# Letter From CCA



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

It is no secret that I was amember of CCA before I became a "hater." My feelings for them changed at the TP&WD Scoping meetings a year or so ago. Well I got this letter from them a little while ago via e-mal. The first paragraph is amazing considering their alignment with NMFS and the enviros. If this doesn't prove they are a bunch of lying scum bag so and so's, nothing will. Hmmmmmmm, I wonder how I should respond...or should I just send it to my spam folder?

Dear Joe,

 Did you know that special interest groups threaten to limit recreational angler access to key fisheries while some commercial fishermen are being given permanent access? It sounds impossible, but it's true. Incredibly, numerous recreationally important fish stocks are suffering historic declines from years of mismanagement while the harmful impact of commercial longlining, gill netting and trawling practices continue to defy sound conservation. This has to change!

 Your renewed membership will help stop them in their tracks. Members speak louder than words. Every member matters, now more than ever. Please visit us at www.CCAMembership.org to sign up now! *Your CCA membership ID number is 1332199.*

 It's an exciting time to be a member of CCA. We are making an incredible difference in the conservation and enhancement of our coastal bays, estuaries and offshore waters. But to succeed in our mission, I need you to renew your support of our efforts. I need you to once again be a part of CCA's tradition in conservation by renewing today!

 We've done a lot this past year. CCA helped fund more than $500,000 in coastal habitat restoration and reef creation projects, commissioned a groundbreaking economic study examining the importance of recreational fishing, and focused our lobbying efforts to address a new U.S. Congress and a new Administration. I'm excited about our past successes, but there is still a lot to do. 

 I hope you'll come back to Coastal Conservation Association.

Sincerely,


David Cummins
President

P.S. I hope you'll continue your tradition in conservation by visiting www.CCAMembership.org and renewing your CCA membership today!


----------



## Long Pole (Jun 5, 2008)

Sounds like he just wants your $25.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

I sent your payment for ya'.............


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I think they have lost a lot of $25. I hope they lose so many they have to cut the salaries of all the regime to minimum wage!!


----------



## muzzleloader (May 21, 2004)

Snap Draggin

I agree with you. I think it is about the money and the bureacrats keeping their jobs !


----------



## Long Pole (Jun 5, 2008)

I wanted to join the STAR tournament but not since I have to pay CCA to join, then pay to enter into the tournament. 

Hell I never fish when I am entered anyways.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Here's how they do that with shell macros:

Dear %Name%,

We want to screw ya for another 25 bucks and shut down the recreational fleet simply because we can. Your membership ID is %Member%. We look forward to another year of success and hopefully you won't figure out how much we're buggering y'all, as we have lots more to do!

Insincerely,

%Footer%


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

I don't need their trucks or boats................


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

that first paragraph, wow i would think they were smarter, no wonder


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Wheres the puke smiley when you need it?


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

I cant wait till they suggest selling the rec and commercial fishing in the bays, I may join back then.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

If I catch a STAR quality fish can I use your member ID# SD? :biggrin:


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

It's no good.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Haute Pursuit said:


> If I catch a STAR quality fish can I use your member ID# SD? :biggrin:


I would just pull the tag out and release it. A big one I would just eat, that way no one can win. I don't need or want anything but 4 snapper back to April 21- Oct 31


----------



## muzzleloader (May 21, 2004)

like this !


----------



## 24Buds (Dec 5, 2008)

I am a little unclear. Why do so many people hate the CCA? I thought......that they actually did some good. When I was a kid, I couldn't catch a legal red to save my life. A few rats from time to time but now it seems to be thick out there. Maybe I just got better at it? I understand some of the snapper issues but stopping the nets in the bay doesn't seem all that bad to me. Am I not understanding all this? As for the boat or truck, I could use one. Kayaking is fun and all but I am a little fat and think turning a key would be nice......*This is not ment to stir up the pot* and get banned from the board or loose rep power, just don't think I understand. I try to stay out of stuff like this but have to ask........here we go!


----------



## chad (Sep 7, 2006)

BEER4BAIT said:


> I would just pull the tag out and release it. A big one I would just eat, that way no one can win. I don't need or want anything but 4 snapper back to April 21- Oct 31


4 snapper...agreed, but the season should be January 1st - December 31st.

If I catch a winning fish I will run it through the chum churn and put the video on youtube.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

CCA has proposed to the Gulf Council that a Limited Angler Access Program (LAAP) be instituted for all reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Under this program, shares of fish would be sold and then those buying the shares could legally land fish. They want to sell us our fish, instead of standing up for our historical fishing rights and regulating fishing through catch and bag limits. This is a very dangerous proposal. First off, NO ONE has the right to sell our fish. Second, this will make our fish go to "high bidder". Third, the high bidder will very likely be PEW or PETA or some other group that wants fishing outlawed, period. CCA needs to hear loud and clear from it's members that our offshore fishery is not for sale and they need to stand up for our historical rights.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

24Buds said:


> I am a little unclear. Why do so many people hate the CCA? I thought......that they actually did some good. When I was a kid, I couldn't catch a legal red to save my life. A few rats from time to time but now it seems to be thick out there. Maybe I just got better at it? I understand some of the snapper issues but stopping the nets in the bay doesn't seem all that bad to me. Am I not understanding all this? As for the boat or truck, I could use one. Kayaking is fun and all but I am a little fat and think turning a key would be nice......*This is not ment to stir up the pot* and get banned from the board or loose rep power, just don't think I understand. I try to stay out of stuff like this but have to ask........here we go!


You are thinking of GCCA. Totally different organization. CCA has been riding their coat tails for a LONG time, and taking credit for a lot of good they did. CCA is nothing more than a bunch of lying POS scum bags. Is it a little more clear now?


----------



## 24Buds (Dec 5, 2008)

Snap Draggin said:


> You are thinking of GCCA. Totally different organization. CCA has been riding their coat tails for a LONG time, and taking credit for a lot of good they did. CCA is nothing more than a bunch of lying POS scum bags. Is it a little more clear now?


Well well, I do remember the GCCA. Still got a sticker! I see you are a little upset. What are the lies? I will stop sending them my $25 if need be.

I like snapper


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

If CCA is claiming that they stopped the nets in the bay they are lying, I'm in the know prolly more than anyone here including the CCA


----------



## ccrocker1313 (Oct 23, 2005)

I got this same e-mail No Thanks was my reply..


----------



## 24Buds (Dec 5, 2008)

Mont said:


> CCA has proposed to the Gulf Council that a Limited Angler Access Program (LAAP) be instituted for all reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Under this program, shares of fish would be sold and then those buying the shares could legally land fish. They want to sell us our fish, instead of standing up for our historical fishing rights and regulating fishing through catch and bag limits. This is a very dangerous proposal. First off, NO ONE has the right to sell our fish. Second, this will make our fish go to "high bidder". Third, the high bidder will very likely be PEW or PETA or some other group that wants fishing outlawed, period. CCA needs to hear loud and clear from it's members that our offshore fishery is not for sale and they need to stand up for our historical rights.


Thanks Mont. Now this is starting to come together. I must agree, sellin our fish back to us does suck. I see I will have to look into this and speak up with you. Thanks for the info. Sorry for not knowing what was going on. I will be sure to speak up!


