# CCA proposes selling our snapper to the enviros



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I don't know what on earth they are thinking by proposing this. Do they have any idea of how fast ED or PEW or PITA would snap these up? We are talking millions upon millions of dollars already there, that they could write the check for today. Read for yourself. Unfricking believable

http://2coolfishing.com/cca.pdf

The file is clean, and the reader for pdf files is free if you don't already have it. Most of you should have it installed already.


----------



## PalmsUp (Aug 1, 2005)

Stoopid

Non reuseable tags? 
The money generated would go to research and ? (Higher salaries at CCA)


----------



## CSCHOOLFIELD (Oct 27, 2005)

This sounds great tell cca we want to start with trout and redfish and you need a pocketfull of tags to fish. They must be smokin crack!!!!!!


----------



## PalmsUp (Aug 1, 2005)

You could sell them on the corner like crack!


----------



## quackersmacker (Jun 15, 2005)

Complete Idiots! I thought they were plain stupid, now they just proved it!


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

Hey! When does the STAR tournament start?!?

(Please God, let them recognize sarcasm!)


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

This is completly idiotic and I hope it dies a quick death.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Wow selling us out again*

Scott Tyson of Tyson foods and Sysco would be very interested in buying up all the Snapper and any other marine protein they can buy. I am not surprised at this. They have proven once again they are elitist with no clue. Hopefully people will now understand how dangerous these people are at CCA. I personally abandoned them long ago. 

Our solution is to push for Flexibility in the Magnuson Act. We mailed 1202 letters to the for hire sector asking them to contact their Member of Congress, Governor and Senators like we have asked everyone here to do to push to solve the problem at Congressional Level. 
Allowing the sale of a resource that belongs to everyone is plain insanity. I hope everyone reads this as a total betrayal of the fishing community. 

RFA has stood tall fighting for fishing rights. I invite everyone to join our team and push HR1584 in the current Congress immediately before we lose the fishery to non recreational interest.


----------



## spitfire (Jan 2, 2007)

*Hum!*

I wonder why do people continue to support them and their tournament? With them putting out nonsense like this!


ACbob said:


> Hey! When does the STAR tournament start?!?
> 
> (Please God, let them recognize sarcasm!)


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

ACbob said:


> Hey! When does the STAR tournament start?!?
> 
> (Please God, let them recognize sarcasm!)


Yeah, CCA Texas, 50,000 members strong! Or is it 10,000 strong and 40,000 people that would feel real stupid if they caught a tagged redfish and wern't signed up for Star?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Well I think I'm just gonna get the popcorn ready for when the CCA mongers come to the rescue. I believe everyone here knows how I feel about the scum bags.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

Snap Draggin said:


> Well I think I'm just gonna get the popcorn ready for when the CCA mongers come to the rescue. I believe everyone here knows how I feel about the scum bags.


I thought you supported CCA?


----------



## callsignsleepy (Apr 3, 2007)

really? how is this even a feasible idea? Where can we sign up to be apart of the CCA board? we should all sign up and change the way this program is being run.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

just curious

that isn't signed or dated or authored

where is it from ?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

That is just plain stupid. It's like the ENRON approach...


----------



## texasfisherman (Mar 9, 2007)

Ignorance defined! Not doubting Mont but if this is even 1% true I'll never have anything to do with CCA again. Besided bashing them. "Hey, let's auction the tags!", what a bunch of morons. So stupid it's sad.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> just curious
> 
> that isn't signed or dated or authored
> 
> where is it from ?


the date is on the 4th line down. It was presented at the Gulf Council meeting held last week in the Big Easy.


----------



## Tiny (Dec 19, 2006)

StarlinMarlin said:


> Yeah, CCA Texas, 50,000 members strong! Or is it 10,000 strong and 40,000 people that would feel real stupid if they caught a tagged redfish and wern't signed up for Star?


That's about it... I used to be one of them "might catch a fish so go ahead and enter" guys... This is year number 3 for me... Without.

Ya know, I hope they do start selling RS tags. Just as long as they are transferable, that would be awesome! I can gaurantee license sells would go up!

Mom, dad, brother, sister, BIL, SIL, MIL, FIL, son, daughter, wife, niece, nephew, aunt, uncle... you get the drift

Say... 10 fish pppy... Perfect!


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

StarlinMarlin said:


> Yeah, CCA Texas, 50,000 members strong! Or is it 10,000 strong and 40,000 people that would feel real stupid if they caught a tagged redfish and wern't signed up for Star?


Exactly!!


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

I'm NOT in the cca and I'm Not in the fool tournament. The cca needs to go down the tubes.


----------



## Bonito (Nov 17, 2008)

Do these idiots just sit around all day trying to think of something new to put on paper to impress themselves ?


----------



## reelthreat (Jul 11, 2006)

I call *BS!!!*

There are too many gramatical errors, lack of law knowledge and poor wording for this to be real. Where did this come from Mont?


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

Hey POCBOY your a CCA supporter, do you have a good email contact for the Texas CCA so people who are members can express their disgust with this proposal?


----------



## reelthreat (Jul 11, 2006)

Mont said:


> the date is on the 4th line down. It was presented at the Gulf Council meeting held last week in the Big Easy.


Was it something some local chapter yahoo wrote up or was it from CCA?


----------



## JohnHumbert (May 21, 2004)

*OH, I get it now....*

...the CCA's answer: Make EVERYONE a commercial fisherman. Un-F'ing-believable.

However, there is an interesting twist to this.

A license-tag system COULD work and could gain acceptance.

I, for one, would support getting say - x Red Snapper tags per license year. I could use them whenever - winter or summer, Federal or State waters.

The question would be = what is the value of 'x'?


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

my thoughts exactly , that's not how you format/write a formal paper , with....... "we have a problem "

and "a better- novel- approach"

this has to be some yahoo with a pipe dream


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Its the exact same basic idea behind shrimper buy backs. You know, the thing that gave rise to SCA, which in turn, retired some shrimping licenses. Some of you all might have heard about it. Maybe not. I'll break it down for you. 

Remove the artificial regulatory barriers associated with right to exploit a limited resource, and thereby allow those who place the highest value on the right to that resource to make use of it. Max. economic return for the resource. 

In the example of shrimper licenses, conservation minded folks placed a greater value on the license than did the shrimper. So, the license is sold to the conservation organization who retired the license. Guess that makes me a tree hugger or some running dog lackey for the PEW orgs. cause, by God, I gave a bunch of money to SCA. 

Think about anglers, groups of anglers, and boat companies buying out the commercial IFQ's. As an aside, that was my idea way back in the days of SCA when we had that presentation on red snapper by Lance R of TPWD (as I recall). Not that it was my original idea. More like, mere application of well known, tired and true, market principles to a fishery issue. 

Not altogether unlike the tags used for many types of big game hunting out West, but instead of a lottery, its auction based initially. 

The irony of course being the reaction to this idea, and thats what it is at this stage, a mere idea, is almost identical to that of the shrimpers when they heard "conservation orgs." could buy their licenses. 

Think not how this weapon can be used against us, but instead, the manner in which we can wield the weapon to eliminate comm. fishing. Back to basics here guys. Snapper are worth a couple bucks a lb. to a comm. They are worth a ton more than that to you and I. This is the very avenue that allows our higher valuation of the resource to insure that the resource is placed to its most economically beneficial use.


----------



## TOM WEBER (Aug 14, 2005)

Thanks Mr Smarr for your work...keep pluggin' TW


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Ernest- you want to bid against Scott and Don Tyson or Sysco Foods for these fish? How about the Japanese fish market buyers? An open market is dangerous. For god sake these belong to everyone not elitist with a checkbook.

The Commercial IFQ got us where we are now. We now have to buy them out because CCA pushed Commercial IFQ's. Here we go again selling a natural public resource.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

Ernest said:


> Its the exact same basic idea behind shrimper buy backs. You know, the thing that gave rise to SCA, which in turn, retired some shrimping licenses. Some of you all might have heard about it. Maybe not. I'll break it down for you.
> 
> Remove the artificial regulatory barriers associated with right to exploit a limited resource, and thereby allow those who place the highest value on the right to that resource to make use of it. Max. economic return for the resource.
> 
> ...


 WRONG..........SCA, TP&W, CCA did'nt put shrimpers out of biz., the govt. did by allowing the influx of imports!


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Jim - yes sir. See, Tyson and the Japs can buy snapper on the international market which is a direct replacement for our local red snapper. As a result, their top bid is quite limited. They are comms, after all. 

Me, I treasure the experience of catching the critters, and as a result, I value the stock at considerably more than the sum of the protein content. 

So, dammmmn straight. I'l bid against Tyson everyday of the week. In fact, by allowing recreational anglers to bid against Tyson, we can guaranty the recs. will shortly own this fishery. Again, because its not a sum of protein valuation. 

The party boats will all buy tags, the guides will buy tags, and the recs. will buy tags. Only folks getting pushed out of the fishery will be the comms. Once again, that because they place the lowest value on the stock. Its only protein to them.

Where did I say the SCA put shrimpers out of business? Huh? No where! I'm talking about the core idea that permited the license buy back program.


----------



## txfishbait (Jun 21, 2007)

No point discussing this...it's "Step 2" if you will.

"Step 1" is discerning the number of "tags" to allow and which "authority" should have the right to issue the "tags".


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

the whole idea is flawed from the start, we reccs. go by fish count, comms. go by #'s.

What are you gonna do, buy a #50 tag and weigh out ea. to keep a running total for the tag. ...............or if it's a per fish tag......buy a roll of tags and zip tie ea. one thru the lip like this guy proposed till it goes in the freezer ?

the newly created paper work would be pure insanity. and this would encourage people to keep the largest fish poss. if it was a " per fish tag ".........now your back to the by-catch mortality issue, which he brought up, although very likely incorrectly.


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

i'm using the CCA membership and STAR money to buy a mega million lotto ticket every time i'm going fishing. the retuns are better .. and i wont hate myself for supporting the enemy


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Ernest*

You have to have been dropped on your head as a child son. An open bidding war is abject insanity. We could lose everything. The statement speaks for itself from CCA and one Russel Nelson PhD.

Everyone needs to wake up and pay attention. Our Fishery is going on the auction block if these rocket scientist get their way.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

tngbmt said:


> i'm using the CCA membership and STAR money to buy a mega million lotto ticket every time i'm going fishing. the retuns are better .. and i wont hate myself for supporting the enemy


not me. I'm going to be giving them my money thursday night at the cca banquet and signing up for the star so I can win a truck and boat. :work:


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Anyone that would bid against Tyson better have some real deep pockets. How could someone say "it's only protein to them?" I would think it is more to them than protein myself. 

Regardless, it is more than obvious to MOST of us that CCA has been against recs. since the TP&WD Scoping Meetings. As far as others are concerned, well like I said, the mongers will come to their rescue. I'm sure we will see more eventually.


----------



## fishdemeanor (Jul 16, 2004)

An auction will discriminate against the less wealthy. The state does not own the fish, so it is interesting that they would sell them. The state's job is to manage a public resource. Not to privatize a public resource. The CCA should have never released such a crazy idea, it will turn their membership off.


----------



## JohnHumbert (May 21, 2004)

*If....*

...this is true, and this a CCA stance .... then we have been back-stabbed and sold out by the CCA!!!

Even IF the recs can outbid - and as Tom said, that is insanity - it won't be individuals, it will be an organizations. Do you really think that after spend 40 million on snapper tags they are simply going to GIVE them away to us fisherman.

Of course not, we will have to BUY them from the CCA - every year, because it's a cinch that the CCA can't afford 40 million / year. (Assuming they will go that cheap!).

Can you see it now, regular family membership = $100, but if you want some snapper tags, you pay $500 or even $1000? Geez!

CCA auctions for snapper tags? Somebody get a rope!


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

There is too much potential for the environazi folks to buy this up to protect the sea kittens. 

I am blown away by CCA. This is such a simple fix, and the fix is 100% same as they did for redfish. Push to make snapper a gamefish. EVERYONE agrees this would fix the problem, although some may not like it.


----------



## Sow Trout (Jun 28, 2004)

Surely they are saying this in jest. They can't really mean it.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Think it thru. Snapper can be bought right now for say $3.00 a lb. (Sample number, not looked up today, but as an at the dock price for say Brazilian snapper). Thats caught fish. Fish at the dock. Dead on ice. 

Now, assuming that, why would Tyson ever pay $3.00 per lb. for the mere right to catch fish? He did not get rich by being stuipd. The upper boundry of what he will pay per pound is the market price - in this example $3.00 - less the expected cost to capture those fish. That number will ALWAYS be less than market price. Much less. 
What would I pay for the right to catch those fish? Significantly more than that. A license to take up to say 500 lbs of snapper at my leisure. I would gladly pay for that, as opposed to sitting at the dock waiting for the season to open. I've got sunk costs (boat, fishing gear, and all the rest of the costs) that significantly exceed that price already AND I SPENT THAT MONEY WHEN I KNEW I COULD BE SHUT OUT OF THE FISHERY! Ever really sit down and figure what it costs to chase snapper on a per pound basis? Its outrageous. 

Come on, its altogether unlike deer in Texas. Does anyone in their right mind think slaughter houses would pay more to take deer relative to hunters? Thats beyond silly and well into delusional thinking. Why? Well, like I keep pointing out, the commercial ventures determine value based upon the protein content which they can resell as food. Hunters value it for the experience plus food.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Meh ... a bunch of "consultants" who failed in Florida have come on down to Texas because they think we're dumb ******* eejits who will pay them $70,000 to part-time "consult" to make the beaches, the schools, the environment, or the fishing better. Instant results! You go look up these people and track back who they worked for and it turns out they made a huge mess and were run out of the state. 

Matter of fact we checked into two beach erosion consultants and they said their geo-tude projects made erosion even worse than before. And I see that of the red snapper issue as well - they done a smack dab GREAT job down there in Florida, huh? 

You'd better watch out because Texas done caught onto the ruse.
-sammie


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

Ernest said:


> Think it thru. Snapper can be bought right now for say $3.00 a lb. (Sample number, not looked up today, but as an at the dock price for say Brazilian snapper). Thats caught fish. Fish at the dock. Dead on ice.
> 
> Now, assuming that, why would Tyson ever pay $3.00 per lb. for the mere right to catch fish? He did not get rich by being stuipd. The upper boundry of what he will pay per pound is the market price - in this example $3.00 - less the expected cost to capture those fish. That number will ALWAYS be less than market price. Much less.
> What would I pay for the right to catch those fish? Significantly more than that. *A license to take up to say 500 lbs of snapper at my leisure*. I would gladly pay for that, as opposed to sitting at the dock waiting for the season to open. I've got sunk costs (boat, fishing gear, and all the rest of the costs) that significantly exceed that price already AND I SPENT THAT MONEY WHEN I KNEW I COULD BE SHUT OUT OF THE FISHERY! Ever really sit down and figure what it costs to chase snapper on a per pound basis? Its outrageous.


