# Snapper and CCA - New Statement on website



## chad (Sep 7, 2006)

*I found this on CCA's Website. Thought you might find it interesting. They are still trying to screw us.*​
*CCA Continues Fight to Rebuild Red Snapper Fishery*​​​
The management of red snapper in the


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Didn't see the article by following link. Can you check it and repost?


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

It's in the right column....but...here's the link....

http://www.ccatexas.org/CCATexas/Ne...60&SnID=514343767&FullStoryArea=NEWSFULLSTORY


----------



## chad (Sep 7, 2006)

I tried to copy and paste the article here, but for some reason I can't get it to work.


----------



## newcomer (Jan 21, 2008)

I don't even know what to say anymore. I for the life of me can't get the logic of putting more restrictions on the rec fisherman and letting the commercials run amuck. Beating a dead horse I guess. Doubt that all of our griping does any good but I guess if it makes us feel any better keep on with it


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Clueless....still*

This clueless diatribe is proof of ignorance and lack of backbone....some of it is actually funny. More proof that CCA has lost it!

They have coded it so it cannot be pasted...go figure!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

newcomer said:


> I don't even know what to say anymore. I for the life of me can't get the logic of putting more restrictions on the rec fisherman and letting the commercials run amuck. Beating a dead horse I guess. Doubt that all of our griping does any good but I guess if it makes us feel any better keep on with it


I am not sure if they are griping here as much as making everyone aware of the issue; however I am sure there will be griping and even more to come on this thread.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

If I read that right, CCA just told a bunch of Texans with years of experience on the water and with red snaper that they are a bunch of confused idiots. I sure hope these folks don't have the gall to say that ... I'll stop there.
-digger sam


----------



## newcomer (Jan 21, 2008)

Guess I came off wrong. I am griping. Not others. Wanted to say b1tching but couldnt. It seems so cut and dry to me what the problem is and the real fix for it. It appears to me that the cca wants to make it look like they care but really don't. Their proposal will do nothing except hurt local business. Just my couple of pennies.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Here it is

*The management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is one of the most contentious fisheries issues in recent history. The problems that are ingrained in the red snapper fishery today are not overnight developments. They have been brewing for almost 30 years, since 1979 when the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council first determined that red snapper stocks were overfished. Soon after that determination, the recreational harvest declined an estimated 87 percent and prompted the Gulf Council to create its "Reef Fish Management Plan," beginning a series of starts, stops and reverses in federal management initiatives that set an uncertain course for this troubled species. *

*The crux of the problem has always been that both commercial and recreational fishermen were allowed to fish the larger, mature fish too aggressively, while at the same time the juvenile population was being decimated as bycatch in shrimp trawls. Unwillingness on the part of the federal government to implement and enforce the necessary conservation measures has allowed this fishery to drift through almost three decades of decline.*

*In 2004, the first in a series of peer-reviewed stock assessments indicated that those factors had combined to reduce red snapper, a long-lived, slow-breeding species, to dangerously low levels, down to a mere fraction of a healthy breeding population by some estimates. The assessments, regarded as some of the most intensely peer-reviewed science on a single fishery, painted a grim picture of a fishery in need of desperate measures.*

*In 2007, after decades of mismanagement, the federal government finally adopted a management plan that has all the pieces to recover this species. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), along with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, has adopted an interim plan that includes a 107-day season with a total allowable catch (TAC) of 6.5 million pounds for both commercial and recreational anglers, reduced from 9.12 million pounds. The plan mandates a reduction in shrimp bycatch mortality by 74% and requires the use of circle hooks and venting devices on all vessels. The plan also lowers the recreational bag limit to two fish with a 16-inch minimum size limit. The commercial fishery was given a 13-inch minimum as a way to reduce the near-100% bycatch mortality in that fishery.*

*After decades of half-measures and outright neglect, this plan represents a step forward to recover red snapper once and for all. To produce as complete a recovery as quickly as possible, NMFS has asked that all Gulf Coast states adopt these guidelines. CCA has been involved in the management of red snapper for more than two decades and actively advocated for the conservation measures specified by this management plan. We are calling on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to do its part and adhere to the federal regulations.*

*CCA Texas put that position on record at the first public scoping meeting that was held by TPWD in Port Arthur on January 3rd. Comments by other attendees at that meeting indicated that there is still a great deal of confusion on the realities of this complex fishery. An extremely narrow view of the fishery has led some to believe that Texas should not allow the federal government to ever set conservation measures in state waters. Some have the perception that red snapper are plentiful in state waters and therefore conservation of the stock should not be our concern. And some are convinced that a two-fish bag limit will destroy coastal communities in the state.*

*Given the long history of red snapper and the amount of confusion, uncertainty and misinformation that is currently circulating, it is necessary to clarify our position. *

*We believe that Texas is much better prepared to manage fisheries in state waters than the federal government, but with red snapper mired in such an overfished condition, it would be grossly irresponsible for any state to jeopardize the overall recovery by grabbing a bigger piece of the pie for itself. Fish swim, and therefore state and federal boundaries mean little in the overall conservation strategy.*

*We believe that if the anecdotal evidence is correct and we happen to have an abundance of snapper in our state waters, it is even more incumbent upon us to conserve those fish to help rebuild the stock. *

*Finally, and perhaps most importantly, CCA Texas is a marine resource conservation organization. Since its creation in 1977, CCA has supported science-based resource management. When the science called for it, recreational fishermen made sacrifices to help important species like redfish and speckled trout recover and today we are reaping the benefits with our world-class fisheries. It is no different with red snapper today. By supporting the federal regulations in state waters, CCA Texas is confident that we will reap the rewards of a healthy red snapper fishery for all of us to enjoy*


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Angler 1 said:


> Here it is
> 
> *The crux of the problem has always been that both commercial and recreational fishermen were allowed to fish the larger, mature fish too aggressively*


That is a new position from them. In the past, the entire problem has been shrimper bycatch. Now it is commercial and recreationals aggresively targeting larger fish?


----------



## Bret (May 21, 2004)

*heres excerpts from the article*

Here it is.. At least heres the import.. stuff.. Its funny that they dont mention bycatch mortality for recs at all.. Dont they think that all of the fish we catch to find one up to 16inches gets released???​I guess I am one of the Texans that has a narrow view..​What a bunch of gibberish..​
​*. The plan also lowers the recreational bag limit to two fish with a 16-inch minimum size limit. The commercial fishery was given a 13-inch minimum as a way to reduce the near-100% bycatch mortality in that fishery.

* 


*Given the long history of red snapper and the amount of confusion, uncertainty and misinformation that is currently circulating, it is necessary to clarify our position. *
*We believe that Texas is much better prepared to manage fisheries in state waters than the federal government, but with red snapper mired in such an overfished condition, it would be grossly irresponsible for any state to jeopardize the overall recovery by grabbing a bigger piece of the pie for itself. Fish swim, and therefore state and federal boundaries mean little in the overall conservation strategy.*

*We believe that if the anecdotal evidence is correct and we happen to have an abundance of snapper in our state waters, it is even more incumbent upon us to conserve those fish to help rebuild the stock. *

​


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

*C*onfused *C*onsevration *A*ssocation

How many acronyms


----------



## cabolew (Aug 12, 2005)

Oh..... now I understand. 

We need more habitat! Support the TGBR!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fishstik (Aug 21, 2006)

*



"We believe that Texas is much better prepared to manage fisheries in state waters than the federal government"

Click to expand...

This is the only smart comment in the entire article. I believe we should give TPWD mgmt of Gulf waters out to 200 miles since they seem to be doing such a good job of amassing reliable data and sustaining state water fish stocks.....at least that's the gest of what Art had to say at the mtg in Port A....*


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Agree, suddenly a new position arises. 

And if the mature larger fish harvest is the problem, then why don't they propose a slot like the redfish? 

And why don't they propose gamefish status like the redfish?

Amazing to me, what obviously worked so well with the redfish (and got them the status to become the large org they are now) is not even being proposed by them for the snapper.

They so supported release of breeding stock and no commercial fishing for redfish, so why is this time different?

I don't think CCA would get so much backlash if they returned to supporting what worked in the past, rather than just touting past success as a reason to support them.

Most recs would be on board with the proposals IF CCA was opposing commercial harvest, the key to all conservation efforts. The stock would rebound virtually immediatedly if commercial harvest was eliminated. And then we would know our sacrifice was not in vain.

