CCA- Another Epic Failure

[3FLa]

CCA failed again. During this legislative session, HB 490 was filed. This bill would have prevented Jindal from raiding the Coastal Reef and Restoration Fund, something he has done twice to the tune of 45.1 million dollars. He did so to fill budget gaps caused by mismanagment of various public agencies unrelated to the purpose of the fund. This fund was created as dedicated funds and was to be only used for Coastal/Erosion issues. HB 490 would have made it impossibel to use any moneys from the fund other than its intended purpose.

The HB went unopposed in house committee and in the full house. When it got to the Senate, a committee hearing was set (May 7, 2014). The author, seeking support for the bill from conservative groups asked for appearances at the Senate hearing. La. Wildlife Federation spoke, Miss. River Coalition spoke, PAR spoke, Chamber SWLA spoke, Audubon-La spoke, and Telley Madina (Oyster industry) spoke.

Guess who failed to appear at the hearing, despite numerous request to speak on behalf of the bill-CCA.

Today,the bill died in committee.

Although, it is disgusting enough that CCA failed to appear to protect conversation funds, it leads to other questions.

If CCA does not care about this so-called "dedicated" fund, do you really think it was sincere when CCA stated it only supported the saltwater license increase because the additional revenues were going to a "dedicated" fund.

["W"]

Just sit tight

[Duck Butter]

Yep, if CCA would have been there, this bill would have definitely passed the Senate, its their fault


props to the Lake Chuck representative that introduced the bill though, its deferred til next year, maybe it will go through. Meanwhile, Jindal got re-elected pretty much uncontested and he is probably going to make a presidential bid, lord help us all. Therein lies the root of the problem, not CCA

Galaxy or bust

[3FLa]

DB-You missed the point. The issue is CCA was not there at one of the most important conservation bills of the session. If CCA is not concerned about the raiding of a conservation fund, what exactly is it concerned about. Moreover, if it is not concerned about this "dedicated" fund, why should anyone believe it will be concerned about the moneys raised from the saltwater license increase. That increase is supopsoedly to be used only for a dedicated fund to research-that is why CCA supported the license increase!

As to the bill being deferred, you are in error. Second, by constitutional action, the bill cannot be introduced for another two years.

Finally, CCA has been asked in the past to join a lawsuit against the executive administration for illegally raided the Coastal Reef Fund, and it has ( in its very own words) refused for political reasons. That is one heck of a conservation group!

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by 3FLa

DB-You missed the point. The issue is CCA was not there at one of the most important conservation bills of the session. If CCA is not concerned about the raiding of a conservation fund, what exactly is it concerned about. Moreover, if it is not concerned about this "dedicated" fund, why should anyone believe it will be concerned about the moneys raised from the saltwater license increase. That increase is supopsoedly to be used only for a dedicated fund to research-that is why CCA supported the license increase!

As to the bill being deferred, you are in error. Second, by constitutional action, the bill cannot be introduced for another two years.

Finally, CCA has been asked in the past to join a lawsuit against the executive administration for illegally raided the Coastal Reef Fund, and it has ( in its very own words) refused for political reasons. That is one heck of a conservation group!

You may be right, but I am thinking it is just being deferred til the next legislature session but anyways...


it is painfully obvious you do not like CCA and that you have an agenda which is to push your organization and that is all fine but you can push your organization without attacking another. This is like watching the attack ads come up during any election cycle, it makes me want to to have nothing to do with either candidate (or organization) that is doing the attacking. If your organization is that good, then let it speak for itself. No need in bashing to gain recognition. There is plenty of negativity already, do something positive.

but since we are on the subject...were you there at the hearing? or anyone from YOUR organization?

[Goooh]

I have to side with the OP. This is a huge failure on CCA's part to not even show. If they can't be there for this, what are they there for? Regardless of their stance, this should have been priority for them if they truly intend to conserve the coast...

[keakar]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You may be right, but I am thinking it is just being deferred til the next legislature session but anyways...


it is painfully obvious you do not like CCA and that you have an agenda which is to push your organization and that is all fine but you can push your organization without attacking another. This is like watching the attack ads come up during any election cycle, it makes me want to to have nothing to do with either candidate (or organization) that is doing the attacking. If your organization is that good, then let it speak for itself. No need in bashing to gain recognition. There is plenty of negativity already, do something positive.

but since we are on the subject...were you there at the hearing? or anyone from YOUR organization?

yeah, when CCA can make a difference they don't so why blame them for doing nothing?

CCA represents a large voting block and when politicians see them taking a side on an issue they support what CCA supports because it means more votes for them come election time. going against CCA is a sure way to lose an election and politicians don't give a hoot about anything but getting re-elected and will always vote the way they can get the most voter support at election time.

