Please Sign In


New To Sportsman Network?

Boycott the S.T.A.R.: CCA Efforts Not Founded in Science

Reply
CCA has consistently pushed for more restrictive limits 'to be on the safe side,' even when there is no scientific data suggesting that the current regulations are not sustainable. They've done this for black drum (statewide), specks (Big Lake), bow fishing (statewide) and most recently tripletail (statewide). They even wanted to narrow the redfish slot to 21-24' in Florida and close the redfish season in October, even though redfish stocks have made a tremendous recovery since the closure of commercial fishing and the ban in federal waters. They also opposed Florida recently raising the redfish limit from 1 to 2 slot reds. Finally, CCA recently backed LA raising the saltwater fishing license cost by 136%. Louisiana needs data driven regulations. The 'better safe than sorry' philosophy will always favor increasing restrictions on liberty. The focus on fisheries conservation in Louisiana should be on habitat: marsh, oyster reefs, artificial reefs, reducing erosion.
Reply
Why do you oppose paying more for a fishing license?
You know we're way under our neighboring states right?
I'm no CCA homer by any means but i really can't see how they're hurting anything. You want change? Go out and start your own organization to battle them.
That organization is not LASM however,i can assure you this.
Reply
   MathGeek
Personally, I don't object to paying more for a fishing license,and I even find the out of state fees to be a great deal given the quality of the fishing. However, higher fees is a barrier to participation, and the percentage of adults who buy fishing licenses has been gradually shrinking in the US over the past 20 years. Long term sustainability depends on broadening participation.

My bigger objections center around the constant push for more restrictive fishing regulations without sound science. CCA has seemed to take a divide and conquer approach that serves an elite group of stakeholders rather than the broader population of Louisiana sportsmen. Fishing regulations should be driven by hard data rather than fear and jealousy.

Sportsmen's liberties in pursuing and harvesting fish and game should not be further restricted unless there is sound and compelling scientific data demonstrating a true conservation need. Regulations should not be based on irrational fear that the resource might not remain for future generations; they should be based on sound scientific data showing the resource cannot be sustained for future generations under current management practices.

Sustainable harvests and use of the resources should always be allowed, and the burden of proof for those proposing new regulations should be on those proposing to impose criminal penalties for liberties which have been previously enjoyed. I see no wisdom in adopting restrictive regulations copying the example of neighboring states. Louisiana waters are generally less pressured and allow a more bountiful harvest than neighboring States. Whenever possible, Louisiana would do well to support the tourism industry and justify the expense of non-resident hunting and fishing licenses by maintaining more liberal harvest limits than other Gulf states. Our 'Sportsman's Paradise' allows us to share our resources more liberally.

Finally, we should realize that habitat loss and other environmental factors often have a greater negative effect on fish and game populations than harvest pressure. Declining numbers of a population should not be blindly attributed to harvest pressure unless all possible confounding factors have been duly considered with applicable data-driven scientific approaches. In the long term, habitat loss is a greater threat to the sustainability of Louisiana fisheries than over fishing.

Data driven science should be the cornerstone of Louisiana's fishery management. All fisheries data, collection methodologies, and interpretations of Louisiana's data used to manage Louisiana's fisheries should be available to the public and subject to peer review and public scrutiny to ensure that management decisions are transparent, data-driven, and made with due consideration of sound scientific principles and stakeholder interests.
Reply
Data driven science has never nor will ever be relied upon to support a legit cause. All science can and most assuredly be manipulated to back ones agenda. Most agendas are politically focused.

Each group has a certain backing/support group,shareholders,stockholders,politicians ETC.

You know this already. I see you are vocal about our fisheries and i can appreciate that but you bashing of the CCA kinda has me scratching my head.
They are not Louisianas advocacy group for sports fishing unless i haven't been informed of such a change.
They're just a funded/backed group who wants to be relevant in the game.
Reply
   MathGeek
Certainly we need to be aware of the possibility of data being manipulated, but many recent CCA positions do not even have a pretense of support in published scientific data: black drum limits, tripletail limits, lowering speck limits in Big Lake, banning bow fishing, etc. Wildlife management should be data driven. In contrast, CCA has neglected to support positions where there is ample data: protection of oyster reefs in Big Lake (2005-present), erosion, saltwater intrusion, etc.

If we continue to support CCA, I think we can expect limits on redfish and specks that are much more restrictive and closely mirror the situations in Florida and Texas.
Reply
I think i'll continue to send them my $50 per year for membership and the chance to win a Boat.
I like fishing Big Lake and don't mind the limits imposed on the lake. To tell you the truth,wouldn't mind seeing it in Lake Pontchartrain as well.
Reply
   dwr3533
I think CCA is not looking out for the interests of the regular guy. It appears to me that their agenda is to help large landowners and people who have large boats. They would not get involved on public access issues in La(mouthpiece for land corps) and restrictive limits and regulations to limit take for home consumption(Big Lake). They lost my support on the sell-out on public access.
Reply
   rhall301
MathGeek...You are absolutely correct. But do not forget when CCA tried to ban bowfishing it lied under oath about its data it had in support of the banned. Grassroots effort reveal the lie and CCA had to admit it fabricated its own evidence.