----------



## BIG PAPPA (Apr 1, 2008)

*Like Mont said*

Everyone should fight back against their proposal.. but just like fishing offshore, we need a Plan "B". if by chance they sell to a highest bidder, we better have a plan to be that Bidder. Maybe a 2-cool Attourney could shed some light on an action Plan "B". Cuz you can bet your tail, they already have a plan "B". These Feds remind me of TXDOT. We've already paid, they Spent the Money, and they're coming back for more, over and over again.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

24Buds said:


> Well well, I do remember the GCCA. Still got a sticker! I see you are a little upset. What are the lies? I will stop sending them my $25 if need be.
> 
> I like snapper





24Buds said:


> Thanks Mont. Now this is starting to come together. I must agree, sellin our fish back to us does suck. I see I will have to look into this and speak up with you. Thanks for the info. Sorry for not knowing what was going on. I will be sure to speak up!


Good deal. Make sure you educate everyone you know as well about them.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I want to add something to my first post. It does absolutely no good to call names. This is about an issue and clearly thought out posts, letters and communication have a good chance of de railing this thing. It's also not in CCA's hands anymore. When they presented it to the Gulf Council, that was all they had to do. It's like making a pass in football. Once the receiver has the ball, the quarterback can't do a whole lot. This is an important issue and it doesn't need to be clouded with name calling, bad language or anything like that. 

It's really very simple. We need to demand that our historic right to fish is preserved and that the fishery be regulated by size and number catch limits, just like it always has been. If that means we have to put up with 2 fish and a short season, then so be it. Eventually, the bad science behind this is going to be thrown out and things will change. What we can't stand for is to be sold down the river and let this go to high bidder. That dog won't hunt, never has, never will.


----------



## awesum (May 31, 2006)

Hey Snap ....

That 24Buds is a real *case* isn't he? :tongue:


----------



## uncle dave (Jul 27, 2008)

I'm gonna send my money that I spend on cca and ducks unlimited to the NRA, they going to need it! You'all have a great day.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


> I want to add something to my first post. It does absolutely no good to call names.


You're right Mont. I'm just bitter, and tired of getting lied to and jerked around.


----------



## BIG PAPPA (Apr 1, 2008)

*YUP*



Snap Draggin said:


> You're right Mont. I'm just bitter, and tired of getting lied to and jerked around.


X2


----------



## JCHjr55 (Aug 10, 2005)

*FYI*
*NOAA Announces Catch Share Task Force Members* 
at: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/docs/catch_share_task_force.pdf

John


----------



## craig ellington (Aug 15, 2006)

I recieved the same letter. I did respond and let them know that my conservation support and budget was allready redirected to RFA. They remind me of the old GCCA


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

these guys are really off their rockers ain't they :spineyes:


----------



## Aces Full (Aug 10, 2005)

I didn't reply to the e-mail. I tried to get an address that I could reply to so someone would actually see it. The only one I could find online was '[email protected]' my reply was sent as it is below. If anyone has better e-mail addresses, please post them up...

To Whom it may Concern,

My money and all my efforts and those of anyone I meet and know will never go to CCA. I support RFA. CCA has shafted the recreational offshore fishermen and will never get my support. I will do everything in my power to let everyone know what the CCA really stands for. I insist that you remove me from your e-mail list immediately. I'm ashamed to have ever been a member!

Sincerely,


----------



## Texas Jeweler (Nov 6, 2007)

I have my own issues with CCA. One is, as a tax free group, all employees need to be drug tested. That means ALL. Could be house cleaning time.

Also, you work here, you do not get to run your other business while on this clock.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Texas Jewler*

Who is running another business while on the CCA clock. Gater


----------



## 24Buds (Dec 5, 2008)

awesum said:


> Hey Snap ....
> 
> That 24Buds is a real *case* isn't he? :tongue:


Well thanks for the education. I guess I will have to throw some suport the other way. I do have this to ask, would they be more likely to listen to members of the CCA or non-members? Again not wanting to stir the pot (guess I already did that a little)

As for a Case, I got one and willing to share. Have one on me boys.

Who said you have to fish with pants on?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

They don't even ask their members what they prefer. The regime dictates what is going to be done regardless. They make the decisions, and the members fund them.


----------



## Chase This! (Jul 20, 2007)

Snap Draggin said:


> They don't even ask their members what they prefer.


You mean like which sticker the member prefers? I know what you mean. I was all excited to get the Mahi sticker, and then I got the stupid Redfish sticker. See if I ever renew my membership again........

B


----------



## boatmanjohn (Mar 18, 2009)

We need a puking smiley.


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

gater said:


> Who is running another business while on the CCA clock. Gater


Gater,

I'm surprised it took this long for you to sniff this thread out. Spout your BS, then crawl back under your rock.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Well here goes, I never look much at this section but the letter thread caught my eye on the front page.Does someone have a copy or link to this LAPP proposal by CCA? Just enlighten me a little, this was CCA's official stance to said problem? I had heard of something like this being mentioned in a brain storming type meeting in which several options were suggested,99% of which would never see the light of day. I feel if the idea was thrown out by someone in a setting like that it would be unfair to say that's what CCA wants to do.BTW I'm also a member of RFA and took me calling several times to get my membership packet and never did get my hat as promised with a 3 year membership. Sound familiar. Bomb away just don't start calling names as I don't have any patiences for ignorance.

Mike


----------



## michaelbaranowski (May 24, 2004)

That is funny cause just now as I am reading this I got the same letter.


----------



## aww0113 (Jun 28, 2006)

RFA to President Obama - Just say "No" to catch sharesTue, Jun 23, 2009

http://www.sportfishingmag.com/news...--just-say-no-to-catch-shares-1000072919.html


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Im Headed South said:


> Well here goes, I never look much at this section but the letter thread caught my eye on the front page.Does someone have a copy or link to this LAPP proposal by CCA? Just enlighten me a little, this was CCA's official stance to said problem? I had heard of something like this being mentioned in a brain storming type meeting in which several options were suggested,99% of which would never see the light of day. I feel if the idea was thrown out by someone in a setting like that it would be unfair to say that's what CCA wants to do.BTW I'm also a member of RFA and took me calling several times to get my membership packet and never did get my hat as promised with a 3 year membership. Sound familiar. Bomb away just don't start calling names as I don't have any patiences for ignorance.
> 
> Mike


http://www.joincca.org/eNewsletter/April 2009/Gulf Fisheries Data Discussion Document.pdf

It doesn't matter whether or not it is their official stance or not. CCA is the group that is on record with this idiotic idea and now the GC is running with it, so one way or another they deserve credit. I know one thing for certain. FRA or RFA would NEVER even kid around about a plan that is so unfair to the recreational fisherman.

Of course, since it is obvious that NOAA head, Jane Lubchenko has a chubby for catch shares (she is from PEW by the way), it is obvious that originally this idea is the brainchild of the enviro community, not CCA. They are likely the patsy that carried out the task of bringing it up on record from the recreational side. You cannot rule out a backroom deal to coerce CCA to come out in favor of this idea for down the road considerations in other fisheries. Either way, they are on board with this at some level, which is unforgivable for an organization that owes its very existence (and big salaries) to recreational fishermen.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

aww0113 said:


> RFA to President Obama - Just say "No" to catch sharesTue, Jun 23, 2009
> 
> http://www.sportfishingmag.com/news...--just-say-no-to-catch-shares-1000072919.html


yeah, and Obama's likely response to RFA:

Whatever.