Don't forget to add the seperate liscences to take mahi, tuna, ling, trout, reds, and every thing else that will soon be coming. What kind of idiot thinks this tax would stop at snapper?

Put recs in a commercial bidding war? B.S.! I can't afford to stand toe to toe in a bidding war with others who fish offshore and I shouldn't have to.

Auction off what little integrity CCA had left along with the spines of any CCA supporters after this brain fart! Morons!


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

Ernest said:


> Its the exact same basic idea behind shrimper buy backs. You know, the thing that gave rise to SCA, which in turn, retired some shrimping licenses. Some of you all might have heard about it. Maybe not. I'll break it down for you.
> 
> Remove the artificial regulatory barriers associated with right to exploit a limited resource, and thereby allow those who place the highest value on the right to that resource to make use of it. Max. economic return for the resource.
> 
> ...


Bottom line this proposal if passed would mean one thing. The more money you have, the more red snapper tags you could purchase. The selling of a public resource to the highest bidder is wrong I don't care how you spin it.

How about the guy who doesn't have a ton of money invested in a fancy offshore boat,tons of gear, and nice electronics for said boat but wants to take his kids out to catch a few keeper red snapper?

If the CCA is so worried about the red snapper population why aren't they pushing for gamefish status that would disallow commercial fishing of red snapper?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Once again, and for hopefully for the last time, Texas gamefish status WILL NOT prevent the commerical capture in Fed water of red snapper or the sale of those fish in Texas. 

Just look at whats listed as gamefish in Texas and whats on the menu at restaraunts and local markets. Swordfish is a good example. So are kings and spanish macks. And the kings are stacked up like cordwood down at Fiesta.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

You keep talking about a bidding war with Tyson or whoever paying three dollars a pound at the dock. How much do you think PETA would pay per pound to keep red snapper off the docks all together? The same people spending money to put up billboards with family pets with hooks in their mouths. How much money would these rational organizations spend to keep red snapper (sea kittens) totally safe from evil fishermen?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

So, now having debunked the crazy Tyson would buy them all up idea, next up is PETA. 

Have they bought up all the cattle yet? How about sheep, pigs, or chickens? You know, the critters we intentionally kill every day of the week for food in factory farms. 

Have they leased up all the hunting grounds in Texas to keep me from slamming a 6.5 caliber projectile into the head of Bamby at a gentle 2800 fps each fall? 

Do you really think they have the cash to buy up, on an annual basis, all the red snapper tags? 

Even if they did manage to do it one period, ever consider the adverse public impact of such an action? It would be a blood bath for PETA and potentially doom them as a serious ongoing org. PETA, like Tyson, is not run by idiots. Sure, I disagree with their positions on every issue, but they are not stupid. They are master marketers. 

Plus, the following quarter, we would freaking milk them dry if there is another auction. Run the price up and freakin bankrupt PETA. Plus, plus, in the meantime, we are using their own money for improving the understanding of the resource and thereby potentially expanding the number of tags for the following period or year. 

Beginning to see how silly PETA buying the tags would be? It put them an a treadmill where each quarter it costs them more and more and more and more to sustain the position. And, as soon as they no longer can sustain the position of buying basically all the tags, all their prior cash spent was simply thrown away. Wasted. So, they will never do it.


----------



## willydavenport (Jun 4, 2004)

I just don't see how putting the most tags into the hands of those with the largest pockets, REGARDLESS of whether it's Tyson, PETA, or a rich recc fisherman is a good idea. If nothing else, your shrinking the opportunities for people to get on the water and access the resource, which will only reduce future numbers of recc fisherman.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

Ok so who would be buying up all these tags? In your opinion what would these tags end up costing and who would be the persons buying them?


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

JohnHumbert said:


> ...the CCA's answer: Make EVERYONE a commercial fisherman. Un-F'ing-believable.
> 
> However, there is an interesting twist to this.
> 
> ...


Why does there have to be a value to x? Why can't it just be part of the license, like deer tags? Same price, but regulated in the amount that you can take. This whole snapper regulation is ridiculous anyway. I know many of you have seen the floaters behind a dragging shrimp boat a mile long. There are more fish killed like that each year than all of the rec guys combined.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Recs, guides, and head boats, in that order. Thats the declining scale of value placed on the resource. 

But, no one knows what they would ultimately auction for without specifics of the numbers available. My guess is not very much. 

The headboats would likely try to buy up enough tags for an average number of fishable days for the summer season, full load, 4 fish per customer. Then, add in the same for a reduced fall and winter season. Guides would do the same. Both would be trying to figure how much they could pass on to their clients. 

Me, I'd figure the number of days I could likely fish, figure out the liquidity of the tags (sell on the web if I can't use?), and go from there. But, if the bottom line was - Ernesto pay $1,000 and you get an absolute right to take up to 500 lb. of red snapper with no bag limits or season restrictions, yeah I would likely buy it. 

Whats my other choice here? As in, whats the alternative? 60 some odd stinking days in the Summer this year? Even less days likely for next year?


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

The current market value of the commercial IFQ's are about $2.50 per pound, per calendar year. To buy it outright, it's in the $12.50 per pound range. I proposed that we buy them out a while back, and Bobby Walker will tell you that's true. Hell, I am a republican, and buyouts are as American as apple pie. To put this proposal by CCA up against what was done in the bay shrimping buyouts in not only unfair, it's inaccurate. 100% of the commercial side's pressure that was bought out, was transferred to the recreational side for anyone and everyone to catch and enjoy, free of charge. The most you had to pay was $3. 

I can see the PITA headline now "fishing doesn't hurt anymore". Never is a long time, Ernest. This fight just turned 20 years old. Same age as my first born. 

I can also see a whole fresh crop of "commercial recreationals" selling snapper the next day, legally. "I am offsetting some of my costs" will be what they say. Yep, it would happen. 

CCA is dead wrong on this buyout plan, new tax, whatever you want to call it. I am all for buying the commercial TAC and transferring it to the recreational side. In reality, we would have spent less money doing that over the last 20 years than we did with the current plan. Add up all the studies, meetings, salaries, ect. on the goverment side of this deal. It's a huge subsidy and there is absolutely no way they are giving it up. No way. Especially not now. 

Buy it outright, transfer it once and for all to the recreational side. That's a plan that will work. CCA's plan is a bigger bucket with larger holes in it.


----------



## FishinFoolFaron (Feb 11, 2009)

The group that came up with this idea isobviously not subject to drug testing.
They are definitely high on something.


----------



## Boboe (Feb 11, 2009)

They say that one of the reasons they propose this is to limit bycatch mortality. Then later they say that "you would target 6# fish instead of 1# fish, since the tag cost you the same amount regardless."

Who else sees how this is NOT going to fix a bycatch issue?

For those who don't understand, here goes:
1. I have X tags. They cost me money.
2. I can only harvest as many fish as I have tags for.
3. I catch a small--yet legal sized--fish
4. I throw it back because it costs me the same as a much larger--and also legal--fish. I do not want to waste one of my few, precious tags on this small fish.
5. Fish dies.
6. Problem NOT SOLVED!


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

Boboe,

There is nothing different in your scenario than what is already happening today with a two fish limit.

Culling.

Will


----------



## Goags (May 28, 2004)

And this is from the fine folks I've been sending money to? Step away from the crackpipe, boys, there'll be no more subsidies from me.
Jerry


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

Bonito said:


> Do these idiots just sit around all day trying to think of something new to put on paper to impress themselves ?


They do indeed. Didn't you know?


----------



## Always-Gone-Fishing (Feb 20, 2006)

This is so unfair to the grey trigger population since they are the real species in danger. Sell trigger stamps so my grandchildren will know the pleasure of being stoll on the drop!

You are in the Twillight Zone!

Rod Sterling with a cigarette in hand:tongue:

Always-never-gona-bottom fish
ANGBF


----------



## BIG PAPPA (Apr 1, 2008)

*WOW*

I have friends there and this original read was hard to swallow if it's really true. Ernest, i can see your point, JimSmarr yours too, and Mont, yours as well. Ernest, at this level in the Game, I think CCA is a little late to try and Back Door one. It'd be better to just start backing the State water reef program and work on Game fish status for the species. This Snapper issue is what has lost alot of CCA members and i don"t see most of the lost members Forgiving CCA ever because of the Snapper issue alone and where CCA stood when it really mattered most. CCA should relax those Muscles and go after something else..Like Flounder. Otherwise, start asking their members and the anglers(non CCA members) what the Hell they want supported and how.
This is where CCA should hand over some money to the TPWD to keep proving the real numbers. And also some $$$ to the State Reef Program. By the way.. Snapper Aren't really in trouble, Unless you read the Feds report. Anybody out there taken a Dive Lately?????


----------



## boatmanjohn (Mar 18, 2009)

Gilbert said:


> not me. I'm going to be giving them my money thursday night at the cca banquet and signing up for the star so I can win a truck and boat. :work:


There's a dolphin out there somewhere with a new truck and boat in its belly!! :rotfl:

But back to the snapper...
I agree. I agree that they aren't in danger along the Texas coast. I can't speak for the other Gulf states. The proposal is rediculous. Insane. I can hardly afford to fish already. NMFS permits, etc. All just in case I catch a migratory fish. I also agree that recreational fishermen/women would be out-bid for tags. Now, on the other hand, a drawing would make more sense. Not sensible, DON'T get the wrong idea, just more sense than an auction. Kinda like Colorado with their elk tags.


----------



## pinkskittermaster (Oct 31, 2008)

I think CCA has been ******* fisherman lately,they give more to the commercial fisherman that give nothing to cca than to the real fisherman that have supported them and funded them. it's bull. CCA started off as a great program and helped rasie the population on alot of fish, then rich jerks, that prolly don't even fish took it over and...downhill from there


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Big Pappa,
CCA never ask their members anything, they just went on linning their own pockets.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

I notices there was no Name attached. Hmm

Charlie


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

CCA has become a national .org and although we don't have a shortage of snapper here with a 9 mile window year round, other states do because they don't have the same state jurisdiction/structure we have. They cry about a shortage of fish to NMFS and CCA and how we are hurting their fishing. The "fish saviors", CCA sold Texas out years ago when they went National even though if it wasn't for Texas they wouldn't be worth an extra spot on a redfish. It makes me sick to have donated money and goods to this .org now, although it seemed like the thing to do when I did it. Just goes to show you what success can do to some folks. They will sell you down the river at first chance for more money and power.


----------



## Boboe (Feb 11, 2009)

willyhunting said:


> Boboe,
> 
> There is nothing different in your scenario than what is already happening today with a two fish limit.
> 
> ...


The only difference is that I can get a 2 fish limit today, tomorrow, the next day, etc. I don't really have a finite quota of fish, other than (x days of the season times 2 fish per day). Under a tagging system, I'd in theory be keeping a lot fewer fish, so I'd be more inclined to cull larger fish than otherwise.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

And the alternative being offered up is what? The outside the box ideas by others?


----------



## BluewaterAg26 (Jan 12, 2009)

I need to see more evidence that this so called Proposal is legit. No names attached, seems a little misleading to me. With that being said, I wouldn't put it past CCA to come up with some **** like that. IMO if CCA had their way their would be NO snapper caught...


----------



## Shallow Sport68 (Oct 14, 2008)

Snagged said:


> Big Pappa,
> CCA never ask their members anything, they just went on linning their own pockets.


Thats what they do,CCA cares about CCA,and linning theirpockets.They don't give a big rats arse about you.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Well i finally began to read this message from Mr Russell nelson of the CCA (verified where it came from.) I got down to B ii and it says something like this. Would cause folks to catch bigger fish because the price would be he same per tag whether a small fish or large fish. This would reduce mortality rate. Now how in the hell would "culling" smaller fish to get a bigger fish reduce the mortality rate. I have and will read no more.

Charlie


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

I like Monts idea! Sell the comm. side to the recs. Rik
P.S. Crazy thing is : We are working off a false primse. 
There are plenty of fish in fed. waters.
NMF should declare victory before being proved wrong!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Ernest*

We are working on changing the Law -The Magnuson to allow for flexibility of recovering fisheries in Congress. There is a bill there right now gaining support day by day. Changing the law is the only solution to get us by the lawsuit that locked us into a 2 fish short season. CCA was a part of that lawsuit against the shrimpers claiming 80% bycatch when everyone knew the correct NMFS number at the time was 26%. The misrepresentation of the 80% got us where we are now. Locked out of our fishery. Thanks CCA and Enviro's.

Revist the old "News Back from Washington" post. It clearly shows Texas being sold out yet once again.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

I understand Ernest's point about the commercial interests assigning a lower cost per pound than recreational interests. I really like the idea of buying up shares from the commercial side, as a pure concept. If it costs them too much money to buy their shares, then the cost of commercially caught snapper will be way too high for the market to bear moving it to other species for our seafood needs in stores and restaurants. As Ernest says, it is only protien. The problem is that this brainchild of CCA is the thoughts of a child, without any regards to some very likely negative results that would be horrible for all of us. 

Assuming that the bidding would be only between recs and comms is childish. I am not that worried about bidding against the commercials, but there is a far more sinister opponent out there. By that, I am talking about the deep pockets of the environmental as well as non-fishing groups. Pew is very well funded and would probably jump at the chance to buy up as many shares as possible, if not all of them. As opposed to the comms, I would not want to get into a bidding war with them. After we buy our shares, we still have to buy, and maintain our fishing boats, tackle, etc, set a price for charters, bait, gear, etc. If the price per share is driven up by the enviros, even they can make it too rich for our blood, so the reality is that we have a limit to the price per share of snapper too, and I fear that is below the likes of Pew. In the end, none of us are fishing for snapper and PEW holds the cards (and the snapper shares). 

In the end, it doesn't matter for the enviros. To achieve their means, they are going to spend the money anyway, whether it is for government influence, payouts for grants to the scientific community to bolster their positions, or to harrass fishermen on the open seas. Buying up all of the shares just might be a simpler and more cost effective way for them to achieve their goals. 

I am assuming this is not CCA's plan here, but once again, they are foolishly playing into their hands it seems. 

It is like the saying goes. "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" Or enemas.


----------



## Capt Ryan Rachunek (Feb 16, 2006)

What do you think Mr. Grigar would think of the organization that he helped create?????