Of course, this assumes the stock is in the condition they say it is, which I am still having a hard time believing.


----------



## DeepBlueGulf (Jan 18, 2005)

Hey Guys,

I'm just wondering, does anyone know if there is a breakdown of what amount of Red Snapper each Gulf state takes, both commercially, and by recreationals? If you know where the info is, could you point me towards it. I'm just curious as to which state takes the most, and are we having to give up ours because someone else is taking more than their share.

DBG


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

manintheboat said:


> That is a new position from them. In the past, the entire problem has been shrimper bycatch. Now it is commercial and recreationals aggresively targeting larger fish?


I think it is safe to say that the comms are not agressively targeting oversized fish, yes they keep some , but that is not their primary target ...they want em 15"-20", more marketable for the fish houses and groceries.......meat/waste ratio is better...


----------



## Captfry (May 21, 2004)

Angler 1 said:


> Here it is
> 
> * When the science called for it, recreational fishermen made sacrifices to help important species like redfish and speckled trout recover and today we are reaping the benefits with our world-class fisheries. *


I thought they help protect the Redfish by stopping commerical fishing, Not the RECS.


----------



## Tiny (Dec 19, 2006)

jig said:


> I don't think CCA would get so much backlash if they returned to supporting what worked in the past, rather than just touting past success as a reason to support them.
> 
> Most recs would be on board with the proposals IF CCA was opposing commercial harvest, the key to all conservation efforts. The stock would rebound virtually immediatedly if commercial harvest was eliminated. And then we would know our sacrifice was not in vain.


You are absolutely, 100% correct. the CCA has lost sight of what they started out to stand for. Red Snapper will NEVER get off of "problem" status as long as the Commercials still get theirs...

I really hate to do it but this will be my first year in a long time to NOT fish the S.T.A.R. Will they care...nope.


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

This is a letter I E-mailed the cca maybe everyone should send them one.

The CCA evolved from the GCCA. The GCCA was dedicated to save Speckled Trout and Red Drum for the recreational fisherman. Not the commercial sector and they took action to do so. In doing this they finally got the commercial sale and transportation of these species banned in the state of Texas.

My problem with your stance on the Snapper issue is that you are not doing anything to stop the commercial sale or transportation of red snapper now. And with the CCA's approval of the two fish limit you are saying that you believe the stock is in worse shape than the Speckled Trout was. I know there is a lot of money backing the commercial side of the snapper industry. There was also big money backing the Speckled Trout and Red Drum industry. It appears your leadership is fat and happy in their glass houses. And has forgot where the organization came from.

All ready a lot of offshore fisherman have given up on offshore fishing and started bay fishing. The bay's already have a tremendous amount of pressure on them. And it looks like there is going to be a lot more. What are you going to do when those limits start needing to be cut back as they already are in South Texas. These people are your core membership and they are not going to be happy.

Until the CCA changes their stance and or plan of action on Red Snapper you will not get another a dime from me and I will encourage everyone I know to do the same. I all ready have the ear of a few boat dealers that have supported you in the past.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

Angler 1 said:


> * CCA has been involved in the management of red snapper for more than two decades and actively advocated for the conservation measures specified by this management plan. We are calling on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to do its part and adhere to the federal regulations.*


Twenty plus years of involvement in the management of the red snapper??? ***???
Couldn't get the job done in two decades??? Something smells fishy....
After twenty years of management participation of the red snapper fishery we have come to this point?

Give it up CCA....it's obviously not your forte!!!


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> I think it is safe to say that the comms are not agressively targeting oversized fish, yes they keep some , but that is not their primary target ...they want em 15"-20", more marketable for the fish houses and groceries.......meat/waste ratio is better...


that is exactly what I thought. It seems like they are just making stuff up now.


----------



## coxhw (Jun 7, 2007)

Well I'm shafted this year (payed already) but next year it will be more corkers, shrimp, mudfish, and mullets in the bait well. Also more plastic.


----------



## Aggie (May 27, 2004)

I sure wish some sole at CCA would have had the guts to put their name at the bottom of that paper. I guess if they did they would have been run out of TX to Washington DC so they could just take kick backs from enviros and commercials...Hey I bet Omega Protein would hire them!


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

> *Fish swim, and therefore state and federal boundaries mean little in the overall conservation strategy.*


Wow...talk about going against all known reports and research I've found. EVERY bit of research I've found states that snapper are HIGHLY local and populations have even been found to have size differnces between same age groups in different locations such as Texas and Lousiana.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Also I REALLY wish they would site thier sources. I'd love to see ALL their research they use.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

I bet they don't have any "research" and are merely trying to cover up for a major PR blunder. They know that from a policy perspective, they blew it down here in Texas. So what do they do?

Back-peddle. All policy wonks do it, why not them? 

They know that Gulfwide, there has been a serious snapper problem. That problem was basically east of the Mississippi River though. So they're hoping a few angry Texans don't matter - it is a bluffing game. Rather easy to figure out, really. -digger sam


----------



## kayakrockport (Jul 12, 2006)

Here's an interesting article about red snapper movements, based on research by Dr. Bob Shipp ... it's really more about Alabama's amazing artificial reef program, but some stuff of interest:

http://centerconsoleangler.com/nov07/snapper.php


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Read - Fidelity of Red Snapper to Petroluem Platforms. Published 4/06 out of LSU. Decent recent read on how they move about in a given area. Big conclusion - less fidelity that previously thought.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Ernest...I'm not sure if it's the one by Peabody, but if so her paper submitted for her masters in 2004 left A LOT to be desired. She made some VERY gross rationalizations in her conclusions. I'll see if I can find the 2006 publication to see what addtional research she had.

I just browsed her 2006 conclusions and it seems verbatum from her 2004 paper. She taged 125 fish...13 moved away. How does this not show high fidelity?


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

here is another verbatum quote from her research...


> The site fidelity portions of this study have been compromised by the thermocline and pinger malfunction, but the data were analyzed as planned because the extent of these complications is not certain.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3414.pdf

No, it was by Charles Wilson. They caught snapper around some rigs offshore of Louisiana, implanted acoustic transmitters on the fish then released them. Basically the findings were that snapper showed a high fidelity to structure in the short term, but less so in the long term, meaning that after a while, they moved some. It did not appear that they would home in to the origonal spot of release.

Nothing groundbreaking here. It is not a good idea to try to create the impression that snapper stay on the same piece of structure long -term. The fact that the fish move some is the main argument against the effectiveness of MPA's.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

I read the 2006 report with Charles Wilson and Mrs. Peabody from LSU
PUT MPA's in the areas that are not growing. So how are our red snapper supposed to get across the 100 mile dead zone at the mouth of the mississippi river?

Here is the actual report where it talks about the problems with thier data.
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3413.pdf


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

You nailed it with this letter. Kudos to you for writing it and sending it.



86228 said:


> This is a letter I E-mailed the cca maybe everyone should send them one.
> 
> The CCA evolved from the GCCA. The GCCA was dedicated to save Speckled Trout and Red Drum for the recreational fisherman. Not the commercial sector and they took action to do so. In doing this they finally got the commercial sale and transportation of these species banned in the state of Texas.
> 
> ...


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

didn't read the whole thing but did read .......age 1-2 year fish are structure dependant, reefs, platforms etc. for cover from predators, as they grow older they move out over mud bottom, low structure etc.....

as a diver and fisheman all over the gulf, I have to agree with that, but the only way to get an accurate assessment is to tag a large # of fish at a rig, make it off limits for 3-4 years to everyone and dive it and get visual counts of what the fish are doing on a regular basis.....then if the tags show up miles away you have some good info, but that means forming a scientific MPA, not likely i'm guessing....


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

MintheBoat has a great point. 

Many of the these arguments are like shotguns. They kick just as hard as they shoot. Help on one hand, but then are a punch to the groin on the next issue. Thus, one must carefully consider the "kick" before they pull the trigger to "shoot."


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

honestly what's wrong with MPA's for the states not showing improvments? I mean our stocks are replentishing TPWD said that. However as a whole gulf the snapper are not coming back fast enough. If we show that we don't have the problem, then other states fix their issues or they can't fish. Don't punish Tx because we have been successful. And saying shouldn't be taking a larger number of fish....well that's because we have managed our's correctly and don't have to worry at our current rates snapper numbers are increaseing. I also saw something interesting. Commercial interest in the study showed roughly $10.4 million dollars in revinue. How much is NMFS paying to mangage the stocks? I mean if they could buy out the commercials for 5 years our stocks SHOULD be back to normal in no time.