Look guys, if you are waiting for Obama to help us, you are sadly mistaken. He is totally on board with the enviros. He totally buys in to the global warming nonsense, which comes from the same people, so it is not a stretch that he is totally on board with the enviros on fisheries. Remember, HE is the one who appointed an ex PEW fellow to head up NOAA. Catch shares are a very important thing for them because it limits access for the evil recreational fishermen. They will hold Roy Crabtree's feet to the fire on this one, and we cannot expect him to do anything but follow orders here.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

you mean owes it existence to the TEXAS and GULF recreational fishermen The ones they will devide, like they are doing now.


----------



## Bevo34 (Feb 10, 2005)

2wahoo said:


> Gater,
> 
> I'm surprised it took this long for you to sniff this thread out. Spout your BS, then crawl back under your rock.


That's productive. Guess you missed Mont's post.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

manintheboat said:


> http://www.joincca.org/eNewsletter/April 2009/Gulf Fisheries Data Discussion Document.pdf
> 
> It doesn't matter whether or not it is their official stance or not.


Well sir at least your honest. It sounds like they were damned no matter what they said. This was brain storming meeting with approx. 10 other groups involved and this was the only discussion point to be released? Sounds kind of fishy. To 24Buds and anyone else with a open mind I encourage you to do your own research and then decide where to send your money. Go to Corpusfishing.com and search CCA and see what was said about this very issue. When you find that cause or org that you agree with 100% let me know what it is because I don't think I've found one yet.

Mike


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Im Headed South said:


> Go to Corpusfishing.com and search CCA and see what was said about this very issue. Mike


Oh, and I'm sure they spoke nothing but 100% truth, because we all know they just can't tell a lie.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Im Headed South said:


> Well sir at least your honest. It sounds like they were damned no matter what they said. This was brain storming meeting with approx. 10 other groups involved and this was the only discussion point to be released? Sounds kind of fishy. To 24Buds and anyone else with a open mind I encourage you to do your own research and then decide where to send your money. Go to Corpusfishing.com and search CCA and see what was said about this very issue. When you find that cause or org that you agree with 100% let me know what it is because I don't think I've found one yet.
> 
> Mike


Sorry mike, whether you love CCA or hate'm there's one thing you know if you didn't fall off the watermelon truck at the edge of town and that is they don't just brainstorm policy and legislative ideas off the top of somebodies head, like a local fishing club meeting at a beer joint deciding what prizes to give away at the tournament. Every move is carefully calculated, the votes are lined up and counted in advance.

Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining, please.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Im Headed South said:


> Well sir at least your honest. It sounds like they were damned no matter what they said. This was brain storming meeting with approx. 10 other groups involved and this was the only discussion point to be released? Sounds kind of fishy. To 24Buds and anyone else with a open mind I encourage you to do your own research and then decide where to send your money. Go to Corpusfishing.com and search CCA and see what was said about this very issue. When you find that cause or org that you agree with 100% let me know what it is because I don't think I've found one yet.
> 
> Mike


You miss the point. If this was their idea, they were better served saying nothing. The main focus should be to fix the science end of things as well as the inflexibility of MSA. Bottom line is that the fishery is in very good shape, and there is no real need for any desperate measures or brainstorming. There still isn't a viable method of assessing the TRUE fishing pressure in the recreational sector, so until that is really known, there is no point in drastic changes, or severe limits on access. Put the hose down, the house is not on fire.

I know that no group can be 100% perfect. My problem is that CCA doesn't even reach the 20 percentile when it comes to offshore fishery issues. Screw'em. The "were not perfect" excuse does not wash with me.

Don't even try to make the simple assumption that those who criticise CCA are close minded. I have been involved in this issue and have researched for many years so don't go there.

It is a free country, so if all of the CCA zealots want to keep their heads in the sand on these issues, there is nobody stopping them. Let'r rip, tater chip. Keep on telling us how great CCA is while they lead us down the road to limited access fisheries for recs while commercials have free run of the store.


----------



## JohnHumbert (May 21, 2004)

24Buds said:


> Well thanks for the education. I guess I will have to throw some suport the other way. I do have this to ask, would they be more likely to listen to members of the CCA or non-members? Again not wanting to stir the pot (guess I already did that a little)
> 
> As for a Case, I got one and willing to share. Have one on me boys.
> 
> Who said you have to fish with pants on?


The CCA has NEVER asked their members for direction. The management decides what the members think or what they want, then proceeds with that approach.

Their attitude is "When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you!".


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Im Headed South said:


> This was brain storming meeting with approx. 10 other groups involved and this was the only discussion point to be released? Sounds kind of fishy.


It is not fishy at all when you consider that CCA put this information out themselves. If they went to the trouble to make this information public, wouldn't it be safe to assume that they are on board with the idea and it is a little more than an impulsive thought thrown out in the spirit of brainstorming? I cannot really say why the others didn't.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

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

Look under the "More details on Solutions" section to see who else wants to see limited access.

Again: Now is not the time to take the drastic step of limiting access in this fishery. The strict measures taken the last several years have done a very good job of rebuilding the fishery. The fisheries scientists had to do some fancy figuring to get the fishery classified as "overfished" in the last SEDAR, so it is a very reasonable assumption that the fishery has been in good shape for a while. There is another SEDAR this year. Let's at least get that done before ANYTHING else is done. As an aside, there really needs to be some oversight into this as well to make sure the scientists are doing their due diligence to give the public an accurate view of the fishery, and not a results oriented or agenda based conclusion.

Another factor is the overall joke that is the MRFSS. If we had 40 knot winds throughout the gulf of mexico from June through August, these nimrods would still say that we are over our quota and 2010 would have to be adjusted.


----------



## LBS (Sep 2, 2004)

While reading this thread, I got an email from CCA asking me to switch to TXU Energy and TXU will make a donation to CCA. Hmmm.

It's been said here that the issue at hand is out of CCA's hands. So now that we are facing the issue, no matter who tabled it, let's do what we can to make our voices heard and say that we don't agree with the proposal. Probably not that simple, but Mont, or the others in the know on how to reach the people that matter, post up the info. I'll write a letter, email, make a call, whatever I need to do to say that I think the idea of LAPP is ludacris.


----------



## capn_billl (Sep 12, 2007)

I think it is time to form a new organization to replace the CCA. Headed by diehard rec fishermen that are able to form "mutually" beneficial ties to Charter and comercial, only when those alliances insure access to recreational fishermen. And no compromise lobbying to protect OUR rights. I've got my $25 right here. If CCA wants to get back on the bandwagon let them, but they had better hurry the train has left the station.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Nice scare tactic with the EDF website while talking about CCA. If CCA's website ever reads like theirs I will be at the front of the line in Houston with a burning torch. I think the LAPP idea is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard and if CCA releases a statement saying they are for it then I will let them know my stance. It would not hurt my feelings at all to see CCA get out of all offshore matters as that's where it seems all of my issues with them lay and I don't even fish offshore if that makes any since. I just see too many good things they do inshore to write them off I guess and I hope it doesn't come back to bite me. I'm done now as I'm headed for another 3 days in beautiful Rockport chasing Reds.

Mike


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

JohnHumbert said:


> The CCA has NEVER asked their members for direction. The management decides what the members think or what they want, then proceeds with that approach.
> 
> Their attitude is "When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you!".