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

There is no outside the box, there is only NMFS and their cohorts in crime.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

I wonder how many asain countries would be bidding against us.


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

Mont's point that CCA is selling our fish to the environmentalist would be absolutly true. If an alotment of tags were auctioned off to the highest bidder, anti-fishing groups would jump all over them driving the price up not only making it unfeasable for commercial fishermen to target snapper, but the average fishermen as well. A similar scenerio happened in North Carolina. In North Carolina they hunt Tundra Swawns similar to the way we hunt snow geese. Some years back they went to a lottery tag system for swan tags. At first it was not that hard to get tags as there were not that many hunters that put in for the tags. As soon as the anti-hunting groups discovered that they could enter the lottery and get tickets as well as anybody else though, they flooded the lottery making it more difficult for the true hunter to get tags. Now the anti-hunter that won tags in the lottery system would throw away the tags and the resourse therefore was under-utilized. Now be it was not an auction not a lottery, but still similar principle. Forgett about Sysco, Tyson, or any other commercial food distributer, It is the ant-fishing / environmentalist that we as fishermen would have to be worried about.


----------



## James Howell (May 21, 2004)

So, are these tags like the early season teal tags I read so much about on the hunting board?

In all seriousness, bad idea from a horrible think tank.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Is it safe to say that only ONE person has posted in favor of CCA's moronic idea in this thread?


----------



## txfishbait (Jun 21, 2007)

Guys...I understand this is a message board and it's an interesting read BUT...the fight has to be over how to quantify the resource BEFORE you can fight over how to divide it up.

Figuring out the latter without the former leaves you holding a big empty bag instead of a small one...they are both empty.

All this thread accomplished was creating more disdain for CCA...on second thought that doesn't hurt anything so carry on, carry on.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

What surprises me is that anyone is surprised. CCA is NOT our friend and hasn't been for a good long while. For the most part, the inshore guys are just now beginning to figure it out, but they are beginning to. When a large percentage of them have, CCA will either change or die out. Talk to your speck and redfish fishing friends. You don't need to talk to the flounder fishermen, they know.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Snap Draggin said:


> Is it safe to say that only ONE person has posted in favor of CCA's moronic idea in this thread?


Make that 2 LOL


----------



## DANewell (Apr 18, 2008)

"...tags would have to remain on each individual fish until it is *finally cooked and consumed*..."

So, you have to have the tag in place as you fry the bugger? Sounds like a high school kid wrote this thing...


----------



## Calebs Retreat (Sep 13, 2005)

*CCA = Crackhead and Communist Association*

ok so I am out fishing a rig for Amberjack and the Scalpers (just like those who buy up all the concert tickets) but up all tags and are selling them for inflated prices on craig's list. I switched to Miller High life but I still cannot afford them.

Back to fishing....I get "fish on"...reel it up and it is a gorgeous 6 lb snapper...but oops I can't keep him because I cannot afford the tag and since I didnt have tags I had to throw him back but since I didnt have tags I left my venting device at home...and now I watch him float on top the water.

Why doesn't CCA identify major departure points up and down the cost and orchestrate a rock, paper scissor tournament every sat and sun at 7am to determine who gets to catch fish.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

*I totally support the idea!!!*

What a great idea!

Way to think out of the box. I think they are just trying to get ideas flowing and a discussion started. It worked. I think this is just a great idea to auction off to the highest bidder the entire stock of Gulf red snapper. Afterall, it is a government commodity. The government owns it right? After buying all the banks, insurance companies and blackmailing bankers to take TARP money, or else, it is just one more effort to socialize our lives. We as Americans should all be in favor of this. Afterall, wasn't it our President who recently said that he is doing all that he is doing because he was elected and the people must want this or they wouldn't have elected him. The people have spoken. America wants socialism, so socialism we will have. Why should red snapper be any different. For goodness sakes, why don't they just lease sections of the Gulf of Mexico for fishing rights. They do for oil. The government owns it for oil. Lets just lease mile squares to the highest bidder for fishing. You can then do whatever you want in your square. We can then set up a snapper and fishing lease exchange like the stock market and all buy futures in snapper or trade and exchange fishing leases. The more we preserve the fish in our lease, the more valuable it is. Somebody buys it high, depletes it, dumps it back on the market and then somebody buys it to rest it and replenish it and the process can start over. These are just great ideas...... go America go...

*NOT!!!!!* :rybka:


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

I would bet that TPWD likes this idea. Just a hunch


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*This paln is on fast track CCA is pushing it hard.*

*Other Reef Fish Motions*

*Motion**: To invite Dr. Nelson of the CCA to the next Reef Fish Committee meeting to give a presentation, "Is there a better way to manage U.S. shared commercial and recreational fisheries?" and that we also invite Donald Leal to address these issues at the next Reef Fish Committee meeting, "Evaluating Approaches to Managing Marine Recreational Fishery".*

*Motion** carried.*


*Motion**: Initiate action to encompass all remaining reef fish species in the management unit into a commercial program compatible with the existing red snapper and grouper/tile fish IFQ programs.*


*Substitute** motion: Initiate action to encompass all remaining reef fish species in the management unit into a program compatible with the existing red snapper and grouper/tile fish IFQ programs.*

*Substitute motion** carried 11-4.*


*Motion**: For the Grouper IFQ Program, that the intent of the 10% overages is to apply to each category of allocation.*

*Motion** carried.*


*Motion**: That the Council would concur with the agency's determination that the emergency rule be terminated prior to expiration of the statutory time period.*

*Motion** carried.*


----------



## texasjellyfish (Jan 23, 2006)

"sold to highest bidder" what a way to make money off Red Snapper

Avg. angler vs Corporate America "Asia" , not a chance

After becoming a member during the gcca days i have been a non member for stupid ideas like this for a few years now

They are at it again and its defintley a bunch of :


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

YA know, I get real tired of all this -- Texas needs to claim jurisdiction out to twenty miles and continue to thumb their nose at the Feds -- Its getting to the point I may as well be an outlaw and take my chances -- CCA needs to get off this tag idea -- the resource must be managed soundly and by the area it comes from. Texas waters probably hold more Red Snapper than the rest of the Gulf combined in fact we are catching ever bigger fish each year, and just about every stop last fall the water literally turned red in the 70-100' deep rigs we fished -- 

I C&R way more than I keep -- more than a meal or two at a time is plenty of fish. Ling, mutton, grays make it up, heck, I go fishin to have fun, the eating is a side benefit.


----------



## kweber (Sep 20, 2005)

Its getting to the point I may as well be an outlaw and take my chances 

sadly, this has/is happenning with many otherwise law-abing folks.

remember 55mph?


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

Boy, I hope the NOAA LEOs see this thread and get a good look at the sheet we have to put up with.

Ernest, 

Please explain why we snapper wouldn't benefit from a game fish status, If they are a game fish they won't be able to port and sell them in Texas right? So it will cost more money in time and fuel to fill there IFQ right?
Seams like it would knock out all the small IFQs from our waters.


----------



## sferg (May 26, 2004)

Someone bumped their head!


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Folks let's not misunderstand the deal. The commercials get 51% of the snapper by poundage of fish and the recreationals get 49%. The IFQ program seems to work OK for the commercial sector. The recreational sector can fish until their quota of the total allowable catch (TAC) is achieved, which might be expressed as "2 fish per person per day over 16 inches" with a slot entry of a certain number of days at sea.

Nobody in Texas really believes that these daily bag numbers have any meaning in the real world, which is why we're having a problem because there do seem to be more snapper than ever, at least historically or in recent memory. The onus is on the Feds to do a better job or working with the states to improve these numbers and limits, not little fishermen like me.

But don't be a hypocrite and say we need to list the species as "game fish only" for recreationals when we say there are more snapper than ever. That's completely ludicrous.

As to any auction system, there is no basis for it in the law for recreationals and the US Congress should implement that if needed, not some smiling folks from Florida wanting to keep their headboats in business, and lobby the NMFS as a back-door solution which is unworkable except for anybody but them. It is stupid is a stupid does and I'll say no more.
sammie wells


----------



## Quint (Oct 20, 2006)

Guess I won't be apart of the CCA tournament. I don't feel like taking a lie detector test anyways!


----------



## woody7 (May 28, 2004)

But don't be a hypocrite and say we need to list the species as "game fish only" for recreationals when we say there are more snapper than ever. That's completely ludicrous

B.S. SWELLS, listing Red Snapper will work just as it did for trout and reds. There ARE plenty of snaps and YES the comms need to go fish for hard heads. This is a worthless arguement, the comms will fish until the market for the given resource collapses, PERIOD. The flounder is a gamefish and hammered by the comms and shrimpers alike. Now the recs and comms get restricted, AGAIN! So when will the comms be satisfied with a rec season???? When it is ALL theirs and they can continue to pillage at will. Go comms and CCA, go Swells, screw the recs at all cost. What a total load of F****** B.S. Swells. Get a dang rope for the love of GOD! I am ****** OFF and have had enough of the same talk from all involved! B.S. 
Woody7, OVER and OUT!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

The people who asked CCA's Dr. Nelson to address the reef fish group is the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council. Texas has a Representative from Aqua Culture and Two TPWD staffers in the other two slots. One is the others Boss. We do not have a Recreational person on the Council for the first time since the creation of the Council System. We need our seat back and now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are the only State with two Agency folks and no Recreational Rep. See what we get
without our seat at the Table. This has to be an oversight. Surely TPWD would not want to take advantage of us. LOL


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

jim smarr said:


> The people who asked CCA's Dr. Nelson to address the reef fish group is the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council. Texas has a Representative from Aqua Culture and Two TPWD staffers in the other two slots. One is the others Boss. We do not have a Recreational person on the Council for the first time since the creation of the Council System. We need our seat back and now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are the only State with two Agency folks and no Recreational Rep. See what we get
> without our seat at the Table. This has to be an oversight. Surely TPWD would not want to take advantage of us. LOL


I nominate WOODY7 for the seat.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*

Howdy,
Don't know where to begin on this one...

First, it's ludicrous to propose that we have to pay at auction (only God knows how much $$) for tags to allow us to fish for Red Snapper. Right now, if you put a price tag on what it costs to bring some home, the fish already cost us about $75/pound or more - and this proposal is designed to increase this cost substantially more? Smarr is right on this one, as enviros and other well-funded groups will certainly have the opportunity to gobble them up.

If the fishery is considered overfished and undergoing overfishing, the very FIRST thing that needs to be done is to eliminate the commercial take. The feds could pay the commercial fishermen to stay home and NOT fish, much like they pay farmers NOT to plant. It's really not rocket science here guys.

Require a Snapper Stamp, much like duck hunters are required to purchase duck stamps if they want to hunt ducks. This will identify the numbers of fishermen targeting snapper - take a % of the revenues from the sale of the stamps to determine the number of fish harvested - again, much like the duck stamp system. Use a % of the revenues to provide additional habitat for the fish, again much like what the VERY successful duck stamps have accomplished. Now, you have an accurate assessment of the number of fishermen, an accurate assessment of how many fish were harvested, and you are pro-actively enhancing the fishery biomass by providing suitable habitat.

All of this for a cost of $10+_ per person.

God Help Us.

Tom Hilton


----------



## Chuck (May 21, 2004)

I am fairly sure that CCA would be a willing bidder in the snapper auctions...it would be a nice perk to be able to offer snapper tags to your dues paying membership. Certainly would keep the cash flowing towards CCA! I would think the dues would be able to increase substantially, along with a healthy margin for CCA coffers, and still be a "bargain" since you would have no other alternative. And the commercial value of snapper is set by the market but when the dynamics of the free enterprise market change, so do the prices. If the commercial value of snapper were to go to, say $10 a pound due to an auction of the resourse, the restaurant trade would simply market different fish instead of snapper. If any snapper made it to the restaurant trade, it would be priced like Kobe beef! CCA's ownership of substantial number of snapper tags would make you join CCA if you wanted to fish snapper. 

Building Texas snapper populations through artificial reefing seems like an even better idea today.


----------



## sweenyite (Feb 22, 2009)

StarlinMarlin said:


> Yeah, CCA Texas, 50,000 members strong! Or is it 10,000 strong and 40,000 people that would feel real stupid if they caught a tagged redfish and wern't signed up for Star?


That's why I enter.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Nelson has long been known to make poor decisions....much like his employers..
http://www.southeasternfish.org/archives/FAWCC/russell_nelson_resigns.htm

Some people never learn....guess they like the taste of Crow.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

So... you are in part funding the enemy and allowing them to hose us... all for the chance to win a cheap boat (they lost their good sponsors, or lets say their sponsors saw the light)?

Sounds a wee bit self defeating to me.



sweenyite said:


> That's why I enter.


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

Someone please tell me why I keep reading 'buy the comms out' >>*** in any big buss when they close or downsize you are told "Seek employment elsewhere" so why are the comms any different from anyone else loosing their job....WW


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

sweenyite said:


> That's why I enter.





Hughoo222 said:


> So... you are in part funding the enemy and allowing them to hose us... all for the chance to win a cheap boat (they lost their good sponsors, or lets say their sponsors saw the light)?
> 
> Sounds a wee bit self defeating to me.


Some folks just don't get it, and never will.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

11 pages and not 1 POCboy post?


----------



## rules246 (Jun 11, 2007)

They used the word stimulate on the 1st page. geez. i hate that word!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*My Fellow Texans the time has come!!!!!!!!!*

Texas Anglers, the CCA proposal is no surprise for us. They are finally showing their true colors. CCA never was an angler or fisherman organization. There is no mention of fish, fishing , or anglers in their mission statement. So don't be surprised by their caviler and elitist views. CCA has mislead SW fishermen for years and that is why most of their north east members are walking away from them. They can only entice people to join through a gimmick like the STAR Tournament. CCA is a green group and so we except that. 
RFA has battles to fight on Capitol Hill on your behalf. Our mission statement is very clear and focused. Please JOIN TODAY and help us become the biggest saltwater Sportfishing organization in the Lone Star State. 

We need to stand tall now or lose it all. We need a massive RFA Tea Party.


----------



## chad (Sep 7, 2006)

manintheboat said:


> 11 pages and not 1 POCboy post?


Funny, I was thinking the same thing. I know he has been reading this thread, I have seen his name on the bottom in the active viewers box. Maybe he has seen the light?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

"If they are a game fish they won't be able to port and sell them in Texas right?" 

No sir. The Feds control the waters past 9 miles. Gamefish status, as being discussed here, would be a Texas law/regulation. Texas don't get to tell the Feds what to do in Fed. waters. In contrast, the Feds do get to tell Texas what to do in Texas offshore waters (subject to various limitiations.) 