----------



## woody7 (May 28, 2004)

Gater, better jump in here to rescue the CCA PR wing, it's imploding on itself.


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*December 2007 snapper paper*

This is a scientic, peer-reviewed paper that we have all been waiting a long time for!

*An evaluation of the benefits of artificial habitats for red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, in the northeast Gulf of Mexico *

SZEDLMAYER, S.T. 
Marine Fish Laboratory 
Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture 
Auburn University 
8300 State Hwy 104 
Fairhope, AL 36532

ABSTRACT 
Evidence for red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, production from artificial habitats has been difficult to obtain. The benefits of such habitats for red snapper were evaluated by examining red snapper diets, predator exclusions, habitat complexity, and epibenthic communities in association with artificial habitats over a 10 year period. Also examined were movement patterns from ultrasonic telemetry, and population parameters estimated from fishery independent methods. These studies suggested that red snapper: 1) had a high affinity for artificial habitats, 2) showed consistent feeding on reef prey types, 3) were significantly more abundant on habitats with available prey, 4) showed a significant correlation between abundance and habitat complexity, 5) showed long term residency with some tracked over two years, and 6) abundance significantly increased when predators were excluded. In addition, population status of red snapper off coastal Alabama based on a fishery independent survey of 94 artificial habitats, using fish traps, diver surveys, and otolith aging suggested a better condition compared to previous population assessments. Collectively these results suggest that artificial habitats in the northern Gulf of Mexico contribute significantly to the production of red snapper.

INTRODUCTION
In the aquatic environment almost any material that adds some topographical relief will attract fish and increase catch (D'Itri 1985). In coastal Alabama, U.S.A., this concept has been applied extensively with the placement of artificial habitats (Minton and Heath 1998). However, we know little about the actual effects of artificial habitats on wider scales, such as local fish stocks. If artificial habitats function mainly through attraction then we may be driving fish stocks towards faster depletion. In contrast, if artificial habitats function by increasing productivity then our habitat building efforts would be helping dwindling fish stocks. Despite the vast amount of literature on artificial habitats this critical question has not yet been adequately answered (Bohnsack 1989, Grossman et al. 1997, Bortone 1998). To address such questions, over a 10 year period we have examined many aspects of the life history and ecology of red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, in the northeast Gulf of Mexico, and how this species relates to artificial habitats.
Red snapper have historically supported an important commercial and recreational fishery (Camber 1955) and are closely associated with structured artificial habitats (Szedlmayer 1997, Szedlmayer and Lee 2004, Szedlmayer and Schroepfer 2005, Lingo and Szedlmayer 2006, Schroepfer and Szedlmayer 2006, Piko and Szedlmayer 2007). In the northeast Gulf of Mexico most natural habitat is relatively flat open mud/sand/shell substrata with uncommon or rare complex natural rock reef habitats with associated reef biota (Parker et al. 1983, Schroeder et al. 1988, Mitchell et al. 1992, 1993). Over the last 50 years part of this shelf habitat has been altered with extensive building of artificial habitats. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, more than 14,000 artificial habitats have been built including thousands of oil and gas platforms (Minton and Heath 1998). These artificial habitats show large accumulations of reef fish species, especially red snapper (Lingo and Szedlmayer 2006; Szedlmayer et al. 2004). Again, the important question concerning this area of the northeast Gulf, is whether or not the reef building activities are enhancing shelf habitat through increased fish production or causing detrimental effects, i.e., overfishing due to ease of locating concentrated fish stocks (Grossman et al. 1997).

Life History and Habitats
Juvenile red snapper first settled from the plankton at around 17 mm TL and 26 d after hatch, and showed significant preference for shell habitats in field trawl surveys (Szedlmayer and Conti 1999, Rooker et al. 2004) and laboratory studies (Szedlmayer and Howe 1997). Relic-shell habitat was identified as a primary nursery location of juvenile red snapper, with mean CPUE at 4000 fish h-1 trawl time, which far exceeded CPUE from nearby habitats that lacked relic-shell and all previous estimates (Szedlmayer and Conti 1999). Also, SCUBA observations of several low relief (approx. 20 cm) artificial substrates including oyster shells, showed significant attraction of juvenile red snapper to all sites (Workman and Foster 1994, Lingo and Szedlmayer 2006, Piko and Szedlmayer 2007). In visual observations from the above studies we observed many newly settled recruits at just under 30 mm TL, all of which were associated with some type of structure, similar to observations by Workman and Foster (1994). 
After their initial settlement in July and August, age-0 red snapper will quickly outgrow their initial habitat and seek larger more structured habitats (Szedlmayer and Conti 1999, Rooker et al. 2004 Szedlmayer and Lee 2004). These observation of age-0 red snapper showing increased numbers on 1 m3 concrete habitats in the fall suggested a recruitment to higher relief structure at earlier ages compared to previous reports that suggested recruitment to "higher" structure only after reaching age-1 or older (Render 1995, Gallaway et al. 1999). 
One of the most obvious reasons for moving to more structured habitats would be to reduce predation pressure. For example, when age-0 first settle at around 20 mm TL, smaller structure such as oyster shells would provide adequate shelter, but as size increases in the fall, fish need increased "hole" size (Hixon and Beets 1989). In studies with predator exclusion cages, there was a clear predator exclusion effect, where shell habitats with predator exclusion cages had significantly more age-0 red snapper. Artificial habitat complexity was also associated with higher abundance of red snapper and several other species (Lingo and Szedlmayer 2006, Piko and Szedlmayer 2007).
From these life history studies it is clear that red snapper are closely associated with artificial habitats. They recruit to such structures at an early age, and probably benefit from increased complexity and potential predator protection.

Red Snapper Diets
One of the most important questions concerning red snapper and the function of artificial habitats must address feeding responses to changing habitats. When red snapper first settle they forage on prey types from open sand-mud habitats. When fish shifted to more structured habitats they show a corresponding shift to more feeding on reef prey types (Szedlmayer and Lee 2004). As red snapper grow they continue this shift to significant feeding on reef prey types but will also continue feeding on almost any available prey. One aspect that may confuse the question of red snapper feeding types is that red snapper show significant diel shifts with feeding on different prey types depending on day or nighttime capture (Ouzts and Szedlmayer 2003). Another aspect that makes feeding studies difficult is that red snapper stomachs frequently are empty due to barotropic stress, or large numbers fish prey are unidentifiable due to advanced digestion. However, SCUBA observation of large schools (> 500) of mixed species of tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum, vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens, and round scad Decapterus punctatus at small sizes (around 60 mm TL) on many artificial habitats, suggests that reef prey fish were available (Szedlmayer unpublished data). Future diet studies that are able to positively identify prey species (e.g., DNA) may confirm increased feeding on these reef prey types. As red snapper continue to grow older and larger there exist little quantitative information on diets. At present we know of no studies that have quantitatively examined the diets of larger older red snapper, for example fish > 900 mm TL. 
In another study concerning artificial habitats and red snapper potential prey items, the recruitment of juvenile red snapper was compared between artificial habitats with and without epibenthic prey communities (Redman and Szedlmayer In review). Copper-based antifouling paint was used to prevent the development of epibenthic organisms and red snapper abundance was compared between habitats with (n = 20) and without (n = 20) these communities over a 12 month period. Red snapper preferred habitats with epibenthic communities, and were significantly larger on these habitats. This study showed that potential food resources affected the recruitment of juvenile red snapper to artificial habitats in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Thus, the attraction of fishes to artificial habitats was not just in response to shelter, but also the associated epibenthic communities. 
Conclusions from diet studies showed that red snapper utilized "reef" prey types that would not have been available without the construction of artificial habitats, and also showed significantly higher red snapper abundances on artificial habitats that had epibenthic communities compared to identical habitats that lacked these communities.