John, you know not of what you speak. Management, like any organization is just that. Volunteers in CCA do the voting. Most of the time this is done at board meetings that volunteers attend. I'm not going to try to change anyones mind, just letting you know how it is done. If you don't like the way CCA does things, then don't join. If you want to learn and participate, then volunteer your time and effort. The attitude is, let's do something for the fish, the habitat, teach those that want to learn about our wonderful fishery and do it positively.


----------



## Third Wave (May 24, 2004)

http://www.sportfishingmag.com/blog.jsp?blogID=275

Not sure if ya'll saw this.

I'm sure it won't change any minds, but it's a different perspective.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

:bounce:


----------



## Pogeyman (Jul 17, 2006)

JohnHumbert said:


> The CCA has NEVER asked their members for direction. The management decides what the members think or what they want, then proceeds with that approach.
> 
> Their attitude is "When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you!".


John, I'm shocked at your post, after you serving on one of the local chapters board. CCA has always solicited feedback from its' membership, and always encourages it. CCA is built upon its' membership and builds all of their committees from the volunteer member base. You may not always agree with CCA's position, but a healthy debate does everything to promote better solutions. Just throwing out indiscriminate and irresponsible rumors does nothing for anyone.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Im Headed South said:


> Nice scare tactic with the EDF website while talking about CCA. If CCA's website ever reads like theirs I will be at the front of the line in Houston with a burning torch. I think the LAPP idea is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard and if CCA releases a statement saying they are for it then I will let them know my stance. It would not hurt my feelings at all to see CCA get out of all offshore matters as that's where it seems all of my issues with them lay and I don't even fish offshore if that makes any since. I just see too many good things they do inshore to write them off I guess and I hope it doesn't come back to bite me. I'm done now as I'm headed for another 3 days in beautiful Rockport chasing Reds.
> 
> Mike


Not a scare tactic Mike. I am just pointing out where the heat is really coming from. The idea CCA put out is the brainchild of the enviros. The fact that CCA parrotted their viewpoint on their website is what makes this so disturbing. What, does CCA have to copy ED's word for word before you will begin to see that they are pulling the same way? Are you seriously trying to convince me that CCA is not endorsing this idea? If they were not, why would they go through the trouble to post it on their website? Tell me that at least.

I agree that CCA should stay out of offshore fisheries completely. I would settle for them staying out of the red snapper discussion before they do any more damage (if it is not too late already).

Also, you are right that LAPP for recs is a stupid idea. Too bad CCA endorses such a stupid idea and is at least partly responsible for it getting serious consideration by the fisheries managers. Get your torch.

As was mentioned already, what is done is done. What matters most is that this plan is never implemented. Trust me when I say that if this passes for snapper, it could be the end of offshore fishing for us. Snapper will be so abundant that you can not get a bait through to any other species. Snapper will become the defacto protector of the gulf of mexico.

Of course, it would help if CCA would step up and say "we were only kidding", or "april fools!" and fight against LAPP for recs. Anything short of that would be an endorsement for rec Lapps in the snapper fishery. They are on record as being against commercial IFQ's for grouper, but not against it for commercial snapper. Now they are for LAPP for recs too. Doesn't add up.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> John, you know not of what you speak. Management, like any organization is just that. Volunteers in CCA do the voting. Most of the time this is done at board meetings that volunteers attend. I'm not going to try to change anyones mind, just letting you know how it is done. If you don't like the way CCA does things, then don't join. If you want to learn and participate, then volunteer your time and effort. The attitude is, let's do something for the fish, the habitat, teach those that want to learn about our wonderful fishery and do it positively.


So how did you vote when CCA came to you with the wonderful idea of selling off recreational shares of the snapper fishery to the highest bidder?


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

The thinking outside of the box was in "Public Testimony" for the record at the New Orleans Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council Meeting. This was not folks casually chatting after hours but in direct for the record public comment. This was burned into the record by Dr. Russell Nelson who represents CCA at Gulf Council Meetings for a reason. This point can not be soft peddled as they did burn the statement into record during public testimony of which stays on the record for all to see. The comments were posted here when they happened on 2cool as the Gulf Council records all public statement and written statements..


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

manintheboat said:


> So how did you vote when CCA came to you with the wonderful idea of selling off recreational shares od the snapper fishery?


This was a *proposal* that was brought up along with other proposals at a committee meeting during the Gulf Council's spring session as you well know. I was not on the national board when this was discussed or voted on. Since you are interested, this is a committee that I would like to be a part of. I do my homework before voting on any issue MIB and as for this one, I think we need to continue thinking out of the box as thinking inside the box hasn't worked very well. One of the issues I do believe we need to look at is accurate data collection no matter what fishery we are talking about. Thanks for asking.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

See what happens when someone lets out a "brain fart" and stinks up the room with a bad idea, even though it was an innocent straw man argument? All the sudden it's a serious contender! Now it is *The Official LAPP* for adoption on some subcommittee and committee vote, to be sent for blessing my Herr Doktor Crabby. Next time, try an antacid or something before you let out one of those tooters, OK? :rotfl:


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Sorry Liz but____*



chicapesca said:


> This was a *proposal* that was brought up along with other proposals at a committee meeting during the Gulf Council's spring session as you well know. I was not on the national board when this was discussed or voted on. Since you are interested, this is a committee that I would like to be a part of. I do my homework before voting on any issue MIB and as for this one, I think we need to continue thinking out of the box as thinking inside the box hasn't worked very well. One of the issues I do believe we need to look at is accurate data collection no matter what fishery we are talking about. Thanks for asking.


Liz

No matter how you spin this it was in open public comment on the record as a formal statement submitted for the record by Dr. Russell Nelson as the way things outta be.

I have posted Dr.Nelsons statement provided to me by the Gulf Council. You are digging a deep hole here Liz talking about something you do have the true facts on your side on this issue sorry to say.

jim


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Third Wave said:


> http://www.sportfishingmag.com/blog.jsp?blogID=275
> 
> Not sure if ya'll saw this.
> 
> I'm sure it won't change any minds, *but it's a different perspective.*


No it's not. Not at all. It's the exact same perspective, replete with the same catch phrases (thinking outside the box, ad nauseum) chanted by all the CCA apologists when the issue is brought up.

CCA wants to push the radical preservationist agenda but do not want to be held accountable for it.

Reminds me of the dialogue from Tombstone

""My fight's not with you, Holliday." -Johnny Ringo 
"I beg to differ, sir. We started a game we never got to finish. 'Play for Blood,' remember?" -Doc Holliday
"Oh that. I was just foolin' about." -Johnny Ringo 
"I wasn't." -Doc Holliday

CCA is going to have to play for keeps before this is over. They are going to be forced to come clean and admit who their allies and sponsors are, and why *they are determined to destroy Texas offshore fishing*.

I know it has to do with East coast money and membership but I really thought after they got the deal done with the Florida red grouper interests they'd return to at least neutrality. Guess I was wrong. They are still apparrently beholden to the enviros and the comms.


----------



## texasjellyfish (Jan 23, 2006)

didnt get any email ,, thanks for posting

was always a member when it was the Gcca

instead of getting the bidding wars on the table so quickly, 
the regime should have got our fish and season back 

starkist, tyson, budwieser, txu and other giants will have snapper shares untouchable for us fishermen/women


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> This was a *proposal* that was brought up along with other proposals at a committee meeting during the Gulf Council's spring session as you well know. I was not on the national board when this was discussed or voted on. Since you are interested, this is a committee that I would like to be a part of. I do my homework before voting on any issue MIB and as for this one, I think we need to continue thinking out of the box as thinking inside the box hasn't worked very well. One of the issues I do believe we need to look at is accurate data collection no matter what fishery we are talking about. Thanks for asking.