In order to prevent the commerical take in Fed. waters and then the resale in Texas of snapper, we would have to have a Fed. law/reg. Obviously, the Feds. are not going to make commerical snapper fishing unlawful any time in the near future. Alternatively, if the Fed. would do so, a good portion of our snapper problems would be solved, and we would not really need the Texas gamefish status. 

The confusion arises because some fish - flounder. reds, trout - are primarily inshore fish. So, in those instances, gamefish status can be significant. For species that are primarily offshore, its essentially meaningless. Look at King Macks, Spanish, and swords. All Texas gamefish, and all readily available in Texas for sale raw, grilled or fried. 

Stepping back a couple steps, generally speaking, where there are Federal laws which specifically permit an activity - here comm. snapper fishing - and that activity is a matter of interstate commerce, states are prohibited from enforcing local laws which would criminalize that conduct (very long story made short, exceptions exist). 

So, it OK for us to buy up the comm. TAC or IFQ, but its wrong for others to try to buy up our TAC? Its one of those sauce for the goose, but no sauce for the gander deals, right? 

Is that not the problem at the core here? Each user group desires to have "special" and favorable rules for themselves, while throwing all the other user groups under the bus? Harsh and draconian rules for the other guy, but not me. Put the other guy out, not me. F' them, but never me. 

Just like economic impact. The economic impact pecking order is recs, then guides, then headboats, then comms, and then shrimpers (although one could argue about whether its comms then shrimpers or shrimpers then comms). Everyone loves to say - cut the comm's off because the recs, guides and headboats are the big economic impact. But, as soon as someone says, cut off headboats too (same exact argument), here comes the name calling. 

As soon as someone suggests, lets establish a system in which those with the big economic impact get most of a limited resource (the very idea we are discussing here), its name calling. Very little intelligent discussion. Just name calling and false/ grossly misguided rhetoric.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Ernest-The time has come period to stop the plan.*

The plan will go for all fish soon Ernest if the Enviro Groups have their way. If you continue to support the sale of a resource that belongs to all Americans (The RFA fought against the Commercial IFQ's) you will have a very limited fishery across the board for all species. I could post up all Gulf Council Motions at the recent New Orleans Gulf of Mexico Council Meeting.
I thought I made it clear where we are headed and who is pushing for 
placing our resources up for sale. I can not believe anyone could think 
selling a resource could be good.

We have to wake up before everything is locked up for the elitist. Try fishing a trout stream in Scotland. You had better have big bucks to lease a spot. We at RFA feel this is not a good move for anyone and an ill thought out plan.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

RFA Gathering????????????? soon! Membership drive, I can help with Houston to Sabine


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I believe I have just read the "false/ grossly misguided rhetoric."


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Mont said:


> I don't know what on earth they are thinking by proposing this. Do they have any idea of how fast ED or PEW or PITA would snap these up? We are talking millions upon millions of dollars already there, that they could write the check for today. Read for yourself. Unfricking believable
> 
> http://2coolfishing.com/cca.pdf
> 
> The file is clean, and the reader for pdf files is free if you don't already have it. Most of you should have it installed already.


First of all Monty, let's put this into the context it was taken out of. This was presented at a meeting as a 'thinking out of the box idea session' where ideas were thrown out and discussed. It is not a proposal for the public, even though the council meetings are public record.

Now you can all rip me to shreds if you want, I'm ready. :smile:


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> First of all Monty, let's put this into the context it was taken out of. This was presented at a meeting as a 'thinking out of the box idea session' where ideas were thrown out and discussed. It is not a proposal for the public, even though the council meetings are public record.
> 
> Now you can all rip me to shreds if you want, I'm ready. :smile:


why would they even think of coming up with something like this, thinking out the box or not?


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Gilbert said:


> why would they even think of coming up with something like this, thinking out the box or not?


I don't know Gilbert. I'm not sure what other ideas were presented or what was discussed. I really didn't want to post anything until I had some idea of what this meant, and that is what I was told. Maybe someone will post some of the other ideas that were presented at this meeting as well.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

*Blinded!*

Chica, they are so blinded by their dislike for CCA that any thing that comes along and gives them the opportunity to bash they pounce on it. Mr. Smarr has been waiting in the wings for this opportunity to spew his nonsense he's probably shaking with excitement. Practically everyone who has posted on this seems to have engaged their fingers before their brains. Oh well, maybe rfa will gain a few more members so Mr. Smarr can talk about all the great things rfa tries to do. BTW, the reason I didn't post is because I didn't want to roll around in the mud, so I'll step out before I get too dirty.
BTW, I THINK THE PROPOSAL POSTED BY MONT IS ABOUT THE MOST IGNORANT IDEA THAT ANYONE FROM CCA HAS EVER COME UP WITH, but I'll wait till I know if it's official or a dream until before I go jumping around and acting like it is already a law.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> Chica, they are so blinded by their dislike for CCA that any thing that comes along and gives them the opportunity to bash they pounce on it. Mr. Smarr has been waiting in the wings for this opportunity to spew his nonsense he's probably shaking with excitement. Practically everyone who has posted on this seems to have engaged their fingers before their brains. Oh well, maybe rfa will gain a few more members so Mr. Smarr can talk about all the great things rfa tries to do. BTW, the reason I didn't post is because I didn't want to roll around in the mud, so I'll step out before I get too dirty.


so you have nothing to say about what mont posted up?


----------



## craig ellington (Aug 15, 2006)

BEER4BAIT said:


> RFA Gathering????????????? soon! Membership drive, I can help with Houston to Sabine


I'm in, strength in numbers; RFA will not have cca's strength until we give them the numbers. If you have not joined, do so today. I'll do anything I can to help.


----------



## fathom lures (Jan 27, 2007)

this is equal to the pita idea of replacing cows milk with mothers milk, sea kittens etc... corporate greed and high toned rich people deciding whats best for others.. buy a clue!


----------



## texasjellyfish (Jan 23, 2006)

*x - cca , 3rd year RFA*



Pocboy said:


> Chica, they are so blinded by their dislike for CCA that any thing that comes along and gives them the opportunity to bash they pounce on it and acting like it is already a law.


 if we wouldnt get banned it would be a daily topic


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Somebody put cca back in the box. please!


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Liz and Gilbert, I don't think anyone wants to rip you to shreds. Most of us can realize the more invested one is in a once beneficial organization, the more difficult it is to let go of the notion that it is still good at the core, just perhaps on the wrong side of a few issues. It works that way with a grown child going bad, lots of things. I saw it with D.U. heading down the wrong road a few years ago. Fortunately they were able to (IMO) turn things around before their mistakes became irreversible, as they began loosing membership and popular support to organizations like Delta Waterfowl. 

But some die hards, many of whom were good people like yourselves, defended them every step of the way, and when they couldn't possibly defend a move, excused it as a abberation. Those people never raised their voices as the "loyal opposition" to bad policy. As a result, those people's efforts and misguided support drowned out a lot of critical thinking by others. It's funny how a few voices chiming "My .org right or wrong" will drown out hundreds calling for change in the ears of policy makers. I guess the moral is we hear what we want to hear a lot of the time. 

My point is this. I think it's very possible CCA is at a "tipping point". It still has time to turn itself around, like DU did, IF it acts VERY Quickly and DECISIVELY to listen to and support the people who built it. If they continue to be allowed to align with the commercials and the preservationists (I have no problem with environmentalists and conservationists, I consider myself both), as indicated by this latest action, they will soon complete the transition to just another discredited, dishonest, marginalized bit player. By "standing up for them" you and people like you, are helping to seal their fate. 

One last thing. I don't believe CCA puts out anything in a public forum that they have not done their homework on, twisted arms, lobbied, and feel they have the support to carry. I disagree with their goals and their methods, but I'm not stupid enough to think they just run things up the flag pole to see who salutes. They KNOW who'll salute before they run anything up the pole.


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

I can understand when people are outraged , disgusted, and frightened when some organization or organizations come up with plans, schemes, and ideas that are completely unacceptable to lots of us, but I have a hard time understanding what good it does anyone to drag someone through the mud over a mistake he made 8 or 9 yrs ago. Russell Nelson is a consultant for CCA national, he gets paid to represent them at various meetings. He didn't write that piece of propaganda, he didn't claim authorship of it, he merely presented it to the Council. I have no idea whether the man agrees with it or disagrees with it. It just seems like taking a real cheap shot at him by dragging a past indiscretion out in public just because his employer has raised our hackles. Looks to me like the issue itself is serious enough to get our attention without resorting to the level of the National Enquirer.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Aaaaaaahhhhhhh I see the mongers have just about all come out of the shadows now.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Yeah, they all jumped out the second this thread was posted.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Well at least you agree that the new idea of theirs is total lunacy.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

It is not a new idea of "theirs". It is something that was proposed as a way to get people to come up with ideas on the problem of recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen. It was stated on the paper that that is what is was about. It is not a stance that CCA is taking and any claim to that is just an attempt to discredit them.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> First of all Monty, let's put this into the context it was taken out of. This was presented at a meeting as a 'thinking out of the box idea session' where ideas were thrown out and discussed. It is not a proposal for the public, even though the council meetings are public record.
> 
> Now you can all rip me to shreds if you want, I'm ready. :smile:


Liz,
If I told you I was a liberal would that make it true?
To be honest that looks too much like the type of sell out
the bluewater people can expect from the cca and their buddies NMFS.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

They (CCA) don't need any help in being discredited. They take care of that all by themselves.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Alex -Beer and Crawfish*

I will happily supply the beer and crawfish for a get to know the RFA Party. We could talk about our idea of Flexibility in the Magnuson.
Changing the cuurent law is the only realistic fix.

Congress can reign in NMFS believe me if the Gulf demands it.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Had to pull your claws back in when you realized there was really nothing to grab onto?


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*Thinking Outside Of The Box*

Awarding recreational snapper permits only to those whose initials are EH, and live in Port Isabel (except for part of the summer when they go to Wisconsin), and fish of an old center console named _Unbound_ might be considered thinking outside of the box too. While I personally would approve, I suspect that most would consider that thought unreasonable and self-serving, just as I consider CCA's thinking to be.

Any of you CCA members know what CCA's stance is for flexibility towards Magnusson?


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Pocboy said:


> Had to pull your claws back in when you realized there was really nothing to grab onto?


HUH???

Drinking early in the day, POCBOY?


----------



## BluewaterAg26 (Jan 12, 2009)

Between POCBOY and WHISTLIN DIXIE this forum gets interesting. Pink haired Trolls.


----------



## BluewaterAg26 (Jan 12, 2009)

In all reality the CCA needs to consult with the fishermen on this issue... They have done some good things for the bay, but need to leave the snapper issue to others.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Ernest;2034093
As soon as someone suggests said:


> I would argue that there are plenty of well thought out posts on this thread pointing out legitimate reasons as to why this idea is not a very good one. But I guess you are probably the type of person that dismisses opinions differing from yours as unintelligent. You complain about name calling, then insult a large group by chategorizing their statements as spewing "misguided rhetoric". Pot? Kettle?
> 
> Yeah, of course there are going to be some unintelligent, as well as emotional statements on this post. It is a red snapper thread involving CCA for crying out loud.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*



Ernest said:


> As soon as someone suggests, lets establish a system in which those with the big economic impact get most of a limited resource (the very idea we are discussing here), its name calling. Very little intelligent discussion. Just name calling and false/ grossly misguided rhetoric.


Ernest,

The point here is that there is absolutely no guarantee that "those with the big economic impact (recreationals) get most of a limited resource" - the proposal simply opens up the opportunity for well-funded groups (that may not be recreationals) to dominate the bidding. If the enviros, commercials, CCA, or other groups do not have that opportunity, please point that out to me cause I'm not seeing it.

The proposal is about CONTROL, and has little to do with helping the fishery, the fishermen, or the coastal communities. Below is the only other post I have made on this subject which addresses what is needed to do just that; assess the number of fishermen, assess their harvest, and enhance the habitat. The only thing missing was an accurate assessment of the number of snapper swimming out there and perhaps a change in how snapper are viewed....they are habitat-limited, not recuitment limited.

The resource should be open to all Americans who fish recreationally for a minimal cost. Not everyone drives a Mercedes Ernest.

I believe this to be an intelligent approach - not grossly misguided rhetoric nor is there any name-calling.

Let's get on with the issues at hand and demand that the regulators get on the right track - the proposal by Dr. Nelson simply does not meet those standards.

Tom

First, it's ludicrous to propose that we have to pay at auction (only God knows how much $$) for tags to allow us to fish for Red Snapper, a natural resource that belongs to all of us. Right now, if you put a price tag on what it costs to bring some home, the fish already cost us about $75/pound or more - and this proposal is designed to increase this cost substantially more? Smarr is right on this one, as enviros and other well-funded groups will certainly have the opportunity to gobble them up.

If the fishery is considered overfished and undergoing overfishing, the very FIRST thing that needs to be done is to eliminate the commercial take. The feds could pay the commercial fishermen to stay home and NOT fish, much like they pay farmers NOT to plant. It's really not rocket science here guys.

Require a Snapper Stamp, much like duck hunters are required to purchase duck stamps if they want to hunt ducks. This will identify the numbers of fishermen targeting snapper - take a % of the revenues from the sale of the stamps to determine the number of fish harvested - again, much like the duck stamp system. Use a % of the revenues to provide additional habitat for the fish, again much like what the VERY successful duck stamps have accomplished. Now, you have an accurate assessment of the number of fishermen, an accurate assessment of how many fish were harvested, and you are pro-actively enhancing the fishery biomass by providing suitable habitat.

All of this for a cost of $10+_ per person.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Tom - I would love for the resource to be available for all Americans at a low cost. Shait, for free. No cost at all. Just as I would also love for all Americans to have the opportunity to stalk a trophy buck, bag a nice elk, fight their dream fish, watch thier children fight the fish of the kid's dream, see the wonders of Yellowstone with their own eyes, whatever. 

Unfortunately, none of this is about what I want. Same as, none of this is about popular opinion, want you want, or what the enviro's want. We are not talkin dreams and hopes here. Its problem solving time. 

Problem solving is about a reality that exists. That reality being a limited take being allowed for a resource - for good, for bad or for otherwise - and necessarily, an adverse impact upon communities and industries associated with the manner in which that limited resource is allocated. I did not create this reality anymore than you did. We both just have to deal with it. 

I would point out, for each American that would not be able to fish snapper under this idea, there is also another American, maybe working at a marina, at a boat builder, or in some other industry, that would potentially benefit from the re-allocation of the resource under this idea. So, there are two sides to this coin, and its easy at times to loose sight of the long tail of economic benefit associated with the recreational sector. And, when we talk about the recreational sector, undoubtedly, the loin's share of that economic benefit is related to "pure recs" and guides. 