*Red Snapper Movements*
*Early studies of red snapper movement with conventional t-bar or anchor tags suggested long-term residence around hard bottom structures (Camber 1955, Moseley 1966, Bradley and Bryan 1975). Similarly, mark-recapture studies of red snapper have shown little movement and high site fidelity around artificial habitats. Beaumariage (1969) tagged 1,372 red snapper and 97% of recaptured tagged fish stayed at the original tagging site. Szedlmayer and Shipp (1994) tagged 1,155 red snapper and 76% of recaptured tagged fish stayed within 2 km. Watterson et al. (1998) tagged 1,604 red snapper and 61% of recaptured tagged fish stayed at the tagging site.*
*Some studies have also suggested greater movements of 5-275 km for tagged red snapper which would reduce the importance of artificial reefs. For example, Watterson et al. (1998) reported movements up to 265 km, and attributed this movement with the occurrence of hurricane Opal. Patterson et al. (2001) tagged 2,932 red snapper and observed that mean distance moved was 29 km and maximum distance moved was 352 km. However, mark-recapture studies with conventional tags assume the reliability of reporting date of capture, and most importantly the reliability of reporting site of capture from external sources (Schwartz 2000; Denson et al. 2002). Ultrasonic telemetry removed these assumptions and showed that red snapper were resident on artificial habitats in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico for 17-597 d (Szedlmayer 1997; Szedlmayer and Schroepfer 2005; Schroepfer and Szedlmayer 2006). *
*Red snapper may in fact show several different movement patterns depending on life stage. Clearly age-0 red snapper settle to benthic habitats early (26 d) but then move to more structured habitats in the fall of their first year (Szedlmayer and Conti 1999; Szedlmayer and Lee 2004). As fish grow during the first and second years they may still be in the process of seeking a suitable habitat. This type of behavior might result in shorter residence time estimates and longer distances between mark recaptures (Watterson et al. 1998; Patterson et al. 2001). Then as fish become larger and older (>2 years), they are better able to establish longer residence on more suitable artificial habitats (Schroepfer and Szedlmayer 2006). More suitable habitat is defined here as providing adequate protection as well as food resources, i.e., not all artificial habitats are alike. Then, as fish reach very large sizes (e.g., > 900 mm TL) they are no longer limited by predation pressure and may be able to move over wide ranging habitats with relative impunity to predation. Some evidence for such habitat shifts for older larger red snapper is supported by open habitat longline catches of high numbers of very large older red snapper (Henwood et al. 2004, Mitchell et al. 2004). Little other direct information from tagging studies has been obtained for larger older red snapper.*
*In conclusion, young to intermediate age red snapper (approximately 3 to 10 year old fish) show high affinity for artificial habitats with long term residence. What movement patterns will be shown for larger older fish (for example > 15 years) is still speculative.*

Growth and Population Assessment
Accurate stock assessment is critical to the management of marine reef fish populations in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. This assessment task often proves difficult because of the inherent difficulty of sampling reef fishes with complicated life history patterns, and cryptic habitats. These sampling problems have little to do with assessment effort, i.e., since the early 90's there have been extensive stock assessments for this species. Previous stock assessments have suggested an overfished red snapper stock, and without a reduction in the annual total allowable catch, the red snapper stock will not reach the required target level (F/Fmsy and B/Bmsy) by the year 2032 (DEIS 2006).
One difficulty was that almost all previous stock assessments were based on fishery dependent landing data rather than fishery independent surveys (Goodyear 1995, Schirripa and Legault 1999, Cass-Calay and Ortiz 2004, Porch 2004). This problem has been well recognized in the fisheries literature. "Catch per unit effort can vary over time in commercial and recreational fisheries, is subject to fishers' optimizing behaviors, and is not usually the most appropriate index" (Committee on Fish Stock Assessment Methods, Natural Research Council, 1998). Also, they state "fishery independent surveys offer the best opportunity for controlling sampling conditions by maintaining consistent gear, spatial coverage, timing and survey design". In a fishery independent long-line survey many larger older-aged red snapper were collected (Henwood et al. 2004, Mitchell et al. 2004). These collections were difficult to integrate into present stock assessments, yet they may indicate that red snapper stocks may be in better condition than suggested by past assessments. In the present study, several data sets were used to estimate red snapper abundance, age frequency, mortality and population status off coastal Alabama. SCUBA surveys of age-0 and age-1 red snapper abundance on artificial shell/block nursery habitats were used to estimate juvenile mortality rates (320 shell/block nursery habitats from 1998 through 2002; Lingo and Szedlmayer 2006; Piko and Szedlmayer 2007). Mark-recapture studies were used to estimate fishing mortality (Szedlmayer and Shipp 1994), and fishery independent collections with fish traps, hook-and-line, and SCUBA visual surveys were used to estimate red snapper population parameters from artificial habitats (Szedlmayer et al. 2004). 
Based on a total of 649 SCUBA surveys on these shell/block habitats, mean annual total mortality Z = 2.3, for age-0 to age-1 red snapper, similar to previous estimates of Z = 1.98 (Nichols et al. 2005) and Z = 2.12 (Nance 1998, Fig. 1). Previous estimates of trawl fishing mortality for age-0 to age-1 were relatively high, up to F = 1.38 (Nichols et al. 2005). With reduced trawling due to a fishing fleet reduction lower values may be applied for age-0 fish (F = 0.4 used in the present model, lower than F = 0.18 used in past stock assessments, C. Porch, NMFS, pers. comm.). 
We used the same mortality rates for age-1 to age-2 used in past stock assessments (C. Porch NMFS, pers. comm). Fishing mortality rates for age 2 to 54 were based on past mark recapture studies. From May 1990 to Oct 1991, Szedlmayer and Shipp (1994) tagged and released 1,155 red snapper and recaptured 146 red snapper, and after accounting for tag shedding and fisher non-reporting annual F + SD = 0.19 + 0.16. From 1999 to 2004, ages were estimated from otoliths for 3,413 fish from 94 different artificial habitats, and from these ages total annual mortality was estimated at Z = 0.54 for red snapper greater than age-1 (Fig. 2). Growth was fitted to the von Bertalanffy relation where TL = 923 (1 - e -0.17(age+0.79) ) and Log wt = -0.471 + 2.96 log TL (R2 = 0.98, N = 3,451, Szedlmayer et al. 2004). The most difficult parameter to estimate is natural mortality and values have widely ranged from 0.01 to 0.4 (Nelson and Manooch 1982; Schirripa and Legault 1999). In the present study, natural mortality was based on the difference between total mortality and fishing mortality, with the present estimated M = 1.9 for age-0, M = 0.60 for age 1, and M = 0.35 for > age-2 (Table 1). Combining ages, growth rates, mortalities and length-weight relations, the estimated transitional spawning potential ratio = 0.21 at F = 0.19, and maximum yield was attained when F was increased to 0.3 (Slipke and Maceina 2005; Figs. 3 and 4).
These model results suggested that red snapper populations off coastal Alabama may be in better condition compared to past assessments. Based on these fishery independent data red snapper stocks off coastal Alabama may be at stock levels needed for a sustainable fishery. For example, although considered overfished since the early 90's there has been little indications of decline in landings independent of catch level restrictions. One difficulty in this assessment was that data only originated from coastal Alabama and Mississippi. Clearly there may be significant differences in comparison to other areas such as Louisiana or Texas. One aspect that may account for assessment differences was that off coastal Alabama the artificial habitat program was by far the largest in the nation with some 15,000 artificial habitats in designated habitat building zones. Such correlations between artificial habitats and population estimates are difficult to prove, but combined with other more direct ecological measures, adds further to the evidence that artificial habitats have positively affected red snapper stocks off coastal Alabama.

*Conclusions*
*Artificial habitats off coastal Alabama have enhanced red snapper stocks, based on the collective studies over more than 10 years showing 1) early recruitment to structured habitats, 2) high residence and affinity for structured habitats, 3) diet composition showing significant reef prey in combination with other prey types, 4) growth rates showing similar plots as previous estimates, and 5) a fishery independent survey of artificial habitats that suggested a better local stock condition compared to past estimates. *

Acknowledgments
I thank, A. Chapin, J. Conti, C. Furman, C. Gurshin, J. Lee, M. Lingo, C. MacKichan, D. Moss, A. Ouzts, A. Piko, R. Redman, J. Simms, M. Topolski, and R. Wingate for help in the field and laboratory analyses. This project was funded by the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Marine Resources Division Alabama Department of Conservation, National Marine Fisheries Service MARFIN program, and is a contribution of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University.

LITERATURE CITED

Beaumariage, D.S. 1969. Returns from the 1965 Schlitz tagging program including a cumulative analysis of previous results. Florida Department of Natural Resources Technical Series, St. Petersburg, Florida USA. 59:1-38.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or behavior preference? Bulletin of Marine Science 44:631-645.

Bortone, S.A. 1998. Resolving the attraction-production dilemma in artificial reef research: some yeas and nays. Fisheries 23:6-10.