Oh really? Why is outside the box thinking needed here? And don't give me that "it's all for the fish" line of garbage either. The fishery is just fine and is getting even better, so why are we so down on "inside the box" thinking? Commercials get to fish year round on the honor system so things are cool with them too. The only sector that is getting screwed is the recreational sector and thanks to CCA's outside of the box thinking, will get worse. Why is it that the only "thinking outside the box" thinking from CCA is the very idea that will potentially take us off of the offshore waters completely? Do you mean we need more of that kind of "out of the box" thinking? Really?

I guess in a perverse way, it is a very effective way to get accurate data if you were to shut out the recreationals from fishing for snapper with a trumped up fish share auction. With the enviros owning the entire recreational TAC and only commercial fishermen landing snapper, it will be pretty easy to count the recreational fishermen, now will it? Job well done if that is the goal. If the goal is to have a sustainable biomass, that job has already been done. But that is not the goal I guess.

How about this for outside the box thinking? Leave things alone for a little while. Let recent management moves play out. Either that or let's have CCA stay completely out of offshore fisheries and concentrate on inshore.

Here is another outside the box idea. Instead of having a fishing tournament for a cash cow, how about a summer long tree hugging tournament. The object is to run around the forests of Texas (in perfect harmony with nature, no less) hugging as many trees as possible. You can have a couple of specially tagged pine trees in undisclosed locations for your grand prize. Whoever hugs the tagged tree, gets a sweet Prius + sailboat combination. Now THAT is outside the box. Something like that might land some extra brownie points from the PEW crowd. Which is nice.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

texasjellyfish said:


> didnt get any email ,, thanks for posting
> 
> was always a member when it was the Gcca
> 
> ...


who knows, as a reward for getting the LAPP-recs ball rolling, perhaps a certain amount of shares have already been promised to CCA and its membership. Non-members would be out of luck and I doubt they would forward any to Jim Smarr.


----------



## kweber (Sep 20, 2005)

Whoever hugs the tagged tree, gets a sweet Prius + sailboat combination.
MITB, that's hilararious:rotfl:


----------



## Third Wave (May 24, 2004)

I remember now...the Gorton Fisherman sent a big fat check to CCA.


----------



## manwitaplan (Dec 9, 2005)

*Snap Dragging*

heres my letter,








Call To Action
*Pass it along!*​*TXU Energy will make a donation if you switch before July 31st!*​ 
Dear CCA Texas Member,

As a friend and supporter of Coastal Conservation Association Texas (CCA Texas), you may be interested in a new way you, your fishing buddies and other friends can support our great cause with something you use every day.

CCA Texas has partnered with TXU Energy to offer you an easy way to support our dedication to the conservation of Texas ' marine resources. Sign up on TXU Energy Texas Choice 12SM or TXU Energy Texas ChoiceSM through this CCA Texas email. You just have to use promotion code CCATEXAS. After you receive your first bill, TXU Energy will donate $100 for a qualifying single-family enrollment or $35 for a qualifying multi-family enrollment to CCA Texas. TXU Energy has committed to a minimum $25,000 donation!

Signing up with TXU Energy is just one way you can support CCA Texas and our efforts to conserve Texas coastal resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public. *Spread the word *so your friends and family can also take advantage of this easy fundraising effort. Simply call 1-877-522-2898 or enroll online and make a difference today.

Sincerely,
Your friends at CCA Texas and TXU Energy

P.S. Please forward this email to your family and friends. Be a part of the most effective voice for the proper conservation of Texas ' coastal resources. If everyone will forward this to five friends, we can reach over 150,000 families.

*Call 877-522-2898 or enroll online with promotion code CCATEXAS quickly and securely.*​

You have received this message because you have subscribed to a mailing list of Coastal Conservation Association Texas. If you do not wish to receive periodic emails from this source, please click below to unsubscribe.

This offer is not available in all areas, is subject to change or cancellation without notice prior to customer acceptance, is non-transferable, and cannot be combined with any other offers. Eligibility requirements, terms and conditions apply.

Promotion ends 7/31/09​


----------



## BluewaterAg26 (Jan 12, 2009)

Cant we all just be friends... The man in the red suit is always willing to help tug your line. Whether you like him or not he is there for you.... So why cant we bring him home...


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

I will be leaving TXU and going to another company right now.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

manintheboat said:


> Oh really? Why is outside the box thinking needed here? And don't give me that "it's all for the fish" line of garbage either. The fishery is just fine and is getting even better, so why are we so down on "inside the box" thinking? Commercials get to fish year round on the honor system so things are cool with them too. The only sector that is getting screwed is the recreational sector and thanks to CCA's outside of the box thinking, will get worse. Why is it that the only "thinking outside the box" thinking from CCA is the very idea that will potentially take us off of the offshore waters completely? Do you mean we need more of that kind of "out of the box" thinking? Really?
> 
> I guess in a perverse way, it is a very effective way to get accurate data if you were to shut out the recreationals from fishing for snapper with a trumped up fish share auction. With the enviros owning the entire recreational TAC and only commercial fishermen landing snapper, it will be pretty easy to count the recreational fishermen, now will it? Job well done if that is the goal. If the goal is to have a sustainable biomass, that job has already been done. But that is not the goal I guess.
> 
> ...


Blah blah blah, I haven't heard a grown man whine so much about the same stuff over and over again. Anyway, those are my thoughts. You can trash them if you want, call them garbage, whatever.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

jim smarr said:


> Liz
> 
> No matter how you spin this it was in open public comment on the record as a formal statement submitted for the record by Dr. Russell Nelson as the way things outta be.
> 
> ...


Yes, Jim, we all saw and read it. I am not digging a hole at all. You are the one with the shovel.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> Blah blah blah, I haven't heard a grown man whine so much about the same stuff over and over again. Anyway, those are my thoughts. You can trash them if you want, call them garbage, whatever.


Aren't you a clever one? Excellent comeback. Whining? Please.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Liz - LOL*



chicapesca said:


> Yes, Jim, we all saw and read it. I am not digging a hole at all. You are the one with the shovel.


Liz - FYI -The Saltwater Fishermen of the Gulf are with us. What a great moment in the History of Recreational Fishing we live in right now. People are begining to understand who is with them and who is against them.

We are in fact the only hope for Millions of Gulf Coast Saltwater Fishermen
in the fight for our Fishing Rights in our Bays and Offshore.

Sweet is all I can say.


----------



## Bevo34 (Feb 10, 2005)

*Jim*

Who is we?:brew2:


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*The We*

The Recreational Fishing Alliance is the "we" mentioned in my post. We are the National Fishing Rights Group.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*CCA*

Howdy,
I have held my tongue on this issue for as long as I could.

Not only does everyone need to boycott the CCA and STAR Tournament, you need to let the CCA's sponsors know how you feel about this outrage!

If the sponsors don't respond, boycott them as well.

http://www.ccatexas.org/home/star-tournament/2009-sponsors/

All the best,
Tom Hilton


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

hilton said:


> Howdy,
> I have held my tongue on this issue for as long as I could.
> 
> Not only does everyone need to boycott the CCA and STAR Tournament, you need to let the CCA's sponsors know how you feel about this outrage!
> ...