CCA has clout as a window into how people will feel if a politician votes the wrong way. they chose to do nothing and not show up telling (by their absence) that they can vote without worrying about losing voter support. right or wrong that's how politicians think.

CCA does nothing so why blame them? because they defraud people out of millions of dollars telling them they will be there at meetings like this so they are just a bunch of lying weasels selling snake oil.

you never want to hold CCA accountable for the resulting outcome of them ignoring supporting things they portend to support so who is really the one that is misguided on the CCA organization? look in the mirror and you will see him. you always are wanting to defend and support them yet cant show anything they are actually doing to help fishermen.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by keakar

yeah, when CCA can make a difference they don't so why blame them for doing nothing?

CCA represents a large voting block and when politicians see them taking a side on an issue they support what CCA supports because it means more votes for them come election time. going against CCA is a sure way to lose an election and politicians don't give a hoot about anything but getting re-elected and will always vote the way they can get the most voter support at election time.

CCA has clout as a window into how people will feel if a politician votes the wrong way. they chose to do nothing and not show up telling (by their absence) that they can vote without worrying about losing voter support. right or wrong that's how politicians think.

CCA does nothing so why blame them? because they defraud people out of millions of dollars telling them they will be there at meetings like this so they are just a bunch of lying weasels selling snake oil.

you never want to hold CCA accountable for the resulting outcome of them ignoring supporting things they portend to support so who is really the one that is misguided on the CCA organization? look in the mirror and you will see him. you always are wanting to defend and support them yet cant show anything they are actually doing to help fishermen.

I think it would be of interest to most to look into how non-profit conservation organizations work. They can only do so much, they are bound by money so have to pick and choose battles to fight. Going against Jindal would likely just be a waste of time (this happened several years back and he got reelected without a hiccup) and there are much bigger fights that could possibly be won, this one isn't one of those. Its basically closing the barn door after the horse has eaten all the hay

see y'all monday, 20 pages or bust

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I think it would be of interest to most to look into how non-profit conservation organizations work. They can only do so much, they are bound by money so have to pick and choose battles to fight. Going against Jindal would likely just be a waste of time (this happened several years back and he got reelected without a hiccup) and there are much bigger fights that could possibly be won, this one isn't one of those. Its basically closing the barn door after the horse has eaten all the hay

see y'all monday, 20 pages or bust

Like what ??? Helping big lake


No




Wait



600K reef that was donated

[AubreyLaHaye458]

Originally Posted by "W"

Like what ??? Helping big lake





No









Wait







600K reef that was donated

Just sit tight


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marshrunner757]

Originally Posted by "W"

Like what ??? Helping big lake


No




Wait



600K reef that was donated

A 600k reef that will be silted over in a few short years due to excessive tidal flow from the washed out channel levees.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[marshrunner757]

Originally Posted by 3FLa

DB-You missed the point. The issue is CCA was not there at one of the most important conservation bills of the session. If CCA is not concerned about the raiding of a conservation fund, what exactly is it concerned about. Moreover, if it is not concerned about this "dedicated" fund, why should anyone believe it will be concerned about the moneys raised from the saltwater license increase. That increase is supopsoedly to be used only for a dedicated fund to research-that is why CCA supported the license increase!

As to the bill being deferred, you are in error. Second, by constitutional action, the bill cannot be introduced for another two years.

Finally, CCA has been asked in the past to join a lawsuit against the executive administration for illegally raided the Coastal Reef Fund, and it has ( in its very own words) refused for political reasons. That is one heck of a conservation group!

I'm sure they have a good reason for not being there.... Maybe they are low on funds and just couldn't afford to be there.
CCA hasn't "been there" for many years. They've gotten too big and forgot what this is all about. It's no longer here to help the average fisherman or for real conservation. It's a booming business being fed by the people who made them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Ratdog]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I think it would be of interest to most to look into how non-profit conservation organizations work. They can only do so much, they are bound by money so have to pick and choose battles to fight. Going against Jindal would likely just be a waste of time (this happened several years back and he got reelected without a hiccup) and there are much bigger fights that could possibly be won, this one isn't one of those. Its basically closing the barn door after the horse has eaten all the hay

see y'all monday, 20 pages or bust

Non profit ? What does that mean. Kill the fish you want to protect to rais money to pay your members?


Man I got real screwed in da edumacation area.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Ratdog

Non profit ? What does that mean. Kill the fish you want to protect to rais money to pay your members?


Man I got real screwed in da edumacation area.

Good point. There are a dozen CCA staffers in Texas pulling in six figure salaries.

I guess CCA was too busy prepping for the case to lower limits on specks and reds to make the meetings to preserve the dedicated funds.

