman]

Life time licences is 500 right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

[haoward]

Money money money....

[specktator]

Originally Posted by alphaman

Life time licences is 500 right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

Yes. I wanna say around $250 if they are under a certain age. Maybe 13-14 years old.

[3FLa]

I quit GCCA when it became a money maker for a few select people and re-formed as CCA. The CCA boys are actually a Texas group, using a 501(C) to circumvent their real goals. CCA has done nothing but caused hardship to its recreational members for benefit of a select few. It is the only 501(C) organization in the ENTIRE country who refuses to provide financial records to its members. It proposed a bow fishing band in conjunction with the Louisiana Landowners Association with data that it admitted was fabricated. It did the exact same thing in its succesful ploy to regulate tripletail creel limits. It refuses to get involved in public waterway disputes, despite its mission statement mandating it will. It refuses to help in the rigs to reefs program because one of its "owners" in Texas has a company which is paid by the federal government to remove rigs from the Gulf. Maybe that is why 6 of 7 fisherman in Louisiana refuse to join the CCA which is affectionaly known in Baton Rouge and Washington as the "C"apitol "C"lowns "A"ssocation.

Before you kool-aid drinkers start fussing, the redfish gillnet issue was NOT promoted by CCA, but by GCCA, a total volunteer organization.

Finally, if you do make a negative statement about CCA, you might get threaten with bodily harm from one of its board members, just as I did. But obviously, I do not scare that easily.

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by CajunMade

I quit GCCA when it became a money maker for a few select people and re-formed as CCA. The CCA boys are actually a Texas group, using a 501(C) to circumvent their real goals. CCA has done nothing but caused hardship to its recreational members for benefit of a select few. It is the only 501(C) organization in the ENTIRE country who refuses to provide financial records to its members. It proposed a bow fishing band in conjunction with the Louisiana Landowners Association with data that it admitted was fabricated. It did the exact same thing in its succesful ploy to regulate tripletail creel limits. It refuses to get involved in public waterway disputes, despite its mission statement mandating it will. It refuses to help in the rigs to reefs program because one of its "owners" in Texas has a company which is paid by the federal government to remove rigs from the Gulf. Maybe that is why 6 of 7 fisherman in Louisiana refuse to join the CCA which is affectionaly known in Baton Rouge and Washington as the "C"apitol "C"lowns "A"ssocation.

Before you kool-aid drinkers start fussing, the redfish gillnet issue was NOT promoted by CCA, but by GCCA, a total volunteer organization.

Finally, if you do make a negative statement about CCA, you might get threaten with bodily harm from one of its board members, just as I did. But obviously, I do not scare that easily.

Can you provide links to confirm this information? I'm interested in the back story

[biggun]

To Cajun-Made in Donaldsonville

Why don't U Just State: "U have NO CONNECTION TO CHRIS MORAN's Marina in Fouchon, and CAJUNMADE CHARTERS.

SO U don't have his (Chris's) customers that read this site, calling him canceling charters which is what happened to Him last Yr when U posted On RODNREEL.com last year spouting UR hatred of CCA..


I respect UR right to voice UR opinion on this site as ANYONE DOES..

Respectfully

Biggun

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by CajunMade

I quit GCCA when it became a money maker for a few select people and re-formed as CCA. The CCA boys are actually a Texas group, using a 501(C) to circumvent their real goals. CCA has done nothing but caused hardship to its recreational members for benefit of a select few. It is the only 501(C) organization in the ENTIRE country who refuses to provide financial records to its members. It proposed a bow fishing band in conjunction with the Louisiana Landowners Association with data that it admitted was fabricated. It did the exact same thing in its succesful ploy to regulate tripletail creel limits. It refuses to get involved in public waterway disputes, despite its mission statement mandating it will. It refuses to help in the rigs to reefs program because one of its "owners" in Texas has a company which is paid by the federal government to remove rigs from the Gulf. Maybe that is why 6 of 7 fisherman in Louisiana refuse to join the CCA which is affectionaly known in Baton Rouge and Washington as the "C"apitol "C"lowns "A"ssocation.

Before you kool-aid drinkers start fussing, the redfish gillnet issue was NOT promoted by CCA, but by GCCA, a total volunteer organization.

Finally, if you do make a negative statement about CCA, you might get threaten with bodily harm from one of its board members, just as I did. But obviously, I do not scare that easily.

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!!

[cajun bill]

Originally Posted by DWA

Gotta lifetime a long time ago and it has more than paid for itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

X2

[KDM]

CajunMade you are wrong on so many levels. I was one of the "old GCCA" guys and the organization was brought to Louisiana by a Sulphur family that put their money where their mouth was!!! You don't have a clue whats real and whats fiction. For those of you who doubt CCA's commitment to our resources just sit tight.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CajunMade

I quit GCCA when it became a money maker for a few select people and re-formed as CCA. The CCA boys are actually a Texas group, using a 501(C) to circumvent their real goals. CCA has done nothing but caused hardship to its recreational members for benefit of a select few. It is the only 501(C) organization in the ENTIRE country who refuses to provide financial records to its members. It proposed a bow fishing band in conjunction with the Louisiana Landowners Association with data that it admitted was fabricated. It did the exact same thing in its succesful ploy to regulate tripletail creel limits. It refuses to get involved in public waterway disputes, despite its mission statement mandating it will. It refuses to help in the rigs to reefs program because one of its "owners" in Texas has a company which is paid by the federal government to remove rigs from the Gulf. Maybe that is why 6 of 7 fisherman in Louisiana refuse to join the CCA which is affectionaly known in Baton Rouge and Washington as the "C"apitol "C"lowns "A"ssocation.