Bradley, E. and C.E. Bryan. 1975. Life history and fishery of the red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the 27th annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute and the 17th annual International Game Fish Research Conference 27:77-106.

Camber, C.I. 1955. A survey of the red snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, with special reference to the Campeche Banks. State of Florida Board of Conservation Technical Series, St. Peterburg, Florida USA. 12, 5-64.

Cass-Calay, S.L., and M. Ortiz. 2004. Assessments of red snapper stocks in the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico using an age-structured-assessment-procedure (ASAP). Gulf of Mexico red snapper, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, SEDAR7-AW34. 44 pp.

Committee on Fish Stock Assessment Methods (R. Deriso, T. Quinn, J. Collie, R. Hilborn, C. Jones, B. Lindsay, A. Parma, S. Saila, L. Shapiro, S.J. Smith, C. Walters). 1998. Improving fish stock assessments. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA. 177 pp.

Denson, M.R., W.E. Jenkins, A.G. Woodward, and T.I.J. Smith. 2002. Tag-reporting levels for red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) caught by anglers in South Carolina and Georgia estuaries. Fishery Bulletin 100:35-41.

DEIS. 2006. Draft environmental impact statement to evaluate alternatives to set Gulf of Mexico red snapper total allowable catch and reduce bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico directed and shrimp trawl fisheries. NOAA, NMFS, St. Petersburg, Florida USA. 349 pp.

D'Itri, F.M. (Ed.). 1985. Artificial reefs marine and freshwater applications. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan USA. 589 p.

Gallaway, B.J., J.G. Cole, R. Meyer, and P. Roscigno. 1999. Delineation of essential habitat for juvenile red snapper in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:713-726.

Goodyear, C.P. 1995. Red snapper in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida USA. 171 pp.

Grossman, G.D., G.P. Jones, and W.J. Seaman Jr. 1997. Do artificial reefs increase regional fish production? A review of existing data. Fisheries 22(4):17-23.

Henwood, T., W. Ingram, and M. Grace. Shark/snapper/grouper longline surveys. Gulf of Mexico red snapper, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, SEDAR7-DW-8. 22 pp.

Hixon, M. A. and J.P. Beets. 1989. Shelter characteristics and Caribbean fish assemblages: experiments with artificial reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 44:666-680.

Lingo, M.E. and S.T. Szedlmayer. 2006. The influence of habitat complexity on reef fish communities in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Biology of Fishes 76:71-80.

Minton, R.V. and S.R. Heath. 1998. Alabama's artificial reef program: building oasis in the
desert. Gulf of Mexico Science 1:105-106.

Mitchell, K.M. , T. Henwood, G.R. Fitzhugh, and R.J. Allman. 2004. Distribution, abundance, and age structure of red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) caught on research longlines in U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico red snapper, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, SEDAR7-DW9. 23pp.

Mitchell, N.D., M.R. Dardeau, and W.W. Schroeder. 1983. Colony morphology, age structure, and relative growth of two gorgonian corals, Leptogorgia ***** (Verrill) and Leptogorgia virgulata (Lamarck), from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Coral Reefs 12:65-70.

Mitchell, N.D. and M.R. Dardeau, W.W. Schroeder, A.C. Benke. 1992. Secondary production of gorgonian corals in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series 87:275-281.

Moseley, F.N. 1966. Biology of the red snapper, Lutjanus aya Bloch, of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Publications of the Institute of Marine Science 11:90-101.

Nance, J. M. (Editor). 1998. Report to Congress. Southeastern United States Shrimp Trawl Bycatch Program, Contributors are listed in alphabetical order: Foster, D., Martinez, E., McIlwain, T., Nance, J., Nichols, S., Raulerson, R., Schirripa, M., Scott, G., Scott-Denton, E., Shah, A. and Watson, J. National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston, Texas USA.154 pp.

Nelson, R.S. and C.S. Manooch, III. 1982. Growth and mortality of red snappers in the west-central Atlantic Ocean and northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111:465-475.

Nichols, S., G. Pellegrin Jr., and G.W. Ingram, Jr. 2005. Estimation of juvenile M for red snapper based on SEAMAP survey data. National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula, Mississippi USA. 27 pp. 
Ouzts, A.C. and S.T. Szedlmayer. 2003. Diel feeding patterns of red snapper on artificial reefs in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:1186-1193.

Parker, R.O.Jr., Colby, D.R., and T.D. Willis. 1983. Estimated amount of reef habitat on a portion of the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. Bulletin of Marine Science 33:935-940.

Patterson, W.F., III, J.C. Watterson, R.L. Shipp, and J.H. Cowan, Jr. 2001. Movement of tagged red snapper in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:533-545.

Piko, A.A. and S.T. Szedlmayer. 2007. Effects of habitat complexity and predator exclusion on the abundance of juvenile red snapper. Journal of Fish Biology 70:758-769

Porch, C.E. 2004. Application of the age-structured assessment model CATCHEM to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery since 1962. Gulf of Mexico red snapper, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, SEDAR7-RW1. 20 pp.

Redman, R.A. and S.T. Szedlmayer. [In review]. A comparison of the fish communities between artificial reefs with and without epibenthic communities.

Render, J.H. 1995. The Life History (age, growth and reproduction) of Red Snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) and its Affinity for Oil and Gas Platforms. Ph.D. Dissertation. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana USA. 76 pp.

Rooker, J.R., A.M. Landry, Jr., B.W. Geary, and J.A. Harper. 2004. Assessment of a shell bank and associated substrates as nursery habitat of postsettlement red snapper Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 59: 653-661.

Schirripa, M.J. and C.M. Legault . 1999. Status of the red snapper in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico: updated through 1998. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. Miami, Florida USA. 44 pp.

Schroepfer, R.L. and S.T. Szedlmayer. 2006. Estimates of residence and site fidelity for red snapper on artificial reefs in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 78:93-101.

Schroeder, W.W., A.W. Shultz, and J.J. Dindo. 1988. Inner-shelf hardbottom areas, northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 38:535-541.

Schwartz, F.J. 2000. Anglers and tagging programs: another perspective. Fisheries 25(12):36-37.

Slipke, J.W. and M.J. Maceina. 2005. Fishery analyses and simulation tools (FAST 2.1). Department of Fisheries, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama USA. 149 pp.

Szedlmayer, S.T. 1997. Ultrasonic telemetry of red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, at artificial reef sites in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Copeia. 4:846-850.

Szedlmayer, S.T. and J. Conti. 1999. Nursery habitats, growth rates, and seasonality of age-0 red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 97:626-635.

Szedlmayer, S.T. and J.C. Howe. 1997. Substrate preference studies in age-0 red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 50:203-207.

Szedlmayer, S.T. and J.D. Lee. 2004. Diet shifts of juvenile red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, with changes in habitat and fish size. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 102:366-375.

Szedlmayer, S.T., D.R. Moss, and M.J. Maceina. 2004. Fishery independent survey of red snapper Lutjanus campechanus, in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico red snapper, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, SEDAR7-DW21. 20 pp.

Szedlmayer, S.T. and R.L. Schroepfer. 2005. Long-term residence of red snapper on artificial reefs in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:315-325.

Szedlmayer, S.T. and R.L. Shipp. 1994. Movement and growth of red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, from an artificial reef area in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 55:887-895.

Watterson, J.C., W.F. Patterson, III, R.L. Shipp, and J.H. Cowan, Jr. 1998. Movement of red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, in the north central Gulf of Mexico: Potential effects of hurricanes. Gulf of Marine Science 1:92-104.

Workman, I.K. and D.G. Foster. 1994. Occurrence and behavior of juvenile red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, on commercial shrimp fishing grounds in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Fisheries Review 56:9-11.

Table 1. Red snapper mortality estimates that were used in tSPR and yield models.
Class Z M F
age 0 2.3 1.96 0.35
age -1 0.76 0.60 0.16
age 2 - 54 0.54 0.35 0.19

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Age-0 to age-1 density estimates for red snapper from SCUBA visual surveys. Number above bars are mortality estimates.
Figure 2. Total mortality estimate from fishery independent age frequency distribution of red snapper in the northeast Gulf of Mexico.
Figure 4. Transitional spawning potential ration (tSPR) relation to instantaneous fishing mortality (F) from fishery independent age frequency distribution of red snapper in the northeast Gulf of Mexico.
Figure 5. Yield (per 1 million recruits) relation to instantaneous fishing mortality (F) from fishery independent age frequency distribution of red snapper in the northeast Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

See, I told you so..