So, here we are. Short term, if the status quo continues, we are looking at smaller TAC's near term, and a serious threat of complete closure. Under that situation, all American recs fish less and some American rec's can't fish at all. Complete closure, no American recs fish for snapper. 

Relative to that situation, a market based solution that permits private boat recs to voluntarily pay extra and buy the comm. TAC sounds like it could be an improvement. 

The competing "solutions"" include political action which has been on the table since early 2008, has not progressed out of committee, and potentially faces a hostile administration. A competing solution that necessarily gives 51% of any increased TAC to the comms. 

Another competing solution is to just keep doing what we have been doing. Lets look back on all the sucesses for the rec. anglers since 1993 in this fishery, and continue with those efforts. Personally, I'm not seeing much sucess there, but perhaps I'm missing it. 

So, relative to the other solutions being offered, this idea, and its just a talking point idea, may not be all bad. 

Relative to a dream world in which we fish year round with a 10 fish bag, obviously this idea sucks. 

Now, the threat that the enviro's try to buy it up is simply silly to me. If this idea ever gets legs, I, for one, would prey that the enviro's try that. Thinking three steps ahead, I maintain we could bankrupt them in short order. So, I would necessarilly welcome that. 

But, I'm a market based guy. I firmly believe in market based solutions. I further maintain that the folks at Boston Whaler and Triliene and Penn and all the rest know where their bread is buttered and will actively protect their economic benefit in this market, particularly if it BK's enviro wingnuts in the process.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Ernest I have worked in environmental science & planning for 20 years and I am a major fan of incentive and market-based approaches to solving too much pollution, be it air, water, or land. In this paradigm, "command and control" regulations seem to fail and people love to get paid for doing the right thing, or to do "environmental projects" such as to improve wetlands instead of paying fines. I worked 10 years at TCEQ to help implement guidelines for clean diesel engines that was funded to 100 million a year (sorry it didn't work for ya, Cap'n Adams and Cap'n Mike).

But man, we're not talking about the problem of reducing pollution here! We're talking about TOO MANY FREAKING RED SNAPPER, a good problem not a bad one, and how the bureaucratic system is all messed up. You are supposed to believe that the red snapper is threatened, endangered, and the species could collapse at any second due to the sea-rapers in Texas. Being that, we need real expensive auctions, stamps, VMS tracking, some call-in data center for landings, and let those with the money run the show because those wealthy folks will act in the public good and "save the fish." 

Yeah right. 

So I think that a market-based system is the height of hypocrisy in this case. As Mont has noted, few could give a darn about the fish and treat it as a "resource" to be exploited by the opportunists. Mont cares about the fish, Hilton does, Jim Smarr does, and many here on this forum including me. If red snapper populations plunge, well, we'll stop fishing. But to buy and "retire" permit allocations is not a good thing here. If you want to but some commercial IFQ's, well buy their boat, their permits, and all their gear, which could add up to over $100,000 a boat. It's just bad management science to resort to auctions.

Good management means you have very good data about red snapper (or whatever species) for all sectors and allocate resources based on science, not some political deal, shaky courtroom dealings filled with lies, and outdated information. You want to optomize the MOST amount of fish that is reasonable, just the opposite of what you suggest. -sam


----------



## Capt. Bruno (May 28, 2004)

I got tired of CCA and abandoned them as well.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

You guys keep talking about the system being broken, too many snapper, and all that. Great. If thats the case, with some funding we can prove that with science, and we will get more days and more fish in the bag. Lets get to it. Lets raise money specifically for research. I'm in for that. Without a doubt. One potential benefit of this idea is funding for science. 

But, at the same time, I've only been hearing this same story for about 8 years or so on this site. Before that, the same story was told on other sites. The exact same whining and beating of chests about this is criminal, the regulators aught to be in jail, too many snapper, yadda, yadda, yadda. So far, its gotten us no where. Exactly no where. Its like people complaining about the weather. 

If you want a revolution and to try to change the fundamental regulatory rules applicable to fishery management, have at it. No one is stopping anyone from doing that, and this idea will not undermine those efforts in any way, shape or form. 

Whats the time line on that fundamental regulatory revolution - 5 to 10 years? 
The idea being discussed is what do we do now. This year, next year, and the next. 

What do you propose for the the meantime? Wither on the vine while we conduct silly polls about how much this regulator or that sucks? See who can come up with the most outrageous put down for a regulator? Hold some little dog pile style votes on this site? Just suck it in the meantime? 

WHAT? Articulate an avenue within the existing regulatory scheme that allows pure recs, guides, and headboats to fish snapper over a decent season with decent bag limits. Articulate a plan that keeps from urinating away the huge economic benefit of recreational participation in this fishery. Articulate a plan that, without government fiat or coercion, significantly reduces the take of the comms? Say it!

You guys think I love this idea. I don't. I'm just saying, it potentially sucks less than the two primary alternatives. Those alternatives being the status quo (which sucks big time and may soon mean no winter snapper in Texas) and the hoping for the temp. solution of flexibility to come to fruition in the current administration (long shot, at best). 

But, there is the rub. We got nothin. In that regard, our poverty is perhaps best illustrated by this idea being one of the better of the bunch.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Flexibility is the answer*

Flexibility Bill will fix the Red Snapper problem in the Gulf of Mexico, problems in the Summer Flounder on the East Coast and the Rock Fish on the West Coast.

Many fishermen across the United States are tired of not having a decent season for their favorite fish. So long as a fishery is recovering seasons and bag limits could be extended under our plan.

Congress can fix this if we get behind the plan. Many of you should have received the mailing with RED SNAPPER-URGENT stamped on the outer envelope.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Maybe you're not mad enough...*

Capt., I have great disdain for anyone who uses deceit and back door tactics to shut myself and my children out of a resource I not only enjoy but have fought damned hard to protect. We have missed each other at various meetings but I am well aware of your involvement.

I make it no secret that Zales, Nelson, Dorsett, Viles, Baker and your former mayor, the lot of them can kiss my posterior....further I am growing very weary of fence straddlers who seem to go the way of the political winds that best serve them financially.

Now if you feel the need to defend Nelson or hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the aforementioned, go ahead. Texas has been ahead of the curve on this issue for the duration, when your east coast friends get their collective "stuff" together and get on the right side of the issue and start working towards and EQUITABLE solution we can talk until then expect me to keep dishing. I figure the fear of embarrassment might keep them from pulling such idiotic moves. I am not affiliated with any group these days as it allows me to do the work that needs to be done for the greater good.
I have been banned from this site, called names, threatened ect....why?
Because I believe the rights of recreational fishermen are being taken away....take a look around. I have equally fought for charter boats rights.

So my approach seems harsh to you.

Call it what you will, I call it pressure....consequences make people willing.

I am simply not willing to settle for less than an equal share, better science and regulations....to do so would be unfair to myself or my children.....and lots of other people. We may fail...but I don't figure letting them rob us blind will make me feel very good.

You may want to find the ignore button.



capt mike said:


> I can understand when people are outraged , disgusted, and frightened when some organization or organizations come up with plans, schemes, and ideas that are completely unacceptable to lots of us, but I have a hard time understanding what good it does anyone to drag someone through the mud over a mistake he made 8 or 9 yrs ago. Russell Nelson is a consultant for CCA national, he gets paid to represent them at various meetings. He didn't write that piece of propaganda, he didn't claim authorship of it, he merely presented it to the Council. I have no idea whether the man agrees with it or disagrees with it. It just seems like taking a real cheap shot at him by dragging a past indiscretion out in public just because his employer has raised our hackles. Looks to me like the issue itself is serious enough to get our attention without resorting to the level of the National Enquirer.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

This is about cca please lay off pocboy and liz. They have the guts to take a stand we can learn from that. The RFA had a banquet last June where were you guys at? I saw Mont, Tom H, Jim Smarr, Charlie, and other RFA board members there with about 200 others. Time to stop posting what you want and do something. Just joing the RFA is not enough, do something. If you let your keyboard do the talking and your little sister do the fighting you will forever suck hindtit. Pick a day in Beaumont and Houston I will make it down boil crawfish fry fish bring kegs or ice tea. Let's do something not post about it. Put some money where your keyboard is or this subject is waisted.

Remember this, my father always said,"they had to brake laws to start and win the Revolution" John Parker Commissioner TPWD

Jim Smarr tell me what you need


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

jim smarr said:


> Flexibility Bill will fix the Red Snapper problem in the Gulf of Mexico, problems in the Summer Flounder on the East Coast and the Rock Fish on the West Coast.
> 
> Many fishermen across the United States are tired of not having a decent season for their favorite fish. So long as a fishery is recovering seasons and bag limits could be extended under our plan.
> 
> Congress can fix this if we get behind the plan. Many of you should have received the mailing with RED SNAPPER-URGENT stamped on the outer envelope.


.arrrg


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

222 ... I live in Aransas Pass, I doubt any of my mayors did anything, one way or another. As far as sitting around campfires with East Coasters goes, I am willing to wager that I have been to war with OTT (other than Texans) far more over the last 15 or 16 yrs than you have. I just wondered why you have to crawl down in the gutter to get your point across, that's all. I agree that it is an abomination of a plan that needs to be aborted , I just didn't understand the need of dragging their employees through the mud. Maybe it's just me.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*URGENT-Please Focus on the intent of the thread*

As the Texas State Chairman of RFA I would like to get everyone here refocused. I understand everyone is frustrated with some really poor decisions made by others. The point is simply there are two different thoughts on the issue. The RFA is lobbying to amend the Magnuson to allow Councils Flexibility on recovering fisheries the other side wants to roll the dice with a very risky IFQ/Auction.

Remember the RFA advised against the IFQ's converting 51% of a public resource into private ownership for what is now a hundred or so Commercial Fishermen. The other side lobbied hard to push IFQ's.

Please refocus on the intent of this post. We do not need to get personal as the problem is the loss of our ability to fish. The Plan simply needs massive opposition and now. The RFA needs your help across the entire Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Mr. Smarr, why don't you focus on the fact that the "Proposal" that Mont posted is not anything that CCA is intending to follow up on. You and others keep insisting that this is something that CCA is forcing on us and that is completely wrong and you know it. If this is what it takes to gain membership for rfa then I guess it must be pretty slow around there for you.


----------



## chad (Sep 7, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> Mr. Smarr, why don't you focus on the fact that the "Proposal" that Mont posted is not anything that CCA is intending to follow up on. You and others keep insisting that this is something that CCA is forcing on us and that is completely wrong and you know it. If this is what it takes to gain membership for rfa then I guess it must be pretty slow around there for you.


So pocboy, why do you think your speculation as to what cca is, or isn't going to do more accurate than anyone elses speculation on here?

Why was this even brought up then if they weren't "intending to follow up" with it?

Do you know the only thing I miss about being a cca member?...The girls in the skimpy black dresses at the banquets!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*POCBOY*

Did you not see the Council Motions where the CCA rep Dr. Russell Nelson was invited to speak to the Reef Fish Advisory Pannel's to further the cause. Not trying to be combative just stating the fact the train has left the station with a variety of enviro supporters. We also spoke to TPWD and a Coastal Fisheries person there has stated IFQ's could work to my disbelief. Our belief is that the Commissioners will not consider Recreational IFQ support seriously. The line has been drawn between the two thought processes. We need to stay on track here as the threat to our fishery access is very real.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Umm Chad, I guess because it stated on the "Proposal" that it's purpose was to stimulate ideas and think out of the box. BTW, if all you were in CCA for was girls in skimpy dresses then no organization is going to help you.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Pocboy said:


> Mr. Smarr, why don't you focus on the fact that the "Proposal" that Mont posted is not anything that CCA is intending to follow up on. You and others keep insisting that this is something that CCA is forcing on us and that is completely wrong and you know it. If this is what it takes to gain membership for rfa then I guess it must be pretty slow around there for you.


We've seen the proposal. CCA isn't the type of organization just to throw some "food for thought"/"thinking outside the box" strawman on the table, IMO. They have lobbied support for each and every proposal, no matter how hard they try to make it look like harmless brainstorming, and very carefully calculated the odds of support. I don't like CCA. At all. I also don't believe they're dumb, or unsophisticated at advancing their agenda.

SO, Pocboy and/or Liz, certainly if what you say is the case CCA should have no problem issuing a statement that this was a poorly thought out, spur of the moment, bad idea. Get back to us on that.


----------



## TxMarlin (Jan 25, 2005)

*WOW.. We could all be Snapper Pimps !!*

Not only is the not worth the paper it is written on but it does not even make sense. It almost reads like a joke _"snapper as Christmas presents" "elimination of minimum sizes" "everyone...would have the same opportunity to access the resource"_ COME ON!!

First of all this would put a fork in the dying day charter fishing industry. Or would it revitalize it if you bought hundreds of tags and became a *snapper pimp*?

Second..say goodbye to commercial fishing as you know it because now you would be competing with recreational anglers for sales in the proposed "Free Market Based Approach"..Not that I really care. These pact money giants are controlling the lives and income of to many people for their own enrichment.

And as for tagging individual fish. Are you nuts??? This is not a large Redfish or a Tarpon that you only get one of.

If someone at the CCA or one of their Contractors, lobbyist and so forth wrote and proposed this then I say the following:

At this point I urge you to show your undying support of CCA by refusing to join&#8230;cancelling your membership&#8230;voicing your concerns&#8230;giving what you can to other organizations that combat CCA. Being one of the people that joined CCA back in the late 70's I withdrew my membership years ago when I found out they were sending people all over the world to fish on very expensive, very exclusive charters in other countries instead of spending _OUR_ money in the USA&#8230;.In my mind that was not money well spent.. Shame on you CCA, Shame on you Walter Fondren. What was once a good organization with the Recreational anglers in mind has been bastardized into an organization to line the pockets of those whom this does not affect or concern?


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Don't y'all have an rfa meeting to go to? Mr. Smarr is getting lonely.


----------



## chad (Sep 7, 2006)

Pocboy I was trying to say something nice about cca, sorry if this was the only thing I could think of.

Cca is very smart when it comes to raising money though....get a bunch of guys in a room with all the free alcohol you can drink, and then have some nice looking young ladies in skimpy dresses selling stuff. What a raquet!


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

But, I thought some Texas Coastal fishery professionals think the idea could work. 

Jim Smarr said that this very morning, didn't he? "We also spoke to TPWD and a Coastal Fisheries person there has stated IFQ's could work..." 