Also, do not forget that CCA of Louisiana was asked to attend a Washington D.C. adminstrative meeting to discuss Jarvis's suit re: red snapper. CCA failed to appear, resulting in a federal judge, in open court, calling CCA's actions/omissions 'suspect', 'odd', and 'contrary'.
Reply
   CaptJS
Been fishing Louisiana and costal states for over 60years and the only thing I feel hurts fishing are nets and the spring spawn when bass are on beds. I can remember when LC Big Lake had all kinds of pictures of big trout. Then we put the limit in and you seldom saw any pictures or videos. Just watched a fishing show of a guide over there and he did not catch one trout. When the record trout were being caught you had a very low river for several years some small storms and light SE winds all summer. You also had record shrimp years. Just remember this trout will follow the shrimp. Maybe we want to look at what Florida did and stop the inside shrimping. Inside shrimping also kills the grass which is a big part of eco system. With this new increase in the license we could pay a shrimper what he would loose if he lost inside shrimping. Pay him for 5 years so that he could find another way to made a living. You can't just drop him off work it out where it is fair to fisherman and shrimpers. Even KVD is having a bad year with those bass which are so hard to figure out after the spring.
Reply
   MathGeek
LA has enough shrimp to go around if saltwater intrusion and erosion could be better controlled. For example, in Big Lake, separating the ship channel from the lake with rock lines would keep the lake brackish enough to open the weirs many more days per year and let the fish and bait flow back and forth from the marsh.

And there is not near enough $ in license increases to pay for five years of interior shrimp losses.
Reply
   rangerz
DWR you are right when it was time to fight for public access to fish navigable waters the CCA did nothing. They will never get a cent from me. Look what happened years back when the gill nets where band. Our fishing license were raised $3.00 dollars to buy back the gill netters gear. Over $900,000.00 was collect and only 11 gill netters could prove that gill netting was their way of making a living according to income tax data. Where did that money go?
Reply
   MathGeek
One wonders why CCA is making efforts to push the license increase that might provide an additional 3 million a year for research rather than pushing for return of the $26 million that was raided from the artificial reef fund. Straining out gnats and swallowing camels.
Reply
   dwr3533
I have a lifetime license so I will not be affected by the increase. I do think it is total BS that they want to increase license fees to raise money on one hand, but do not denounce this ass of a governor raiding dedicated funds. Screw CCA and the gov.
Reply
   niteboy82
As noted by both of the above, what about the money already raided by our governor? I really, really hate to bring politics into my fishing, but I do not feel that any increases on fishing licenses should happen until we can figure out where to put that money and how to prevent it from being touched by any politician.

As for the CCA, I'll keep paying my $50 for a chance at a boat like meauxjeaux2. I can't say how much I support them or don't, but I do question the motives of any special interest group once they become big players, especially in our state.
Reply
CCA was also reportedly behind the state of Texas' push to eliminate fishing for alligator gar during the spawn and limits of 1 per person per day the rest of the year despite the scientific data and studies showing that the alligator gar population is thriving and harvests are actually lower than expected.

When you send your $50 to CCA for the starr tournament, you are actually showing your support for all of their agendas, reguardless if your even aware of what they are wanting to do.

Saying that you will continue to support / enter the tournament 'just' because you might win a boat or a truck, isn't much of a difference from saying that you voted for Obummer 'just' for free stuff.
Reply
That's a lot of typing for someone who joined this website last night. I guess there was room for someone who liked to hear themselves talk. Hard to find evidence for these allegations. CCA must be really sinister for hiding it. How about sharing links for this sound public science so that we all can get onboard with a reasonable path forward. My understanding at meetings I've been at with federal wildlife fishery experts is that they can only agree that the way they collect their data is suspect. They admit their conclusions on this public scientific data is pretty useless cause they use things like a red snapper count for the whole gulf to determine limits instead of regional counts to see where they would naturally be more prolific.
Please provide the sources of all this scientific data they we need to get behind and thanks for the prepared statements.
Reply
   MathGeek
'Please provide the sources of all this scientific data they we need to get behind and thanks for the prepared statements.'

I have not claimed to have 'all this scientific data.' My conviction is that increased regulation should be data driven and based on sound science. The Legislature has mandated that wildlife in Louisiana be managed based on sound science.

CCA is pushing more restrictive regulations based on fear and jealousy without having data backing up their assertions that fisheries are threatened without more restrictive regulations.

Shouldn't the burden of proof lie with those pushing for more restrictive regulations rather than with those hoping to continue the enjoyment of existing liberties?
Reply
I remember when CCA fought to remove GILL NETS from all the ponds, passes and bays. they also removed PURSE SEINES TO protect the RED FISH SPAWNERS.

LETS NOT FORGET !!!!
Reply
   rhall301
In response to bahduhbing42....It appears that it is you who has forgotten. Never, ever has CCA did anything for the gill net ban. That ban came after a long and exhaustive battle by GCCA. The ban was a result of Act 1316 of 1995, years before CCA came into existence.

And please do not suggest GCCA and CCA are one in the same. The former was a grass roots effort by fishermen for fishermen, who never played politics for a select few, who never lied to its very own membership, who never lied in a legislative hearing, and who was led by folks who never once took a salary for their great efforts. A complete contrast to the CCA.
Reply
   GADWALL
I'm with MathGeek on this one. He certainly is an educated man and his thoughts are pure and innocent. Too much regulation is not a good thing in any circle.
Reply