 Thanks Tom. I am going down the list and informing these sponsors that I and my family will avoid buying or using their products as long as they sponsor CCA.


----------



## banjopicker (Oct 30, 2006)

*Simple Solution...*

Texas *Secede*! Then we'll OWN the waters out to the international waters line...


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Im not a big fan of the CCA. First they drove the commercial fishermen out of business. Then they drove the shrimpers out of business. Now it appears to be the recreational fishermans turn.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

*Great idea.*



BEER4BAIT said:


> I will be leaving TXU and going to another company right now.


Dang, that is a great idea!! Just leave their sponsors!! I pay TXU probably $3,200+ a year (I have to look at the books). If only one hundred people like me dump TXU, then they lose $320,000/year in revenue and their competition will make $320,000/year more. This is every year, so your money just works for you every year without any additional membership fees . Having sponsors dump CCA will affect cashflow much more than a $25 membership.


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

kweber said:


> Whoever hugs the tagged tree, gets a sweet Prius + sailboat combination.
> MITB, that's hilararious:rotfl:


X2


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Bellyup said:


> Dang, that is a great idea!! Just leave their sponsors!! I pay TXU probably $3,200+ a year (I have to look at the books). If only one hundred people like me dump TXU, then they lose $320,000/year in revenue and their competition will make $320,000/year more. This is every year, so your money just works for you every year without any additional membership fees . Having sponsors dump CCA will affect cashflow much more than a $25 membership.[/quot
> 
> I told them why not because I am getting a better rate. The rate is fish not money


----------



## The1ThatGotAway (Jun 24, 2009)

*I puke passed the jetties*

I don't go offshore because I get sick, but this is what happens when an org gets so big. CCA is no small org, and as such it cannot keep all of it's members happy. I will say this, when they or anyone else starts to severly limit my trout, reds and flounder down to a 2 fish limit, I'm going fishing 4 times a day. I can't imagine what the guys who go to the blue water pay for a days trip but it's probably enough to pay for 50 snappers.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Beerbait - Cash Cow*

Beerbait boycotting the sponsors will not effect the cashflow. The sponsors are for the STAR tournament and has nothing to do with cash flow into the organization. I know you might have missed it but we have been over this one a zillion times. Gater


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

gater said:


> Beerbait boycotting the sponsors will not effect the cashflow. The sponsors are for the STAR tournament and has nothing to do with cash flow into the organization. I know you might have missed it but we have been over this one a zillion times. Gater


>>>BS >>>pure BS...You can shear a sheep 100 times but you can ONLY skin it once, cca has skint the offshore guys and working on YOU and other cronies....WW


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

gater said:


> Beerbait boycotting the sponsors will not effect the cashflow. The sponsors are for the STAR tournament and has nothing to do with cash flow into the organization. I know you might have missed it but we have been over this one a zillion times. Gater


I have not been on the board recently. None the less, if boycotting STAR sponsors eventually affects the prizes, then it will affect cashflow. Especially if we let the sponsors know. As Beer4bait eluded to on his post, a boat without fish is about as worthless as a house without electricity.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

> a boat without fish is about as worthless as a house without electricity


Well that's a crock. I fish for tarpon, snook, and billfish and might never come into the dock with a darn thing but am happy as a lark.

And then, maybe you missed the point that CCA is supposed to be a conservation group, yet they run "meat" tournaments all the time. That's hypocritical in the extreme.

I don't see what y'all are fighting about. if you do or don't like CCA, do what you need to do. Frankly, I have no idea why the organization even exists, except to play a rather nasty game of fish politics. Where they messed up was on snapper, anyways ... but that is just my opinion and everyone has one.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Swells said:


> Well that's a crock. I fish for tarpon, snook, and billfish and might never come into the dock with a darn thing but am happy as a lark.


Swells, that is not what I meant. You have to be allowed to fish before you can even catch fish. If laws do not allow you to fish, then the boat will be empty, no matter how good a fisherman one is.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

As long as the sponsors know you and your families will avoid their products and services because of their sponsorship it will affect the cash flow.
Remember every complaint registered equals 15 not known of. That gentlemen is an expanding circle of BAD advertising.


----------



## gulf_addict (Aug 26, 2005)

*Which is why*



Snagged said:


> As long as the sponsors know you and your families will avoid their products and services because of their sponsorship it will affect the cash flow.
> Remember every complaint registered equals 15 not known of. That gentlemen is an expanding circle of BAD advertising.


I sent this to the TXU Exec Team and Jim Burke who is the CEO.



> TXU, CCA, and Texas Recreational Fishing
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Nah, they will continue on once they notice that they have the full support of gater and chicapesca.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Bellyup said:


> Swells, that is not what I meant. You have to be allowed to fish before you can even catch fish. If laws do not allow you to fish, then the boat will be empty, no matter how good a fisherman one is.


I know, I know ... I had no reason to take issue with you personally, and don't take it that way. Plus, who in their right mind would catch and then release red snapper when there's so many of them, and they taste so darn good?

The dark side of the story is that if the snapper season gets closed, the poachers will be the only ones having any fun. Like the one of y'all mentioned, only one in 10 or 15 fish pirates is ever caught, and often these bandits catch big hauls, often a lot more than two-over-16 per person.

A system that penalizes the law-abiding citizen and rewards the poacher is a sick one. I don't know about your "fish rights" but it is a clear case of mismanagement of a public resource, the Public Trust Doctrine. Folks, all those red snapper out there are YOUR FISH. They don't belong to the NMFS or any other agency, they are YOURS. One would hope that with good management and stewardship, like we do for anything else like deer or reducing feral hogs, it is done the right way and the rules make sense.

But that is not the case with red snapper. Something is so wrong it defies logic or comprehension. And CCA is in the middle of it. End of rant.
sam


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Bellyup said:


> Swells, that is not what I meant. You have to be allowed to fish before you can even catch fish. If laws do not allow you to fish, then the boat will be empty, no matter how good a fisherman one is.


I know, I know ... I had no reason to take issue with you personally, and don't take it that way. Plus, who in their right mind would catch and then release red snapper when there's so many of them, and they taste so darn good?

The dark side of the story is that if the snapper season gets closed, the poachers will be the only ones having any fun. Like the one of y'all mentioned, only one in 10 or 15 fish pirates is ever caught, and often these bandits catch big hauls, often a lot more than two-over-16 per person.

A system that penalizes the law-abiding citizen and rewards the poacher is a sick one. I don't know about your "fish rights" but it is a clear case of mismanagement of a public resource, the Public Trust Doctrine. Folks, all those red snapper out there are YOUR FISH. They don't belong to the NMFS or any other agency, they are YOURS. One would hope that with good management and stewardship, like we do for anything else like deer or reducing feral hogs, it is done the right way and the rules make sense.

But that is not the case with red snapper. Something is so wrong it defies logic or comprehension. And CCA is in the middle of it. End of rant.
sam


----------



## Ducksmasher (Jul 21, 2005)

let me beat on this horse a while!

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s787/text

does this mean what I think it does?



> (8) this Act will treat, as 'waters of the United States', those features that were treated as such pursuant to the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers in existence before the dates of the decisions referred to in paragraph (10), including--
> (A) all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s787/text#
> 
> 1
> ...


----------



## BIG PAPPA (Apr 1, 2008)

*TOO MUCH HERE*



glennkoks said:


> Im not a big fan of the CCA. First they drove the commercial fishermen out of business. Then they drove the shrimpers out of business. Now it appears to be the recreational fishermans turn.