So, its a potentially workable solution, and notwithstanding the fact the very document indicates its purpose was to stimulate discussion, CCA should disavow the idea in response to some non-member, CCA haters' demand? Huh? 

Why would CCA ever listen to non-member CCA haters? 

Doesn't seem like that other crew listens to their detractors, now do they? 

Oh, I get it, its yet another one of those sauce for the goose, but no sauce for the gander deals.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*



Ernest said:


> But, I thought some Texas Coastal fishery professionals think the idea could work.
> 
> Jim Smarr said that this very morning, didn't he? "We also spoke to TPWD and a Coastal Fisheries person there has stated IFQ's could work..."
> 
> ...


Counselor,
I would think that if you added up all of the billable time that you have spent (I assume pro bono) defending the CCA's actions over the years, that would amount to a pretty penny indeed! (I know you are not affiliated with CCA in any way, but felt compelled to point this out).
All the best,
Tom


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Ernest*

I only had a single positive comment out of one of the two TPWD Texas Reps on the GOMFC from his chair at TPWD Headquarters earlier in the week. That means one not some. We expected him to follow as he has pushed IFQ's all along. No big surprise. He is not a voting member of the Commission.

Back to the differences between two thought processes ours and the other one. Let the public decide which they like and support it.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Gee Tom. I really appreciate the business input from you. Many thanks. I don't know where I'd be without you. 

BTW, don't you have some reefs to install? 

How many reefs could you have constructed or installed in the time you have spent arguing with me? 

I know you appreciate unsolicited suggestions about your business, and I trust you will value them just as highly as I value your comments about my professional practice. 

All the best.


----------



## POC (Aug 25, 2005)

StarlinMarlin said:


> Yeah, CCA Texas, 50,000 members strong! Or is it 10,000 strong and 40,000 people that would feel real stupid if they caught a tagged redfish and wern't signed up for Star?


Believe me, it is a bad feelin!


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Ernest said:


> So, its a potentially workable solution, .


Workable for whom? CCA? probably. The Pew Charitable Trust? I imagine so. The seafood industry? Most likely. The MPA crowd? No doubt. 
Just not for ordinary every day recreational fishermen.



Ernest said:


> and notwithstanding the fact the very document indicates its purpose was to stimulate discussion, CCA should disavow the idea in response to some non-member, CCA haters' demand? Huh? .


Ern you disappoint me. But thanks for trying to bail POCBOY out. He's the one who said it's a horrible idea and CCA never intend that it be taken seriously. Seems they shouldn't have a problem officializing that.



Ernest said:


> Why would CCA ever listen to non-member CCA haters? .


Oh, just that they might learn something, for starters. And they could possibly convince some of the bay fishing crowd that they really ARE concerned about their members and should continue to be supported financially. Not to mention that many of the haters were generous sponsors when the organization deserved support. Not that that matters.



Ernest said:


> Doesn't seem like that other crew listens to their detractors, now do they? .


Oh, I think they do. I think they listen very carefully. Now that's different from BELIEVING, mind you, after being backstabbed and betrayed on several recent occassions, but I'm pretty sure they LISTEN intently!



Ernest said:


> Oh, I get it, its yet another one of those sauce for the goose, but no sauce for the gander deals.


I don't think so. In fact I beleive if RFA ever throws recreational fishermen under the bus in support of commercial interests, the NMFS, or the preservationists, you will hear quite an uproar!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*RFA and Personal Attacks*

The RFA does not support or condone any personal attacks on anyone. Please stay on the issue of which plan makes good common sense. I am aware some here are not affiliated with the RFA. I am aware that the comment I am referring to did not come from an RFA related person. With that said as Chairman of the Texas RFA I would like to see everyone contacting The Governor, The Two Senators and Your Congressman supporting HR 1548 currently in the Congress which allows for Flexibility in the fisheries.


----------



## MarkD (Feb 15, 2005)

jim smarr said:


> The RFA does not support or condone any personal attacks on anyone. Please stay on the issue of which plan makes good common sense. I am aware some here are not affiliated with the RFA. I am aware that the comment I am referring to did not come from an RFA related person. With that said as Chairman of the Texas RFA I would like to see everyone contacting The Governor, The Two Senators and Your Congressman supporting HR 1548 currently in the Congress which allows for Flexibility in the fisheries.


That's good to hear Mr. Smarr. It's a long way from a knuckle sandwich.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

Ernest, as much as you claim this to be only an idea and not a proposal, you sure seem to be defending it. Your previous posts seem to indicate that CCA thinks fighting for flexibility in Magnusson is not worth the effort; did I read you correctly?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

I don't speak for CCA, and truly don't have a clue what they think on any particular issue, other than what any of us can read in press releases. 

For myself, the Flexibility Proposal has a number of problems: 

1. Likelihood of success. Can it get out of committee, passed by the HOuse, passed by the Senate, and signed into law by the present administration? 

2. Timeline. Best case, we are looking at impacting the 2010 season, if it becomes a law in 2009. 

3. If not the curent stock rebuilding deadline, then what? What is the new drop dead date, if any? Who decides? The same folks at NMFS that gave us the current regs? The same basic group of scientists that do SEDAR? Politicians? Right now the bill is worded to give the discretion to the Sec. of Commerce, and conceivably, the SoC would look to his crew - the NMFS - for input. Nevertheless, it certainly injects another layer of "politics" into the process. 

4.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

It cut me off while typing, cause I hit go, and then was editing. Arrgggg. Excuse the typos and out of order sentences above. Continuing here.

Edit to no. 2. Thats best case. More likely, if it passes, we then need the Soc to exercise discretion, so it may impact the 2011 or 2012 season, if we are lucky.

4. Deadlines. Forces folks to get serious. Take that pressure off, and we are back to the same milk toost regs of the past 15 years. The same, lets juggle the books to make everyone happy. We could have taken a much milder dose of medicine years ago, and been further along today. Postponing the medicine yet again, makes the future medicine that much stronger.

5. The Big Bet. We are betting on the come that the scientists and NMFS say no overfished status and not undergoing over fishing. Thats what people are semi counting on being the result. If not, Katy bar the door, here comes stronger medicine. I have no confidence that will be the result on any near term SEDAR.

But, the killer for me is getting it past. I've hear its DOA or "merely a fund raising device for the politicians." So, for me, its akin to the mortgage coming due and we are spending our last dollars on lottery tickets hoping for our ship to come in.

Lets ask the lobby crew here. Whats the currently forecasted likyhood of this amendment passing in 2009 or 2010? Give us a range - 20% to 35% or whatever. I would be curious myself.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Mark D*

I am trying to be a kinder gentler Jim.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Levelwind said:


> SO, Pocboy and/or Liz, certainly if what you say is the case CCA should have no problem issuing a statement that this was a poorly thought out, spur of the moment, bad idea. Get back to us on that.


LW, as I stated earlier, this was on the table in a meeting to discuss all sorts of ideas, it was not "released" as an official press release, it was taken without posting all the other ideas that were discussed as well at said meeting. As for being poorly thought out, and spur of the moment, I can't comment for I was not in the meeting and was not privy to what was said before and after much less during the discussion.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

chicapesca said:


> LW, as I stated earlier, this was on the table in a meeting to discuss all sorts of ideas, it was not "released" as an official press release, it was taken without posting all the other ideas that were discussed as well at said meeting. As for being poorly thought out, and spur of the moment, I can't comment for I was not in the meeting and was not privy to what was said before and after much less during the discussion.


Hey I can see that - I've worked on advisory committees before and often there would be "straw man" proposals of several different kinds. It didn't mean that any action or decision was made, other than somebody hatched an idea. Sometimes you get good ideas, sometimes you get some real zingers (to put it nicely, as Jim Smarr would say).

Remember, it all comes down to the interaction of the very technical and the gassy, messy realm of policy and politics. As much as we'd like to think there is a technical solution, there still are the "policy wonks" and politicians. I've played both sides of the fence. The worst sin I've experienced was when the policy wonks would come into my office, close the door, and say "Sam, you've got to crunch those numbers to give me 5 percent more, and I don't care if you have to stay here all night." Let me be honest, it happens in all levels of government ... and nobody likes that 'Come to Jesus' moment. You can't be a whistle-blower or anything, either. I viewed it more as a big game and I was literally a small fish. So anybody who thinks that the numbers drive the policy just doesn't know how real business gets done.

The implication was that if we didn't do as were were told, we'd ALL be fired the next morning. Survival mode kicks in ...

Even more insane is that fact when my numbers ended up in a court of law, the numbers were never EVER questioned. Think about that. I have to laugh now, since in many cases I had cooked up a real brain phart, although there was a twisted logic to things. Hey, there are reasons for log-10, non-linear statistics, and other fixes for dirty data, right?

So while we argue about the numbers, the math, and the lack of "hard" data on rec fishing especially for red snapper, the fundamental driver is first and foremost, policy and common sense. I'll be glad to explain "the best science available" if you buy me a beer and promise not to laugh too hard. :brew2:


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

chicapesca said:


> First of all Monty, let's put this into the context it was taken out of. This was presented at a meeting as a 'thinking out of the box idea session' where ideas were thrown out and discussed. It is not a proposal for the public, even though the council meetings are public record.
> 
> Now you can all rip me to shreds if you want, I'm ready. :smile:


Don't go lecturing me, sweetie. I am a card carrying CCA member and as such, can express my opinion of CCA's publicly offered paper. Every single word CCA says or writes is public record at these meetings and they need to pull their head of out the sand and remember that. Funny, not one CCA rep bothered to contact me about my thoughts on this idea. I do however get all their auction emails and emails requesting money. Seems to me a little feedback is not being very well accepted by the true blue CCA crowd. Personally, I could care less. I don't attend meetings and sit through AP meetings to make friends. If this paper is the best and brightest new idea CCA can come up with, then they are more stupid than I gave them credit for. If CCA doesn't want to hear the opinion of one of their members, tell them to send my money back.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Mont said:


> Don't go lecturing me, sweetie. I am a card carrying CCA member and as such, can express my opinion of CCA's publicly offered paper. Every single word CCA says or writes is public record at these meetings and they need to pull their head of out the sand and remember that. Funny, not one CCA rep bothered to contact me about my thoughts on this idea. I do however get all their auction emails and emails requesting money. Seems to me a little feedback is not being very well accepted by the true blue CCA crowd. Personally, I could care less. I don't attend meetings and sit through AP meetings to make friends. If this paper is the best and brightest new idea CCA can come up with, then they are more stupid than I gave them credit for. If CCA doesn't want to hear the opinion of one of their members, tell them to send my money back.


Not meaning to lecture you big guy. I just wanted to make it clear about the environment the paper was introduced in for those that didn't know. I for one might not agree with some of the opinions discussed here, but do appreciate tham and do my best to digest it all and try to sort it all out.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)




----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

The environment is less important than the paper. I have seen many times something come in through a back door and then become the next "big thing". Jarvis got SOS in exactly the same way. That AP has been dissolved, the meeting is long over, but we still have SOS on the table. If you put something down on that table, you better be ready to defend yourself. It's not like it's the first crazy idea and it won't be the last one either. There's also a concept called peer review where some other set of eyes should look these things over before they get presented. As the only publisher out there that has pointed out this paper, I also have an obligation to those that can't attend every meeting. It only takes one step through a door to open it. It's a lot harder to close one once that step has been taken.


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

The other mistake being made here is thinking this proposal was brought up at some kind of AP or "thinktank" meeting where ideas are just thrown out and discussed. Nothing could be further from the truth. This was the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Mangement Council meeting, not some kind of little informal get together ! Whether one is for it or against it, don't try to water down the impact of the proposal.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Question....say someone outlined the the actions of CCA that were not in the best interest of recreational fishermen/women....how many would be willing to go to an Academy store and meet with the manager face to face and explain the problem.

I imagine it would not take the boys at the corporate offices long to change their way of thinking. The evidence is clear, from Cedar Bayou to the snapper lawsuit with the enviros, to the latest "*Freudian slip"*.

I'm willing do the paperwork if people are willing to hit the pavement....and willing to boycott until they see the light!

I don't care to quibble with the CCA flag wavers and loyalists, IMO if they have not seen the light yet they deserve what they get. It's like they say "a smart rat jumps off a sinking ship first". And the absence of one of their biggest cheerleaders in this thread is not lo$t on me.

We have a voice, yet have been **** poor at doing anything proactive in order to affect change. It takes people actually doing WORK, not talking about it!

Kill the head...the rest of it die$.....

Who's game?


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Ernest a thought for you about the real world*

If the Founding Fathers and Gen. Washington, even Sam Houston from Texas, felt the same way about undertaking a difficult task(Becoming an Independent nation) as you do about fixing magnuson we would be speaking the Queens English or Spanish today. Your attitude is exactly what is wrong and why we need to fight like hell to change a broken system or go down fighting !!!!


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

While y'all argue over the cca proposal, you might want to think about what is really going to affect you. Its called NMFS and is currently driven by your friendly enviros. The Pallone bill, which everyone needs to get behind is a good start to at least be able to relax the regs. The bill needs to be amended to modify the overfishing requirements because that is the only way the bill will affect red snapper, gaga, grouper, and the other species in the Gulf under going overfishing.

CCA proposal, sos, GOMARS, state of LA charterboat electronic log book, MRIP, none of these will make any difference if the overfishing requirements are not relaxed because the fisheries will be closed, period. Over 44 enviro orgs have petitioned congress to reject the Pallone bill. Until and unless the public stands up our fishing is forever going to change. As long as you bicker over minor issues and not band together for the big picture, we are all screwed. We all only have so much time and that little time will be much better spent standing together for one thing, FIX THE MAGNUSON, allow fishing to continue. period.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Bob*

Happy to see you support flexibility in Magnuson. We have been at this for two years and need Florida. Maybe you could speak to Russell about shredding his plan. LOL I still remember when in New Orleans Stake Holders Meeting Jim Donofrio and I made a deal with CCA to just take the first four fish (Red Snapper) 10 years ago to stop regulatory discards and mortality. We all agreed until about one minute before public comment and CCA welshed. Bob we will push hard for flexibility all across the Gulf ,East and West Coast with or without CCA. They are not as large portion of the total Recreational Anglers as one might think. It is time for the 95% to tell the 5% what we think in the State Capitols and National Capitol.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Bob another thought about all the user recreational sectors treated fairly*

Bob, we know that Flexibility is key along with the overfishing definition is another big problem to be delt with but we can not and will not dismiss the policy statement of this magnitude being brought forward by a large conservation organization , CCA in case you missed it that claims to represent thousands of fishermen a policy statement that if implemented would take the Common Man out of fishing most certainly deserves a very public comment in response.