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

rodwade said:


> honestly what's wrong with MPA's for the states not showing improvments? I mean our stocks are replentishing TPWD said that. However as a whole gulf the snapper are not coming back fast enough. If we show that we don't have the problem, then other states fix their issues or they can't fish. Don't punish Tx because we have been successful. And saying shouldn't be taking a larger number of fish....well that's because we have managed our's correctly and don't have to worry at our current rates snapper numbers are increaseing. I also saw something interesting. Commercial interest in the study showed roughly $10.4 million dollars in revinue. How much is NMFS paying to mangage the stocks? I mean if they could buy out the commercials for 5 years our stocks SHOULD be back to normal in no time.


Wash your mouth!
Lord please forgive him and the little pigmys down there............


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

X 2


CHARLIE said:


> See, I told you so..


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*Thoughts of snapper, pies, and free boat rides*

Some pompous condescending lawyer claims that those of us who have been experiencing excellent snapper fishing in waters (both state and federal waters) off the Texas coast have "an extremely narrow view of the fishery."

"Fish swim" Thanks for the update on your research, CCA. :headknock

Are these guys trying to tell us that our sow snapper may go repopulate Florida's limestone bottom. They infer that we are not concerned with the health of the fishery, that we are just "grabbing a bigger piece of the pie". CCA needs to check their analogies. Who is trying to grab whose pie here? Texas saved it's piece of the pie, and now _they_ are trying to take it away from us. Could there be a political reason, not a scientific reason, that they insist on keeping the Gulf one big pie rather than a couple of smaller pies.

Have these guys writing this propaganda or the guys making this policy ever been fishing offshore Texas? I'd be more than happy to take them out on a 3-5' day and broaden their horizons. I'd even take them for free. Of course they'd have to swim on in themselves. :biggrin:


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

I would suggest that the one thing we can all agree upon is NO MPA's. As in, No way, No how. Not here, not there. Simply, not anywhere.


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*snapper*

Quote:
*Fish swim, and therefore state and federal boundaries mean little in the overall conservation strategy.*

*1. It doesn't matter if swim or not in this case. * The current 6.5 lb TAC has already taken into account that Texas and Florida state regulations were in place. Reducing the season or limits accomplishes nothing substantive towards restoring the snapper stocks.

*2. Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician; GOMFMC said to Mont; "&#8230; the total amount of state-caught red snapper from Florida and Texas combined is not enough to have much of an impact on the federal regs."* So, if the effect to the snapper populations is insignificant AND the effect on coastal communities and fishermen will surely be very SIGNIFICANT, then it's a no-brainer...do not do it.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

The red snapper numbers harvested by Texas fishermen as compared to other states is not proportionate to proposed limits. Take into account the number of fish harvested by recreational fishermen per coastline mile....and everything is even more out of proportion. We could probably have a limit of 7 red snapper, (like we did years ago), and still have a lower harvest rate per coastline mile as compared to other states.


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

The CCA statement makes a heckuva recruitment poster for RFA.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

I joined RFA after the CCA stance was made and clarified by 2coolers. The CCA stands for fish conservation...yes, this is true.....but, at the hands of the recreational fishermen.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Woody7*

I don't need to step in and defend anyone! I'll let you guys solve this since you all know whats wrong and how to fix it. Gater


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Gater done!!! :rotfl:


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Funny why TPWD is doing all this, because the Gulf Council (required by the Magnuson Act) is already thinking about recreational-only for red snapper, regional management plans, and other very important measures that could change everything. Note the parts where they admit they have crappy data!

http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMF... Recreational Red Snapper AP JAN Meeting.pdf

-digger sam


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Ernest said:


> I would suggest that the one thing we can all agree upon is NO MPA's. As in, No way, No how. Not here, not there. Simply, not anywhere.


abso-freakin-lutely Ernest


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Sorry about the double post. CCA doesn't seem to allow me to cut and paste part of their article. I guess they don't want it disected apart.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Their statement has no references.

Their statement has no statistical data.

CCA has been involved in the management for several decades and they go on to stress how much it has been mismanaged. Are they saying they did an inadequate job and now they want to be more involved in snapper management?

I thought the commercial harvest is open year round. They made it sound like the commercial fishery is only open 122 days.

They fail to mention how commercial fishermen are "regulated."

The worst was the condencending statement that fish swim. No sheet!! What they didn't say is if red snapper migrate or not. 

As stated already, they have changed their hardline shrimp bycatch argument to other arguments such as unregulated fishing for larger fish.

They stat TPWD is MUCH better at managing the stocks than the federal government, but then make up some bogus statement on why Texas should give up their authority and knowledge and let the federal decide what to do.

There are other parts of CCA's statement that can be countered, but that is enough to start. It is really a pathetic statement for such a "informed" organization.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Angler 1 said:


> *C*onfused *C*onsevration *A*ssocation
> 
> How many acronyms


How about Commercial Conservation Association?


----------



## enielsen (Dec 27, 2004)

The best thing to do is to not support CCA. I know over all they are a good organization but the fact they do not want to listen to their members is just plain bad. The only way to make them take notice is to hit them in the pocket book. I have informed everyone I know about this and they have all been shocked and say they will not support them until they change their stance. Get the word out, most fishermen/women do not even know this issue is out there.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Sounds like getting some people together in front of academy when fishing licenses expire to inform the public would be a good idea.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

rodwade said:


> Sounds like getting some people together in front of academy when fishing licenses expire to inform the public would be a good idea.


Yeah, the Texas license espiration date, locations, and CCA's main media events in Texas are so few but concentrated that spreading the word is pretty easy. And Texas may very well have the most members.


----------



## awesum (May 31, 2006)

*Boat show observation ...*

At the Corpus Christi boat show this past weekend I passed by the CCA table three different times and I think I saw two folks there signing up on those three passes. On the other side of the building the S.E.A. table (a local group for sealife enhancement) had no less than three to five folks there signing up in each of three passes.

This probably doesn't mean squat but it did get my attention anyway.


----------



## flyingfish (Mar 21, 2006)

I guess I won't win a boat this year. I can't support an organization that blatently disregards the desires of their membership. I'll be canceling for the first time in the 5 years I've lived in Texas.

Gary


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

flyingfish said:


> I guess I won't win a boat this year. I can't support an organization that blatently disregards the desires of their membership. I'll be canceling for the first time in the 5 years I've lived in Texas.
> 
> Gary


Please make sure you tell everyone you know to tell everyone they know etc. Better yet, give them the address to this site, let them read the posts and make their own decision. There are some very well educated people on this site pertaining to the fisheries and such.


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

awesum said:


> At the Corpus Christi boat show this past weekend I passed by the CCA table three different times and I think I saw two folks there signing up on those three passes. On the other side of the building the S.E.A. table (a local group for sealife enhancement) had no less than three to five folks there signing up in each of three passes.
> 
> This probably doesn't mean squat but it did get my attention anyway.


I'm sure it does not mean a thing. SEA probably had a pier to build or trying to close off 9 Mile hole so their president could have it to himself. I'm sure that is why they had a couple visitors.


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

*Beautiful Mind*



Snap Draggin said:


> How about Commercial Conservation Association?


Snappy you never disappoint. You're a creative genius. Pearls like that should land you a job writing copy for some guy trying to lose money selling stink bait. LOL.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

"CCA HAS LOST ITS WAY "


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

parkerb said:


> Snappy you never disappoint. You're a creative genius. Pearls like that should land you a job writing copy for some guy trying to lose money selling stink bait. LOL.


I have a better idea. Why not bag up that **** that comes out of your mouth, and off your keyboard. Then sell it for stink bait. You could make a fortune!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

CHARLIE said:


> "CCA HAS LOST ITS WAY "


That has a nice little jingle to it!!


----------



## Scoootr (Apr 23, 2006)

Just a thought... Might want to go to CCA website & read the history (right side of that web page) so that one can make an informed decision as to the stance of the snapper issue as well as history of the mis-management of the species. Sometimes it's better to partner with the Feds rather than let them come in & squash us. If one looks a a bigger picture... CCA, SEA, DU are all great groups that have niches & complement each other. Some CCA highlights: UTMSI Research Lab in Port A. - $700K, TPWD Game Warden eq. $52K, Galveston March Study - $20K, TPWD Flounder Study Program - $13K, Tripletail Study - $20K. Some SEA highlights: Cedar Pass study - 10K, TPWD boat barn in Rockport -$68K, Billfish Foundation - 45K just to toss out a few.