[3FLa]

To Duck Butter... Yes, we did have someone at that meeting, thus I have been able to report what was actually happening.

You commented the following "what did YOUR group do". I do not have a group, the folks I am with believe the group is "OURS", not "yours".

"Ours" being inclusive of any one who believes that we have one of the worlds greatest fisheries and wants to keep it that way.

"Ours" being a group of like-minded people who want to allow everyone to fish and have access to our great waterways, not just a select few.

"Ours" being a respected group in state and federal law-making decisions, not being laughed at in Baton Rouge and Washington D.C.

"Ours" being a group of fisherpeople who join as one not to win a bush league prize but to be a voice of reason for our kid's future.

DB..That is the problem with CCA, it is for a select few, doing whats best for a select few, not for the recreational fisherman as a whole.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by 3FLa

To Duck Butter... Yes, we did have someone at that meeting, thus I have been able to report what was actually happening.

You commented the following "what did YOUR group do". I do not have a group, the folks I am with believe the group is "OURS", not "yours".

"Ours" being inclusive of any one who believes that we have one of the worlds greatest fisheries and wants to keep it that way.

"Ours" being a group of like-minded people who want to allow everyone to fish and have access to our great waterways, not just a select few.

"Ours" being a respected group in state and federal law-making decisions, not being laughed at in Baton Rouge and Washington D.C.

"Ours" being a group of fisherpeople who join as one not to win a bush league prize but to be a voice of reason for our kid's future.

DB..That is the problem with CCA, it is for a select few, doing whats best for a select few, not for the recreational fisherman as a whole.

you are wasting your time, from DBs posting record I believe he is a member of CCA or married to one and working on their behalf to improve public image and try to nullify or silence any opposing voice or viewpoints not in love with everything CCA does.

he CANNOT be independent and be so willingly blind and refuse to admit the evidence presented to him time and time again and they give us no reason to support them and EVERY reason to try to work against them and try to limit the damage they are doing. but then I guess people believe whatever they want to believe, just look at what hope and change got us.

point is every CCA member could stand on TV and admit to being guilty of lying and not doing as they promise and DB would still be there saying support them, give them money, just wait.

[eman]

Originally Posted by 3FLa

To Duck Butter... Yes, we did have someone at that meeting, thus I have been able to report what was actually happening.

You commented the following "what did YOUR group do". I do not have a group, the folks I am with believe the group is "OURS", not "yours".

"Ours" being inclusive of any one who believes that we have one of the worlds greatest fisheries and wants to keep it that way.

"Ours" being a group of like-minded people who want to allow everyone to fish and have access to our great waterways, not just a select few.

"Ours" being a respected group in state and federal law-making decisions, not being laughed at in Baton Rouge and Washington D.C.

"Ours" being a group of fisherpeople who join as one not to win a bush league prize but to be a voice of reason for our kid's future.

DB..That is the problem with CCA, it is for a select few, doing whats best for a select few, not for the recreational fisherman as a whole.

That is what save our specks and GCCA started out to be . but alas no more.

[Ratdog]

Originally Posted by 3FLa

To Duck Butter... Yes, we did have someone at that meeting, thus I have been able to report what was actually happening.

You commented the following "what did YOUR group do". I do not have a group, the folks I am with believe the group is "OURS", not "yours".

"Ours" being inclusive of any one who believes that we have one of the worlds greatest fisheries and wants to keep it that way.

"Ours" being a group of like-minded people who want to allow everyone to fish and have access to our great waterways, not just a select few.

"Ours" being a respected group in state and federal law-making decisions, not being laughed at in Baton Rouge and Washington D.C.

"Ours" being a group of fisherpeople who join as one not to win a bush league prize but to be a voice of reason for our kid's future.

DB..That is the problem with CCA, it is for a select few, doing whats best for a select few, not for the recreational fisherman as a whole.

OH MY GOD ! you need a group name in order for us to believe you. Otherwise my 6 ratdog's can say the same crap about kibble and I can't hold um accountable.

Form an association and project your socialist view and then try to get heard. Might call it the "our social club" or osc love that name

[eman]

Originally Posted by Ratdog

OH MY GOD ! you need a group name in order for us to believe you. Otherwise my 6 ratdog's can say the same crap about kibble and I can't hold um accountable.

Form an association and project your socialist view and then try to get heard. Might call it the "our social club" or osc love that name

***?

[eman]

Originally Posted by Ratdog

OH MY GOD ! you need a group name in order for us to believe you. Otherwise my 6 ratdog's can say the same crap about kibble and I can't hold um accountable.

Form an association and project your socialist view and then try to get heard. Might call it the "our social club" or osc love that name

***? WTH?