We are a fishing rights group representing all Rrecreational Saltwater Fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Hughoo222 said:


> Question....say someone outlined the the actions of CCA that were not in the best interest of recreational fishermen/women....how many would be willing to go to an Academy store and meet with the manager face to face and explain the problem.
> 
> I imagine it would not take the boys at the corporate offices long to change their way of thinking. The evidence is clear, from Cedar Bayou to the snapper lawsuit with the enviros, to the latest "*Freudian slip"*.
> 
> ...


Make sure you let us know how that turns out.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Hughoo222 said:


> Question....say someone outlined the the actions of CCA that were not in the best interest of recreational fishermen/women*....how many would be willing to go to an Academy store and meet with the manager face to face and explain the problem.*
> 
> I imagine it would not take the boys at the corporate offices long to change their way of thinking. The evidence is clear, from Cedar Bayou to the snapper lawsuit with the enviros, to the latest "*Freudian slip"*.
> 
> ...


*1*


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*The RFA Home Office take on this issue*

For Immediate Release: April, 29, 2009
Contact: Jim Hutchinson, Jr. 888 564-6732
​*Conservation Group Offers "Freedom to Fish" To Highest Bidder**
New Management Approach Would Sell Off Recreational Access* 
​​Galloway, NJ - In what can best be described as a "pay to play" version of fisheries management, the Texas-based conservation group, Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), has gone on record with a new socialized approach to managing the nation's coastal fisheries, whereby access to the resource is offered to the highest bidder. According to Dr. Russ Nelson, Fisheries Consultant for CCA, a "free market-based approach to managing red snapper and other marine fishes" could create individual fishing quotas (IFQ) for the recreational fishing community, the same as commercial fishermen.

"IFQ programs have demonstrated some success in controlling commercial fisheries, but restrict access by the general public and necessitate difficult allocation decisions," Nelson said in a CCA discussion paper delivered to the Gulf Council on April 10. Citing current discard mortality problems within the recreational sector, particularly with regard to the red snapper fishery, Nelson said "We are facing new, stricter control measures to assure that our annual catch doesn't exceed the allowable level, and the recreational sector remains without an accurate means of counting the fish we catch."

CCA's proposed "free market-based approach" would issue individual, non-reusable tags for red snapper to account for the total allowable catch during an annual cycle. The tags would be issued for public auction every year, and those members of the public who wish to catch red snapper would make bids on the available fish tags. "Let anyone who so desires to place their best bid and distribute to the highest bidders," Nelson's paper stated, "bidders could be individuals, states or organizations."

Tags would remain on individual fish until cooked and consumed, whether in a residential home or at a seafood restaurant, which CCA explains will allow all fishermen who gain access to the tags to do with the fish what they please. "Those who buy the tags can used them any way they desire - take the fish home and eat it, give them as Christmas presents, sell them, take their fish to a market and sell them," the CCA paper continued.

The authors of the discussion paper explain that the current method of surveying recreational anglers through the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey (MRFSS) could be eliminated, since only anglers possessing tags would be allowed to fish for regulated species like red snapper, and only a certain allotment of tags would be issued during any given cycle. "It is simple and arguably the most fair and equitable approach. Every one - anglers, commercial harvesters, seafood processors, investors and conservationists would have the same opportunity to access the resource," the CCA paper added.

Many members of the recreational fishing community fear the proposal, if put into policy, would take the common man out of fishing. "We think it is bad policy to rest fishing rights in a select few," said Jim Hutchinson, Jr. Managing Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). "Such a proposal would create a fishing elite to the exclusion of the American fishing public."

"Together with marine reserves, this plan, if implemented, would completely eliminate open-access fishing in America," Hutchinson added. "Hopefully, the Gulf Council can squash this idea before it gains any credibility within fisheries management circles."

_"We do not intend that our natural resources shall be exploited by the few against the interests of the many. Our aim is to preserve our natural resource for the public as a whole, for the average man and the average woman who make up the body of the American people." __
- President Theodore Roosevelt.
_ 
######

The Recreational Fishing Alliance is a national, grassroots political action organization representing recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation's saltwater fisheries. For more information, call 888-JOIN-RFA or visit www.joinrfa.org:work:


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

For Immediate Release March 4, 2009
Contact: Jim Hutchinson, Jr. 888-JOIN RFA

New Study Confirms RFA's Claims on Red Snapper Abundance

Galloway, NJ - A new study released by Dr. Robert Shipp and Dr. Steve Bortone reveals that the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper stock may be at a higher level of abundance than estimated by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Their work suggests that a significant portion of the fish population remains unaccounted through traditional abundance surveys, explaining that red snapper are actually thriving due to the marked habitat improvements seen through highly successful artificial reef programs and more than 5,000 oil rigs. The findings challenge the current status of overfished and overfishing for red snapper.

"The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) and our Gulf of Mexico members were among the first to bring this issue of undercounted red snapper to the attention of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council years ago," said Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the RFA. "Ironically, the RFA was criticized by conservation groups who refused to support the claims by actual fishermen, and instead chose to go along with the flawed NMFS assessment. We are encouraged that these groups now recognize what we have for so long."

It is thought that red snapper, particularly age 2 fish, are limited to available habitat and prior to 1950 very little natural hard bottom features were available in the Gulf. Man-made hard bottom deployed since that time has created thousands of square miles of new habitat, allowing the population to expand beyond the traditional red snapper range and making the stock more productive. Much of this new habitat is not sampled by NMFS, which the new study says creates a chronic underestimation of stock size.

"Pure and simple, this illustrates the need for flexibility in rebuilding and fisheries management, something the RFA has been saying all along," Donofrio said. "Recreational anglers are being denied access to this important fishery based on outdated abundance estimates."

When testifying before Congress in 2007, Donofrio noted that rebuilding provisions and rigid overfishing language hardcoded into the federal fishing law would have a significant impact on the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. "The most recent stock assessment establishes the spawning potential ratio at seven times larger than the last assessment in 2000," Donofrio told the Committee on Natural Resources, adding "red snapper is at historically high levels of abundance."

Because of the inflexible requirements set forth by the Magnuson Stevens Act, anglers' total allowable catch (TAC) of red snapper has been cut by more than half in the past two years, resulting in a significantly shorter snapper season and drastically reduced bag limit. "This new regime is causing both unnecessary regulatory discards and severe negative social and economic impacts to local fishing communities throughout the Gulf," Donofrio testified in 2007. 
 
The latest report by Dr. Shipp and Dr. Bortone helps bolster the on-water observations from Gulf fishermen and continued lobbying efforts by RFA. Fishermen often see changes on the water two to three years before they are even picked up in NMFS assessment, and in the case of red snapper around the reefs and rigs, NMFS does not include these fish as part of their sampling protocol which means there's no way for federal fisheries researchers to count these fish as part of the total stock.

"It is clear to the RFA that the red snapper stock and many others are in better shape," Donofrio said. "Fisheries managers must be afforded some type of limited flexibility when rebuilding healthy fish stocks such as red snapper to allow science to keep pace with management." Donofrio explained that it was the RFA which had recommended that Dr. Shipp be invited to the same Congressional hearing in 2007 to testify on behalf these "observable facts" within the Gulf of Mexico snapper fishery.

"The mission of the RFA forces us to challenge NMFS science when it does not reflect what we see on the water. When other organizations were willing to accept bad science while dismissing the claims of the anglers themselves who were out on the water, RFA was willing to fight for the recreational fishing community."

"We challenged what we knew was wrong and we hope other groups will join us in the future, not just in being critical, but by being analytical," Donofrio added.


Contact Jim Hutchinson, Jr., Managing Director of the RFA at [email protected].
​#####
​ The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is a national, 501(c)(4) non-profit grassroots political action organization that has been representing individual sport fishermen and the sport fishing industry since 1996. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs and ensure the long-term sustainability of U.S. saltwater fisheries. RFA members include individual anglers, boat builders, fishing tackle manufacturers, party and charter boat businesses, bait and tackle retailers, marinas, and many other businesses in fishing communities. ​


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

Unfortunately, the science and statistical committee (SSC) of the Gulf Council has determined that the Shipp/Bortone paper is not the best available science and they have discounted the study. This means the council most likely will not consider the info from the study in their updated assessment to begin this fall. The question to ask here is are their personal agendas by some members of the ssc? Maybe some competition for grants, recognition, etc? The sad part is that a good study by 2 well known and extremely knowledgable scientists will do nothing to help with the red snapper fishery because of actions by other scientists.


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

Bob,

How are they going to reconcile the paper/work by Galloway on compensatory mortality? That alone should change quite a lot on how the species is viewed.

Will


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

OMG, not the rfa home office! Wow, now all three rfa employees are working to debunk something that never existed. It must be sad to be involved in an organization whose sole purpose seems to be trying to play catch up with the bigger guys and having to rely on "information" that's not real to give your selves meaning.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

The "Bigger" guys who've sold offshore recreational fishermen down the river.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> OMG, not the rfa home office! Wow, now all three rfa employees are working to debunk something that never existed. It must be sad to be involved in an organization whose sole purpose seems to be trying to play catch up with the bigger guys and having to rely on "information" that's not real to give your selves meaning.


This is a pretty stupid post, but I shouldn't be surprised considering the source.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Kenner21 said:


> The "Bigger" guys who've sold offshore recreational fishermen down the river.


That organization has started selling inshore fishermen down the river with flounder as well. Too bad the mongers are too stupid to realize it.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*POCBOY-Thanks for comment and a chance to respond*

RFA is as Large as CCA on a National Level. In Texas our membership is growing quickly. Seems if we had a look at real membership of informed members we would be close. The folks that join the fishing lottery seems to be the only difference that pay no attention to the day to day actions of CCA.

I do not know where you came up with your staff numbers as they seem to be pulled out of thin air. lol We don't have a fishing lottery to run so we do not need the larger staff.

CCA is a legend in their own mind as they are really a very small percentage of total Recreational Saltwater Anglers. The truth is we are growing day by day. Texans are quickly learning the difference between the two groups. We are a political action group. I am not for sure what CCA is today as it is not what it started out to be with GCCA back when I was a member.

FYI we held a meeting with many of the original GCCA Board Members when we started the RFA Texas at the Duck Inn in Rockport. They were
very supportive of our efforts as a 501 c-4 NRA style Fishing Rights Organization.

To set the record straight Jack Cowan with the help of Perry Bass (PERRY USED HIS LEGAL TEAM TO DRAFT THE BILL) pushed Jack Cowan's son in law who was a Texas House member Joe Allen to introduce the commercial net ban. CCA had no part in that landmark legislation as stated by Jack's Daughter (for the record at our Houston fundraiser last year)for all to hear. Most of us even the original founder's of GCCA can not believe the historical revisions now being touted by CCA. Being a 501-c-3 they could educate but not lobby the legislature.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Jim, I'm confused. Does this little chart accurately reflect the IRS filings of RFA for the period 2005-2007? I got this off another site, so its not my info.

So, what are the numbers of dues paying members in Texas and nation wide for RFA?


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Ernest said:


> Jim, I'm confused. Does this little chart accurately reflect the IRS filings of RFA for the period 2005-2007? I got this off another site, so its not my info.
> 
> So, what are the numbers of dues paying members in Texas and nation wide for RFA?


I'll give you one thing, your persistent. :work:


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

PFFFT!!!!!

What good did that post make? Make you feel good?



Pocboy said:


> OMG, not the rfa home office! Wow, now all three rfa employees are working to debunk something that never existed. It must be sad to be involved in an organization whose sole purpose seems to be trying to play catch up with the bigger guys and having to rely on "information" that's not real to give your selves meaning.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*ernest lol*

We have a large group of Affiliated Members that belong to other organizations under the umbrella of a group membership. They get a group rate.

Like I said if you look at the chart the fishing lottery has the numbers at 75/25 as far as paid individual memberships reported. We have the same numbers with affilated groups. I am sure it is a big surprise to you that other groups would support the RFA via a group affiliation. Many are seeing the true blue differences between the two groups.

By the way we need to get every RFA Member to get four friends this year to join and we would be ahead for your next report. LOL


----------



## MarkD (Feb 15, 2005)

Gilbert said:


> I'll give you one thing, your persistent. :work:


and correct as well. Persistent and correct.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Mark you are testing my new "Kinder Gentler" mood. lol You boys are too funny.


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

to the question about Benny's paper, I am not sure how that will be handled by the ssc. I understand it basically says shrimp bycatch of age 0 and 1 red snapper does not make any difference because the age 0 and 1s would have died any way. Before the last 4 or 5 years that may have made some sense to me, but since shrimping in the gulf has gotten less and less and red snapper has increased more and more, I wonder if there is some correlation.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Ernest said:


> Jim, I'm confused. Does this little chart accurately reflect the IRS filings of RFA for the period 2005-2007? I got this off another site, so its not my info.
> 
> So, what are the numbers of dues paying members in Texas and nation wide for RFA?


I bet if you took the clueless STAR entrants out of the equation that chart would be flat with RFA/CCA. Try it and see...


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Ernest said:


> So, what are the numbers of dues paying members in Texas and nation wide for RFA?


Why would you care if you were not crapping your pants a little???


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*HAUTE*

One thing we do that the other guys don't do is have many members buy a 3 year membership. So for three years they would not show on the report. I am not worried about ernnie and his crew or their ankle biting. 
We are closer than they think in Texas.lol


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

It appears that when trying to defend a defenseless proposal, the defenders best defense is to resort to a _my thingy is bigger than your thingy_ defense.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

It appears that when trying to bash an organization, the bashers best attack is to rely on a proposal that is not worth the paper it was printed on will never be anything that organization will push for. (But the attacks will continue because the attackers don't know what else to do).


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> It appears that when trying to bash an organization, the bashers best attack is to rely on a proposal that is not worth the paper it was printed on will never be anything that organization will push for. (But the attacks will continue because the attackers don't know what else to do).


You have to admit that from a strategic perspective, CCA made a few blunders on the public relations side. Somehow (I won't explain it here) the CCA permanently disaffected a whole bunch of recreational snapper fishermen. The rebellion and backlash was swift - it could have been handled better, is all I'm saying.

Then comes this mysterious concept paper of "thinking outside the box" with CCA's name all over it: we'll auction off recreational snapper IFQs to the highest bidder! Now we know that was just a "talking paper" and something to throw onto the piles of paper for consideration. Was this supposed to help make CCA's image more friendly to the recreational red snapper fisherman? Are you going to win the hearts and minds of "Joe Sixpack" by doing that? What were y'all thinking anyway?