I think Jim Smarr and Mr Hilton need to join CCA, Become officers, sit on the Board and start fixing the problems along with the RFA as a partner. These two guys can do it with the RFA & CCA, and i honestly believe that. Why on earth would they not be able to spearhead a trail to correction? We have two of the most "IN THE KNOW" guys right here, that can, and will be listened to, but will they?
This is not a call out, this is a PLEA. Jim & Tom, we/you, have a tool(whether a knuckle buster or not) that you two could use, and i really believe you can make a difference. Like Mont said, the name calling does absolutley no good at all. Get on the Boards and start spearheading your/our voices thru a back door. numbers make the difference. Call Robby Boyels with CCA and get it started. It'd be so much easier. just a couple of cents from Big Pappa i feel thats worth CASHING IN.sad2sm


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Jim Smarr response to Big Papa*

Thanks for the kind words. 
I can't be bought off. I have been in a non paid volunteer position at the Recreational Fishing Alliance for 12 plus years. My integrity will not be compromised. I did my time with GCCA and CCA. I am proud of being in the position I hold with the Recreational Fishing Alliance. We are what we are a for real 501-c-4 Recreational Saltwater Fishing Lobby Group. We don't claim to be one we are one. All Politics eventually become very local. I wanted affiliated with the real deal a true 501 C-4 Saltwater Recreational Fishing Organization that could make political donations to our elected officials and lobby for fishing rights without question. A 501c-4 is virtually unlimited as to how we or who we lobby. On the other hand a 501 c-3 such as CCA can "Educate" but not make political contributions for more than 10% of their annual cash intake as I understand the law regarding the IRS Tax Code for nonprofits.
Again thanks but no thanks as the move to CCA would be a step backwards as far as maintaining Recreational Fishing Rights. I do not have to claim I am something I am not at the Recreational Fishing Alliance. I have in 12 years not had to apologize for a position taken by the Recreational Fishing Alliance when our Fishing Rights were in jeopardy.


----------



## BIG PAPPA (Apr 1, 2008)

*Thanks Jim*

I just feel, if the RFA and CCA would sit down and discuss the issue, where it's at, the direction it's heading, and where it needs to go, alot of these issues could be corrected. Starting with the REAL #'s of the Snapper stock and how do we get a real non biased scientific report.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I don't believe the 10 or 15 of you who post regarding this issue will affect the STAR sponsors much at all. Even if you add the 60 or so members of RFA it still won't matter. Find another route to vent your frustrations but I don't think what you're doing here is working. Y'all come on here once a month or so and bang on the CCA, which I'll admit they deserve in this case, but it never goes any further. Of course Mr. Smarr keeps at it but shoot, if he spent less time attacking an organization he has no hope of changing and more time on the issue I bet your problems would be solved. Either way good luck.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

I really cannot think of anybody who has spent more time on the issues than Jim Smarr, so don't think for a minute that he is sacrificing that to bash CCA. If you spent 1/2 as much time as Jim has dealing with these issues and seeing what he has seen in person on the front lines, you would bash CCA too. It would be much easier to solve the problems if CCA would stop screwing things up by backing such counterproductive measures.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I'm sure I don't spend 1/64 the time that Jim does on this issue, but he alienates himself and his org. by the way he goes about his business. I'm not going to argue about what CCA is doing with this issue because I'm scratching my head a bit on that one too, but as someone who is still faithful to CCA I find it impossible to support anything that Mr. Smarr promotes. I may be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time, but I would be willing to bet that there are a lot of people who are turned off by his tactics.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

gater said:


> Beerbait boycotting the sponsors will not effect the cashflow. The sponsors are for the STAR tournament and has nothing to do with cash flow into the organization. I know you might have missed it but we have been over this one a zillion times. Gater


WRONG!

The STARkill has everything to do with the eco.orgs cashflow. They can whitewash it being all about kids, fish, etc... ad nauseum but the real focus is the membership fees and stuffing their coffers full for more power. If it was all about the star and its benefits to fish, kids, etc..., there would be no cca membership requirement necessary.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

HP, STAR is not going away and there is nothing, and I repeat nothing, that y'all can do about that. The sooner that is realized then the sooner y'all can move on to something else. There are hundreds of other tournaments along the coast and other "conservation" orgs. that sponsor them so why target this one? I don't think that CCA has ever denied that STAR is a fundraiser and I am looking forward to fishing this weekend as I am entered. Wish me luck!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

There was nothing that could be done for polio either. I was only responding to gaters comments regarding star and cca's cashflow Poc.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*POC boy*

The RFA. membership in Texas is 5,000 plus and with affiliated groups 4 times that large. Members that back us not a "blanking" kill fishing lottery 
tournament paying an idiot tax for a chance to win something which in turn supports the madness at CCA. Nationaly we are equaly as larges as the "Cash Cow Association". lol Thanks to the way the other guys have addressed fisheries issues we are growing much faster every day.

By the way POCBOY the major folks in the Sportfishing Arena have figured out CCA is no friend to the Marine Trades or Salt of the Earth Recreational Fishermen. I expect soon they will have some problems paying those fat salaries.

Just wait until not when TPWD attemps to put CCA's- Dr. Nelsons catch shares into the Bay System and you inshore guys have to start buying your trout, flounder and redfish. TPWD Reps on theGulf Council seemed to like catch shares as a way to manage fisheries. They said the best way to deal with fisheries management will be catch shares. Big Bucks selling a natural resource that belongs to all Americans to a few with the new "TAX" going where I ask and for what?

Your boys opened a can of worms on this one. I am pleased they did as now there is no dispute CCA has gone as green as a gourd with catch shares.:texasflag


----------



## polloloco (Nov 1, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> HP, STAR is not going away and there is nothing, and I repeat nothing, that y'all can do about that. The sooner that is realized then the sooner y'all can move on to something else. There are hundreds of other tournaments along the coast and other "conservation" orgs. that sponsor them so why target this one? I don't think that CCA has ever denied that STAR is a fundraiser and I am looking forward to fishing this weekend as I am entered. Wish me luck!


Informing people is something and it is being done. Word of mouth gets around faster and better than any other types of advertising. So yeah good luck to you.

Quit CCA today!


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Pocboy said:


> HP, STAR is not going away and there is nothing, and I repeat nothing, that y'all can do about that. The sooner that is realized then the sooner y'all can move on to something else. There are hundreds of other tournaments along the coast and other "conservation" orgs. that sponsor them so why target this one? I don't think that CCA has ever denied that STAR is a fundraiser and I am looking forward to fishing this weekend as I am entered. Wish me luck!


Don't be too smug, Gilbert. When DU turned their backs on Southern Duckhunters with the same excuse 
"We're for DUCKS not duckhunters!" (sound familiar?) 
they very nearly went from a powerful organization to an irrelevant bit player in a very short time. They saw the error of their ways and made a hard course correction. 
People who run offshore boats are not a large percentage of the population, or even the fishing population. But they do tend to have influence beyond their numbers. CCA is heading into rough seas. They had better get their sails trimmed and jettison some their toxic cargo or they may very well end up shipwrecked.



BIG PAPPA said:


> just feel, if the RFA and CCA would sit down and discuss the issue, where it's at, the direction it's heading, and where it needs to go, alot of these issues could be corrected.