Before you kool-aid drinkers start fussing, the redfish gillnet issue was NOT promoted by CCA, but by GCCA, a total volunteer organization.

Finally, if you do make a negative statement about CCA, you might get threaten with bodily harm from one of its board members, just as I did. But obviously, I do not scare that easily.

Is that why you don't use your real name? It's very clear your grinding an ax, why don't you come out of the closet Skippy?

[biggun]

TO Cgood and all CCA haters...

Why don't U read the link(article) at top of Post... It's pretty self explanatory why CCA is for this Bill...

[biggun]

Originally Posted by KDM

CajunMade you are wrong on so many levels. I was one of the "old GCCA" guys and the organization was brought to Louisiana by a Sulphur family that put their money where their mouth was!!! You don't have a clue whats real and whats fiction. For those of you who doubt CCA's commitment to our resources just sit tight.

U are So Right; KDM...

Biggun

[MathGeek]

I can't put my finger on it, but something doesn't smell right with CCA.

Pushing limits not supported with science is just part of it. Buying into the license increase when it should be clear to everyone that "dedicated funds" is a shell game. Are they too stupid to see this, or do they have a hidden agenda?

To early to be sure, but it would be interesting so see if the claim that a non-profit keeps their books closed even to members can be supported.

[KDM]

Mathgeek, I have read a lot of your posts and you seem like and educated person but your last post regarding this matter would leave me to believe that you aren't quite up to speed. Do some research of GCCA and CCA. I think once you have all the facts you will find that they more than pass the "smell test".

[3FLa]

I have no connection with Chris Moran and respect him and his operation greatly.

Biggun, you have no clue what you are talking about, in fact you were involved in the physical threat to me ( in your indivudal capacity and as Board Member of CCA). That is when your fearless leader had to call and apologize and beg that I not press state and federal charges against you and your little posse of kool-aid drinkers. An action I have not ruled out yet. And as to threat, it has fallen on deaf ears.

I suggest you change your name to big mouth, as opposed to big gun, because your threats seem to never exist when you and I are in public together.

As to any axe I have to grind, there is none. CCA is disrespected by the majority of recreational fisherman in this state (proven fact, only 1 of 7 fisherman actually fish the STAR, and are members of the CCA); it is the laughing stock in Baton Rouge (public record of committee hearings re: bowfishing ban); it is the laughing stock in Washington D.C. (public record of Clean Water Act subcommittee hearings, and Rigs to Reef bill, general debate, Senate Bill 1050, 2004, and again during amendment of bill in 2012).

As to the Washington hearing, Vitter, begged CCA of Louisiana to support the bill, and it failed to show up for the hearing in committee. (Public record, same reference as above)

[Em591991]

I've never heard of a non profit organization refusing to divulge their records. I don't know that a 501c(3) is a license to steal and if any one thinks that non-profit means no one gets rich, they are wrong. Board members can name their own salaries as long as the net for the entity ends at zero. But seriously though. It costs me $300 to drag my boat from Prairieville to coast x number of times a month. Not to mention the boat itself and the maint. So your gonna hit me for another ~$10 a year to fish? Here's a twenty. Keep the change and GFY.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by KDM

Do some research of GCCA and CCA. I think once you have all the facts you will find that they more than pass the "smell test".

I don't need a detailed history when CCA is consistently taking positions on public policies that don't make sense. Why back a license increase when LA has proven to be so unfaithful and abusive in raiding dedicated funds in the past? Wouldn't efforts be better spent getting the $26 million returned that the legislature already raided from the artificial reef fund?

Why did CCA support the limit change in Big Lake from 25 down to 15 specks without the scientific data to support it?

Why did CCA support imposing a tripletail limit in Louisiana waters without stock assessments or any sound science?

I'm not sure if there is a hidden agenda or not, but it is a reasonable hypothesis when a "conservation" group consistently takes policy positions that are not supported by sound science or common sense.

[keakar]

glad I bought my lifetime license for $300 back in 1999, at that point I figured I break even if prices didn't go up and at that time it was $5.50 each for salt and fresh so at least im not going to get fleeced by this money grab.

you guys ought to do some quick math before the lifetime licenses double in price too, maybe you can get in before the price hikes

Originally Posted by Raymond

Is that why you don't use your real name? It's very clear your grinding an ax, why don't you come out of the closet Skippy?

really!!! this is right out of the LAS handbook of demanding real names of people who post something you do not like or disagree with. you have NO NEED for real names unless you plan to target them and harass them outside the website and that is the ONLY reason you or anyone else would want or need his real name. BS harassment and demanding real names of people like this is why I left LAS.

you have his member name and that's all you should ever want or need from another member, his reputation here is forever linked with that name.

[KDM]

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

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by alphaman

Life time licences is 500 right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

Lifetime Hunting - $300
Lifetime Fishing - $300
Lifetime Hunt/Fish Combo - $500
Lifetime Combo age 5-13 - $300
Lifetime Combo age 0-4 - $200

I have my Lifetime Combo and I bought the Lifetime for my first 2 kids before they turned 5... one of the best investments you can ever give to a kid in my opinion. Covers Big Game, Primitive weapon, Turkey stamp, WMA permit, Archery, etc etc... The only thing it does not cover is your federal duck stamp.