Perhaps it all is just a misfortuate thing, how things ended up in the wash. And to be sure, CCA can be credited with doing some great things in its history. I don't blame the organization as much as some very powerful leaders who frankly, and I'll be honest, don't represent my views on the red snapper. No sir, they don't even seem to consider them. Hey, we agree to disagree, no problem, and life goes on. -sammie


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Hard to argue with that Sammie.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> It appears that when trying to bash an organization, the bashers best attack is to rely on a proposal that is not worth the paper it was printed on will never be anything that organization will push for. (But the attacks will continue because the attackers don't know what else to do).


Look at it this way Pocboy. What would you do if you were attacked? Would you attack back, or just lay there and play dead? We as recreational Red Snapper fishermen have not only been attacked, but betrayed by CCA. And to think a lot of us were members at the time. The decision makers are nothing more than a bunch of cowardly, disingenuous vermin. You can keep playing devil's advocate all you want, but I for one am not going to lay down and play dead when I am attacked.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

That's fine snap, but why not keep focused on who the real enemy is. CCA did not make the current regulations that threaten your fishing so why waste your energy pummeling them. I know they let y'all down with their previous decisions regarding snapper and I wish they were more vocal in regards to that. It seems that everyone knows that this "proposal" was not a serious suggestion and is nothing that CCA is going to use or stand behind, but "certain" groups seem to be using it as a springboard to increase their membership. That is what I have a problem with.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Why would I be concerned? 

Gross revenue for RFA cratered during the period 2004 to 2007 (last data available to the public). Gross revenue down something like 36%+. 

Membership dues down 19%+ between 2006 and 2007. 

Even sales of t-shirts and hats down 83% for the period 2004 to 2007. 

But, executive compensation is up. Positive trend there. 

Cash in the bank at the end of 2007 is only about $76K. 

Jim can confirm for you guys the accuracy of my numbers. 

So, I understand the shrill tones and constant attacks on CCA. I really do. They gotta do or say something to generate some interest.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Pocboy said:


> That's fine snap, but why not keep focused on who the real enemy is. CCA did not make the current regulations that threaten your fishing so why waste your energy pummeling them. .


POCBOY, Gulf offshore recreational fishermen have many enemies. The commercial seafood lobby, the NMFS, several extreme preservationist organizations, and CCA. No, CCA did not "make the current regulations". But they did initiate/join a lawsuit, contrary to what they were telling recreational fishermen, which used data that was not only erroneous but which they KNEW was erroneous when they brought the suit, which is largely responsible for where the recreational seasons and limits are now.



Pocboy said:


> I know they let y'all down with their previous decisions regarding snapper and I wish they were more vocal in regards to that. .


They have been fairly vocal. They have vocally defended their position and their true allies, the preservationists, after the fact. 
Another thing. This goes FAR beyond red snapper. They are only the most visible target of these people. No matter *what* you fish for offshore, CCA and their preservationist buddies would like to see your sport *ELIMINATED in favor of MPAs*.
If you fish offshore, whether in your own boat, party boat, charter, or are an offshore worker fishing off your rig, CCA is NOT YOUR FREIND.



Pocboy said:


> It seems that everyone knows that this "proposal" was not a serious suggestion and is nothing that CCA is going to use or stand behind, but "certain" groups seem to be using it as a springboard to increase their membership. That is what I have a problem with.


Who is "everyone"? You, Ernest and Liz? Monty Weeks brought it up, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone better educated in these matters, as an unpaid volunteer and NMFS Advisory Committee member for several years, *AS WELL AS A CCA MEMBER*.

If CCA would like to refute this position they should do so. I doubt they will because I believe they are totally serious about it. I think a lot of others more knowledgeable than I agree.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Levelwind, if you say that CCA wants the sport of fishing to be eliminated in favor of mpa's then you need to provide solid evidence instead of your old standby of "I heard", or "someone told me" or "I believe" because it is just not working anymore. Why would CCA need to refute something that is not official and will not be implemented?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Ernest said:


> Why would I be concerned?
> 
> Gross revenue for RFA cratered during the period 2004 to 2007 (last data available to the public). Gross revenue down something like 36%+.
> 
> ...


Since you have access to the information, will you look up and post how many $$$ of CCA's membership funds are generated at the same tima as a STAR Tourney entrance? That would be a very telling statistic about their membership.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Rotten to the Core*

Three years ago the RFA met with President Bush's CEQ Chair to discuss all the pressure to implement IFQ plans and why were they being pushed so hard. We asked where was the pressure coming from. We were told Mr. Bass from Texas so CCA has been double dipping everyone saying Publicly at first until April 10 they were opposed to the IFQ idea for Recreational but use their big hitters to lobby behind the scenes to carry their real agenda.

This is very serious statement about the sell out going back a few years. Mr. Bass has been quite handy as he was the Chairman of TPWD in 1995 when a million yards of sand mysteriously wound up in the mouth of Vinson's Slough which was a 1100 foot wide 15 foot deep historical fish pass at the time. Seems he built a dam 2500 feet long and 48 feet high to make sure Vinson's died. Great Chairman Emeritus for CCA and TPWD.
Fishermen have died, Whooping Cranes 50 plus dead due to no crabs, 23,000 acres of wetlands lost in the immediate area and the fishing has crashed. 

Great move from some at the top.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> It appears that when trying to bash an organization, the bashers best attack is to rely on a proposal that is not worth the paper it was printed on will never be anything that organization will push for. (But the attacks will continue because the attackers don't know what else to do).


Poc, the difference is that I am not _trying_ to bash CCA. I have previously stated that they have done and are still doing some positive things. I have often said that (due to their size, reputation, and effectiveness) they are a major player in this battle.

But CCA's course of action over the past two years includes the following: supporting a proposed limit of 1/2 amberjack per angler, supporting proposed severe restrictions on healthy shark species in the Gulf of Mexico in the name of saving the porbeagle shark which do not exist in the Gulf anyway, supporting severe restrictions on what appears to many as a healthy red snapper fishery -yet at the same time urging lessening of restrictions for Florida's gag grouper fishery (what is their rationale for such inconsistency?), and dismissing TPWD's research based management of state waters with a shrug of its' shoulders. I now feel that they are a major player on the opposing team and i do fear them.

I won't argue that CCA is a larger and more powerful organization than RFA, but I no longer believe that CCA is working in the interest of all recreational anglers, certainly not for Texas offshore anglers. RFA does fight for my interests and they have gained my support over a larger organization that has been working against my interests. When CCA presents an "out of the box" plan to offer snapper to the highest bidder, I consider it a serious proposal and I will attack them.

What information leads you to say that they will never push for this?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

The form 990's do not provide specific timing of the receipts within the tax reporting period. 

But, from looking at the membership dues and the gross revenue, its appears as though the bulk of the CCA's gross revenue is NOT associated with the Star tourney. 

At the same time, given the huge revenues generated by a sophisticated, modern, and significant conservation organization like the CCA from multiple different sources, admittedly, an accountant might be able to pull out more detailed infomation. My background is in economics, not accounting. After all, accounting is a mere trade, not a science, and I did not attend a trade school. (Sorry, thats just a little gratuitious ribbing of my friends in the accounting profession, an under appreciated field of endeavor.)


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Ernest said:


> But, from looking at the membership dues and the gross revenue, its appears as though the bulk of the CCA's gross revenue is NOT associated with the Star tourney.


That's a nice step around but not what I asked. I want to know how many $$$ of membership funds are generated from people just interested in entering the STAR. It is a requiremnt to join to enter is it not?

It is pretty easy to see that most who join and enter the STAR on the same day are basically entering a fishing tournament and not giving to an Org of their free will but as a requirement to enter the tourney.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I've never seen someone entering the STAR tournement with a gun to their head HP, so I guess they are giving to an Org of their own free will. CCA acknowledges that the STAR tournement is a membership drive, and a very effective one at that. It seems to me that if rfa-Texas spent as much time on the resource as they did trying to dig up dirt on CCA, all our problems would be solved.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

After all the CCA debates I have seen on here it is more than obvious that the mongers are not going to budge. The line is drawn in the sand right next to where they buried their heads. It is also obvious that us "haters" are always going to prove time and time again that CA cannot be trusted, and that they have sided with groups that are against recs. We all know the truth, and this is actually a stale mate. I say love on to you mongers, and us haters, well, we will definitely hate on.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Snap, the funny thing is that I can change some words on your post and make it go the other way. There is nothing wrong with a little debate on a subject that we all feel strongly about.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> I've never seen someone entering the STAR tournement with a gun to their head HP, so I guess they are giving to an Org of their own free will. CCA acknowledges that the STAR tournement is a membership drive, and a very effective one at that. It seems to me that if rfa-Texas spent as much time on the resource as they did trying to dig up dirt on CCA, all our problems would be solved.


Take away the membership requirement and see how many dollars are gone the next year... I'm saying that the VAST MAJORITY of your membership has no clue or care about what their membership dollars go towards. They pay the fee to enter the tourney, plain and simple.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Its not a step around. There is no timing information on the Form 990's. Other than tax year. So, one can't answer the question from the info available. 

Thus, I gave you the info I had and explained that the info you want is not on the form.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Pocboy said:


> I've never seen someone entering the STAR tournement with a gun to their head HP, so I guess they are giving to an Org of their own free will.


I like to keep my friends close and my enemies closer. The old, "you can't change what you aren't a part of" rule applies too. I don't consider CCA an enemy, but I do think they get on the wrong track frequently enough in offshore matters that being a member of them is essential in derailing the train from time to time.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

LOL Mont, maybe a barricade on the tracks? I've said before that I don't think CCA is perfect and any org sometimes needs to pay more attention to its membership or it will suffer.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Pffftttt....*

Well maybe thats how they can afford to pay those spineless punks over $250,000 a year in salary to run around on international fishing trips and ruin recreational fishing.

Thanks for the good work Ernest, you must really have that Google thingy figured out! Maybe you could give up law and get a job over at that nice building we bought them!

quote=Ernest;2045662]The form 990's do not provide specific timing of the receipts within the tax reporting period.

But, from looking at the membership dues and the gross revenue, its appears as though the bulk of the CCA's gross revenue is NOT associated with the Star tourney.

At the same time, given the huge revenues generated by a sophisticated, modern, and significant conservation organization like the CCA from multiple different sources, admittedly, an accountant might be able to pull out more detailed infomation. My background is in economics, not accounting. After all, accounting is a mere trade, not a science, and I did not attend a trade school. (Sorry, thats just a little gratuitious ribbing of my friends in the accounting profession, an under appreciated field of endeavor.)[/quote]


----------



## My Three Sons (Mar 23, 2008)

This may have been posted before. Read this: http://www.thehulltruth.com/sportfishing-forum/221980-atlantic-red-snapper-ban.html


----------



## mkjjd (Jan 23, 2005)

Every year when I receive the CCA membership letter I mail it back to them with a note that I will not support their organization until they support closing the commercial fishery for red snapper.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Environmental Defenses Plan smell like CCA's plan*

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=13830

Environmental Defense website smells the same as CCA as they say at the bottom of the page ED is working with Recreational Fishermen.

*For Recreational Fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico*

*Ways to address failed polices and spur sportsfishermen to conserve fish in Gulf waters*

*The Problem*

While overfishing and the need for solutions are widely recognized in commercial fisheries, serious problems in the rapidly growing sport fisheries are generally not acknowledged by anglers, regulators, environmentalists and society. In fact, for fish populations in trouble, sportsmen's catches account for a surprisingly large percentage of the catch - sometimes as much as over half of the total landings for certain Gulf of Mexico fisheries.
*Solutions*

Unfortunately, fishery managers trying to control sport catches are using the same failed policies that cause overfishing in commercial fisheries. Instead, new institutions are needed to conserve fish and improve sport fishing. For example, for-hire fishing quotas may be adapted to manage the charter and party boat fleets. Fishing cooperatives would allow groups of sportsmen to jointly manage a portion of the catch to meet local needs. Also, hunting tag programs (e.g., doe tags and duck stamps) that successfully conserve game animals while allowing fair and controlled access could be tailored for sport fisheries.
*More details on solutions*

*For-hire fishing quotas.* Already used in many commercial fisheries worldwide, for-hire fishing quotas may be adapted to the for-hire recreational sector. Under this system, charter and head boat owners can be allocated a share of the recreational catch as an individual quota. Fishermen can fish year-round as long as they have quota. They may also trade quota with other fishermen. These quotas give for-hire businesses flexibility to plan and run their operations as it suits them. Destructive size limits, small bag limits and short seasons that hurt businesses and waste fish will no longer be required.
*Fish Tags.* A fish tag program-similar to those used to manage big game hunting - may be designed for private or for-hire fishermen. A designated portion of the recreational catch can be allocated as tags that are issued to fishermen on a first-come, first-served basis, a lottery, sales, or some combination of methods. Tags are better suited to control landings than minimum size limits and season closures. Fishermen will have the flexibility to fish anytime and keep the fish they catch as long as they have tags. And, a tag program can also be designed to gather much-needed data to better understand fish populations.
*Fishing cooperatives.* A fishing cooperative is a group of recreational fishermen and businesses who jointly manage a portion of the recreational catch in a specific area. The organization's members can determine how best to meet the needs of the community through tailored seasons and bag limits, tags or quotas. Community angling organizations will give local fishermen the ability to cater to the differences among regions and play an important role in monitoring the performance of the fishery.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Smells like the"New CCA" plan*

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1546

Environmental Defense has been pushing this for a while. Now they have a willing partner. CCA

We at RFA have fought IFQ's in any form in any sector as they turn a Public Resource into a commodity.


----------



## bullstuff0 (Aug 29, 2008)

Congratulations CCA ( Can Castrate Anglers) for another fine proposal that will FAIRLY represent all anglers. It must feel exceedingly great to shove another piece of floatsome across the bows of everyday fishermen. I guess if we could all afford to buy X number of tags at X price it would be a perfect scenario, but as the economy, jobless rate and national politics goes this is getting into the real Socialists scheme of things. 

Heres hoping that RFA ( Real Freaking Anglers) steadily gain in numbers and influence to to override the stuffed shirts that are trying to explode the proverbial box right out of the water. Clear thinking should prevail over knee jerk approaches like this. 

Now if the CCA ( CAN CASTRATE ANGLERS) wants to do something positive, how about lowering the length on red fish to 18" and adding another fish to the limit. After all you have already screwed up the flounder regs, how about showing that you can push to get a few regs going in the right direction.

Just a few opinions coming from the working class who put our waders on one foot at a time instead of trying to shove our pompus *** down every true anglers throat.

My handle says it all.
BULLSTUFF:rybka:


----------