They've (RFA) tried, BP. In return, after pledging support and seemingly agreeing to common ground, CCA welshed on the deal and threw their support to their new allies, the radical preservationists of the Pew Charitable trust and others, and the commercials. They simply do not support the same agenda. They are *NOT *interested in recreational fishermen. They ARE supportive of marine sanctuaries, selling our resources to the highest bidder, and they have no problem using discredited science (80% snapper mortality due to shrimper by catch) to advance their agenda. Hard to believe. Until you follow the money. Their undercutting of the Texas offshore fisherman (who are relatively few) was their ticket to be the "hero" of the Florida Red Grouper fishery wars. We were sold out. 
You might say, "well, so you were sold out ONCE, why not try again". Because the same thing would happen. The old parable of the scorpion and the frog come to mind. Jim Smarr is not going to be the frog. We have a very good man who retained his CCA membership in order to keep an eye on their strategy, perhaps someday to influence it, in Monty Weeks.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

HP, You are right about that. 
Mr. Smarr, you just keep on badmouthing CCA and continue to drive those away who might want to support both. I know you can't help it and you'll continue it no matter what. BTW, I doubt that rfa has as many members nationally, as a single organization, as CCA has in Texas alone.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

is Pocboy's name gilbert or were you talking to me? :help:



Levelwind said:


> Don't be too smug, Gilbert. When DU turned their backs on Southern Duckhunters with the same excuse
> "We're for DUCKS not duckhunters!" (sound familiar?)
> they very nearly went from a powerful organization to an irrelevant bit player in a very short time. They saw the error of their ways and made a hard course correction.
> People who run offshore boats are not a large percentage of the population, or even the fishing population. But they do tend to have influence beyond their numbers. CCA is heading into rough seas. They had better get their sails trimmed and jettison some their toxic cargo or they may very well end up shipwrecked.
> ...


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

Snap Draggin said:


> I got this letter from them a little while ago via e-mal.


i don't reply to spam in my e-mail....

i just delete it and move on


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

(117 posts later... )


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Just for the record, the CCA drove me away before I ever knew Smarr.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Gilbert, Dilbert, something like that. :work: 
Not you.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

> BTW, I doubt that rfa has as many members nationally, as a single organization, as CCA has in Texas alone. __________________


yawn, and my Daddy can whip your Daddy. The only time you show up over here is when CCA gets mentioned. I don't care if I am RFA's only member, so long as they don't sell me and the fish down the river.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

BEER4BAIT said:


> Just for the record, the CCA drove me away before I ever knew Smarr.


X2!!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


> yawn, and my Daddy can whip your Daddy. The only time you show up over here is when CCA gets mentioned. I don't care if I am RFA's only member, so long as they don't sell me and the fish down the river.


Roger that!!


----------



## gulf_addict (Aug 26, 2005)

*Interesting*

Got a response from TXU.



> Randy,
> 
> I appreciate your sending to me, and while I am not able to review the information in the link as I am out of the country, I am asking my team to review this and see what needs to be done. I appreciate your bringing to my attention and we will look into this right away. We certainly entered the relationship with the right intentions and appreciate your reaching out.
> 
> ...


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

I may send a letter saying why I went to Centerpoint after being with TXU for 20 years.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> HP, You are right about that.
> Mr. Smarr, you just keep on badmouthing CCA and continue to drive those away who might want to support both. I know you can't help it and you'll continue it no matter what. BTW, I doubt that rfa has as many members nationally, as a single organization, as CCA has in Texas alone.


He only badmouths them because they deserve it. As soon as they stop screwing things up, he, as many of us, will stop criticising them. Are you suggesting that Jim Smarr should simply give them a free pass and allow them to assist NMFS and the enviros to trample over our rights as fishermen and Americans? I thought that was the job description of the majority of CCA apologists, er sheep. There are enough people in that pool already, sadly.

CCA might have more members, but I bet the percentage of members of CCA who are actually informed on fisheries issues is well under 10% and likely under 5%. People join RFA because they are educated on fisheries issues and have had enough. It is safe to say that over 90% of RFA's membership are aware of the issues surrounding fisheries management. The informed membership of RFA surely blows away the informed CCA ranks, which consists of Monty Weeks and 5 other people. I would even go as far to say that RFA members know way more about CCA's stances on fisheries issues than actual members of CCA. How sad is that? Most CCA members i talk to about this are totally surprised about this stuff.


----------



## Bevo34 (Feb 10, 2005)

*To quote Monty*



manintheboat said:


> He only badmouths them because they deserve it. As soon as they stop screwing things up, he, as many of us, will stop criticising them. Are you suggesting that Jim Smarr should simply give them a free pass and allow them to assist NMFS and the enviros to trample over our rights as fishermen and Americans? I thought that was the job description of the majority of CCA apologists, er sheep. There are enough people in that pool already, sadly.
> 
> CCA might have more members, but I bet the percentage of members of CCA who are actually informed on fisheries issues is well under 10% and likely under 5%. People join RFA because they are educated on fisheries issues and have had enough. It is safe to say that over 90% of RFA's membership are aware of the issues surrounding fisheries management. The informed membership of RFA surely blows away the informed CCA ranks, which consists of Monty Weeks and 5 other people. I would even go as far to say that RFA members know way more about CCA's stances on fisheries issues than actual members of CCA. How sad is that? Most CCA members i talk to about this are totally surprised about this stuff.


yawn, and my Daddy can whip your Daddy.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I don't know about that, my daddy's a pretty big boy. LOL. I can roll in the mud too and Mr. Smarr will not get a free ride either. Oh well, I guess I gave this thread a little more life. I'll go away for a while so it can disappear again. Have a good 4th everyone, including you Mr. Smarr.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> I'll go away for a while


Why not just make it permanently instead for a while? Please log off, clear your cookies and delete this site from your favorites. Thank you.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Bevo34 said:


> yawn, and my Daddy can whip your Daddy.


Meanwhile, back at the chapter meeting.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

BWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!


----------



## easoutdoors (Jun 4, 2004)

*cca dollars*

CCA dollars at work 2006-2008 $1,672,350.00

$700,000. CCA Texas lab for marine larviculture
$250,000. shrimp license buyback
$100,000. habbitat today for fish tommorrow 
$98,352. tpwd game warden enforcment equipment
$60,000. scholarships at UT and A&M
Ect. Ect. Ect.

No other group can say they have done anything close to this.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

No other group can say they are screwing the recreational fishermen to tears either.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

MITB, If you do not like CCA that is fine, but please do not insult those who work hard on a local level in the various chapters. You and snap dragqueen can say what you want about CCA national and state, but the local chapters do the leg work and do not deserve your angst. That picture looked more like a family reunion for snap dragqueen. Hasta la vista!


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Pocboy,
What you don't understand is that the complaint is with your national. Once you get that through your skull you will start to understand what the problem is.

PS: I doubt you'll agree but it is what it is.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Snagged, you are right! How was that for an agreement? My skull isn't that thick after all. The problem y'all are having is with CCA national and as I have stated before, they need to get their heads out of the sand and see what is going on down here. The only problem I have is when people bash the entire organization, expecially the local chapters. The local people are doing lots of great things and the money they raise stays in the state.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

That was not directed at all CCA members, just the sheep. A couple of them have posted on this thread. Even though you are loyal to them, you at least question their policies on these threads from time to time. That says a whole lot more than others.


----------