When attending the "open to the public" meetings (in Corpus) regarding the closure of 9 mile hole, (SEA was not born yet). It was 4 to 1 in favor of shutting down prop traffic in north end of hole. Born & raised fishing the hole, I have to say the fishing has improved since the sunset has happened on that 9 mile no-prop closure. I think only (3) three people were fined for breaking that law. (1) one of which (fool from S.A.) ran his boat way hi & dry and left a prop scar that was visible from Google Earth! He had to leave his boat there & wait for some tide to come back in so he could pull his predator of the dunes!!!


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> I have a better idea. Why not bag up that **** that comes out of your mouth, and off your keyboard. Then sell it for stink bait. You could make a fortune!


LOL!!! SnappY, I bet you have cut people before with that sharp wit of yours. How are those funnel cakes and corn dogs smelling today?


----------



## Scoootr (Apr 23, 2006)

glad to see you have an open mind


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*"cca Has Lost Its Way "*

Charlie has hit it on the head on this one.

*"CCA HAS LOST ITS WAY "*

Anybody got a connection to bumper sticker production? I'll donate some $$ to that!


----------



## Scoootr (Apr 23, 2006)

Anyone know SEA's position on this?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Duplantis said:


> Charlie has hit it on the head on this one.
> 
> *"CCA HAS LOST ITS WAY "*
> 
> Anybody got a connection to bumper sticker production? I'll donate some $$ to that!


Careful, you are going to ruffle parkerb's little feathers.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Scoootr said:


> Just a thought... Might want to go to CCA website & read the history (right side of that web page) so that one can make an informed decision as to the stance of the snapper issue as well as history of the mis-management of the species. Sometimes it's better to partner with the Feds rather than let them come in & squash us. If one looks a a bigger picture... CCA, SEA, DU are all great groups that have niches & complement each other. Some CCA highlights: UTMSI Research Lab in Port A. - $700K, TPWD Game Warden eq. $52K, Galveston March Study - $20K, TPWD Flounder Study Program - $13K, Tripletail Study - $20K. Some SEA highlights: Cedar Pass study - 10K, TPWD boat barn in Rockport -$68K, Billfish Foundation - 45K just to toss out a few.


Scoootr....why not read your own research rather then what you are spoon fed. CCA says it's all the shrimpers fault....I can't say I disagree that shrimpers play a large part.....now tell me why rec fisherman should have thier limits reduced again? Try doing your OWN research. Read the DATA not the propaganda!


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

What amazes me is that even after TPWD said that they didn't want federal involvement in a Texas fishery, people still defend CCA's stance. I find it hard to believe that anyone at CCA purports to be more knowledgable than TPWD on our fishery. I was in Austin Wed., and I heard exactly what was said on this. Even with the amazing clout CCA's money brings to TPWD, TPWD said no to any changes. The so called "information" or "facts" on CCA's website are their spin on things. Several of us have been working on this single issue for over a decade and everything I see about the Federal process is broken. If we catch fish, then we are over fishing. If we don't catch fish, it's because the resource is depleted. We have gone from no limits to the absurdity of 2 fish, and yet the fishery is still "in trouble". If I ran my business like the Feds run theirs, I would have been bankrupt a long time ago. CCA ought to cut their losses and put out a statement that they were wrong in this issue and be done with it. Eating a little crow now would be a lot better than what they are going to see happen in the coming months. To blow off an entire industry and the folks that fish it isn't a smart move.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

rodwade said:


> Scoootr....why not read your own research rather then what you are spoon fed. CCA says it's all the shrimpers fault....I can't say I disagree that shrimpers play a large part.....now tell me why rec fisherman should have thier limits reduced again? Try doing your OWN research. Read the DATA not the propaganda!


His mind as well as others is clouded with the propaganda. They believe what they read because CCA said it so it must be true. I wish I could green you up, but the popup says I have given out too much reputation in 24 hours.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


> What amazes me is that even after TPWD said that they didn't want federal involvement in a Texas fishery, people still defend CCA's stance. I find it hard to believe that anyone at CCA purports to be more knowledgable than TPWD on our fishery. I was in Austin Wed., and I heard exactly what was said on this. Even with the amazing clout CCA's money brings to TPWD, TPWD said no to any changes. The so called "information" or "facts" on CCA's website are their spin on things. Several of us have been working on this single issue for over a decade and everything I see about the Federal process is broken. If we catch fish, then we are over fishing. If we don't catch fish, it's because the resource is depleted. We have gone from no limits to the absurdity of 2 fish, and yet the fishery is still "in trouble". If I ran my business like the Feds run theirs, I would have been bankrupt a long time ago. CCA ought to cut their losses and put out a statement that they were wrong in this issue and be done with it. Eating a little crow now would be a lot better than what they are going to see happen in the coming months. To blow off an entire industry and the folks that fish it isn't a smart move.


I guess that pretty much sums it all up. I wonder why they are still taking that stance instead of saying "hey we were wrong about TP&WD and Red Snapper in Texas waters?" I believe it is because they read the NMFS propaganda and it must be true because they said it.


----------



## Scoootr (Apr 23, 2006)

just keep an open mind. I like to see you guys post it up. Be sure to read more.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

The mind is open over here. May I suggest the same from you.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Scoootr said:


> just keep an open mind. I like to see you guys post it up. Be sure to read more.


an open mind to what?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

rodwade said:


> an open mind to what?


Hey can you get that made up as a bumper sticker? I would gladly buy a few. I am sure there are man others on here that would too!


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Working on some T-shirts


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Ill pay my part on bumper stickers. I think thousands of them on the streets would get someone's attention. Lets do it.

Charlie


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

T-shirts are good, but bumper stickers would be good as well. I will buy both of them if you have some made.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

http://www.cafepress.com/bugpower18t.219186924


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Hehe some of my favorites so far
You can see them all at
http://www.cafepress.com/bugpower18t


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Sssssssweet!! I saved it in my favorites. I have to check on quite a few buddies to see if they want me to order them any as well.


----------



## KJON (May 1, 2006)

Something tells me I won't be needing too many crawfish for our Sabine/Neches banquet:wink:


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> Sssssssweet!! I saved it in my favorites. I have to check on quite a few buddies to see if they want me to order them any as well.


I imagine SnappY would prefer a turtle neck to go with his onesie and thong. LOL.

The bumper sticker would be fitting next to the bull testicles hanging from your trailer hitch. Who knows, you may have that little boy peeing on a Chevy or Ford logo too. Hilarious SnappY. Great weather for a carnival.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Mont said:


> What amazes me is that even after TPWD said that they didn't want federal involvement in a Texas fishery, people still defend CCA's stance. I find it hard to believe that anyone at CCA purports to be more knowledgable than TPWD on our fishery. I was in Austin Wed., and I heard exactly what was said on this. Even with the amazing clout CCA's money brings to TPWD, TPWD said no to any changes. The so called "information" or "facts" on CCA's website are their spin on things. Several of us have been working on this single issue for over a decade and everything I see about the Federal process is broken. If we catch fish, then we are over fishing. If we don't catch fish, it's because the resource is depleted. We have gone from no limits to the absurdity of 2 fish, and yet the fishery is still "in trouble". If I ran my business like the Feds run theirs, I would have been bankrupt a long time ago. CCA ought to cut their losses and put out a statement that they were wrong in this issue and be done with it. Eating a little crow now would be a lot better than what they are going to see happen in the coming months. To blow off an entire industry and the folks that fish it isn't a smart move.


Hey Mont, I appreciate your involvement in this issue and the knowledge you have on the whole thing. I also respecfully understand everyone's anger, or whatever you want to call it. If CCA says they will go with the data, even if it means going against the state, then I guess they are going to do that. It might not be the most popular stance, but evidently they feel that the science is telling them to go that way. Are you saying that the data they have available to them is not what they should look at, and if not, what data should they look at? I'm just trying to understand the data they and everyone else is talking about. Or are you saying they should put out a statement that they were wrong because the recreational fishermen were slighted by their stance.


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*Cca Has Lost Its Way*

Rodwade - good job!

You can order these online for $2.99 - I just ordered mine!

http://www.cafepress.com/bugpower18t.219186924


----------



## garrettryan (Oct 11, 2004)

God please I pray do not let CCA get involved in Texas Hunting..


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

I have a buddy that has a print shop that I have had bumper stickers made before. Ill get some made. 

Charlie


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*Cca Has Lost Its Way*

Charlie,
I'll donate $30 towards that! Anybody else want to contribute?

PM me where you want me to mail it if interested.

Thanks,
Duplantis


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

CHARLIE said:


> I have a buddy that has a print shop that I have had bumper stickers made before. Ill get some made.
> 
> Charlie


Count me in for at least a Franklin!


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

*Sad*

I think "There will not be a change in the Snapper bag limit until the *" currant officials " *run off most of the businesses that support the recreational fishing industry".

Some people let the power go to there head. :headknock

When boat sales slow to a snails pace, the new marinas all close, possibly bass pro-shop closes its coastal locations, most of the bait shops close, and all the boat fuel sales dry up than at that point you might see the currant officials retire and a new batch change the bag limit.

We could all hope the currant officials retire TOMORROW, 
and people with common sense take there place.....


*MB*


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> Hey Mont, I appreciate your involvement in this issue and the knowledge you have on the whole thing. I also respecfully understand everyone's anger, or whatever you want to call it. If CCA says they will go with the data, even if it means going against the state, then I guess they are going to do that. It might not be the most popular stance, but evidently they feel that the science is telling them to go that way. Are you saying that the data they have available to them is not what they should look at, and if not, what data should they look at? I'm just trying to understand the data they and everyone else is talking about. Or are you saying they should put out a statement that they were wrong because the recreational fishermen were slighted by their stance.


Hey Chicapesca, nice to see you back. I still do respect your desire to work for change from within an organization, but I also believe that there comes a time to re-evaluate how much faith one has in that organization.

I believe I remember a previous post of yours that stated that you disagreed with them in this particular instance. Does it not bother you that CCA uses words like "confusion, uncertainty, and misinformation" to describe members who believe in anglers' observations of snapper being easy to catch and therefore plentiful in our waters. They then speculate "_if_" and "happen to have" to flip flop their condescending statement by saying, "We believe that ifthe anecdotal evidence is correct and we happen to have an abundance of red snapper in state waters, it is even more incumbent upon us to conserve those fish to rebuild the stock." Rebuild the stock for what? The commercials? Would that work for you with specks and reds?

When CCA reminds its members that "fish swim", do you take that to mean that snapper from Texas are going to swim to and repopulate waters off Florida that never really had the bottom habitat that favored snapper to begin with?

I may never convince you in my belief that CCA is playing politics and playing for a more economically valued base than Texas offshore recreational fishermen, but I respectfully look forward to your reply. Maybe, if nothing else, the two of us could show parkerb and Snap Draggin how to quit sounding like a couple of seventh graders trying to prove who ate whose booger first.


----------



## Farmer Jim (May 21, 2004)

Does anyone know how CCA develops a position on an issue? Is there a committee evaluating a particular issue, or is there a single person deciding what the company line will be? It appears obvious from other posts that individual members have no input, but do chapters?


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Re the bumper stickers. I will check on Monday and see what they cost an what kind of deal we can get.

Charlie


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

I'm in Charlie. At least $30. Prolly $50.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

*"Fish Swim"*

The CCA really blew it on the "Fish Swim" bumper sticker, I will say that. Most of the red snapper data show a fairly good attachment to a reef ... but once hauled up and tagged they could wander off, meaning no "homing instinct." With a brain the size of a pea I don't blame them. And yes, juvenile will scatter down the current and the larger sows and hogs will range out to forage ... but the general idea is that the reef or rig holds the fish very well.

Hurricanes are another matter. They can blast snapper for hundreds of miles I suppose. Any storm like Katrina with 90-foot rogue waves that could topple giant rigs and uproot giant pipelines buried in the bottom has to have a huge impact.

I had the unfortunate pleasure of fishing a few days before Hurricane Emily came into upper Mexico, a small hurricane in early July. I don't know how the fish knew it, but they were GONE. We fished hard off SPI, hit the reefs and shrimp boats, and not a blip on the fish finder or even a topwater nibble. Even the bait seemed to be gone.

Let's remember hurricanes are an exception to the rule and CCA messed up by relying on it in their rather condescending letter. -digger sam


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

I agree that they move around, but CCA makes it sound like Texas snapper are going to repopulate the entire gulf. I suppose, given enough time and no overfishing by comms, that would happen. 

There are tons of snapper in Texas state waters and also in federal waters off Texas. CCA even acknowledges that is a distinct possibility then blows it off. If the Eastern Gulf has low snapper numbers, there is a quicker way of fixing that by managing the Eastern and Western Gulf as two different units. If CCA were truely interested in the health of the fishery, they would address it as a regional problem rather than waiting for generations of Texas snapper to find their way across the Gulf. 

I suspect that there are greater numbers of offshore fishermen with a more powerful lobby in the Eastern Gulf and CCA would rather sacrifice us instead of offending them.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Snap*

I see your still at it! Some of you are amazing. Gater


----------



## KJON (May 1, 2006)

Seems everyone is venting towards CCA, I think we need a cooling down period. Not any one organization or association is going to get 100% support 100% of the time. NRA, CCA, RFA, SCA, etc. etc. etc. For the cost of a couple of cans of skoal, few packs of cigs, couple 18 packs, 2 quarts of shrimp, etc, etc, etc, you can drop your membership. There are lots of things I am passionate about,,, If I flew a bumper sticker for everything I disagreed with,,, I wouldnt be able to see out my back window and you wouldnt see my bumper.If I choose to not participate,,,I don't,,,,period. If you disagree,,, fine,,,move on,,,,or,,,,,,get more involved and make your voice heard. I've been in CCA a lot of years, at the Sabine/Neches meetings we are lucky to have 4 or 5 people show up. I have NEVER been contacted about a particular position,,until last week. I will stay the course,,,I respect your opinions and decisions,,,,,,please respect mine.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Hey, if everyone on this board who felt this way about this issue got only one of those bumper stickers then you'd probably have to order at least 25 or so. I worked the CCA booth at the S.A. boat show on Fri. afternoon and of the 15 or so people I signed up (new and renewing) not a single one said a single word about this issue. I was told of two who had a problem with CCA's stance on Sat. as they were renewing and signing up for STAR. Y'all say you believed in what CCA used to stand for when they first started but you don't now. Well then do what those individuals who who created GCCA did those many years ago and start an organization that will support your stance on this issue. I see so much energy being wasted bashing CCA when you could be using it to further your cause. Dang guys, move on and fight the battle you want to win and quit venting your frustration on an organization that has done so much good in the past and continues to do good things today. If you were able to make CCA go away then you would still wake up and have the federal regs and not a darn thing would have changed except you'd have to find something else to complain about. I'm sorry is this appears combative or whatever but I'm just not the kind of guy that can sit on the sideline and not say something.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> Hey, if everyone on this board who felt this way about this issue got only one of those bumper stickers then you'd probably have to order at least 25 or so. I worked the CCA booth at the S.A. boat show on Fri. afternoon and of the 15 or so people I signed up (new and renewing) not a single one said a single word about this issue. I was told of two who had a problem with CCA's stance on Sat. as they were renewing and signing up for STAR. Y'all say you believed in what CCA used to stand for when they first started but you don't now. Well then do what those individuals who who created GCCA did those many years ago and start an organization that will support your stance on this issue. I see so much energy being wasted bashing CCA when you could be using it to further your cause. Dang guys, move on and fight the battle you want to win and quit venting your frustration on an organization that has done so much good in the past and continues to do good things today. If you were able to make CCA go away then you would still wake up and have the federal regs and not a darn thing would have changed except you'd have to find something else to complain about. I'm sorry is this appears combative or whatever but I'm just not the kind of guy that can sit on the sideline and not say something.


I don't see people complaining. Rather, I see them trying to make a very valid point. To me, it appears that the CCA supporters are actually complaining because many are unhappy with a vital issue. This isn't about whether or not a redfish is 28 or 28 1/4 inches, it is about our fishing rights.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

CCA supporters....We might agree with your stance....if and when you agree to support the desires and interest of the recreational fisherman. CCA is not bad. The org has just lost focus in the eyes of the recreational fisherman. Early on....it was a great org that did great things....for the recreational fisherman. It's a very easy and clear cut division between CCA and the RFA. Either you fight for the rights of the recreational fisherman.....or you do not. It's not to say that the two orgs cannot work together....it's simply a matter of common sense. RFA will see a huge increase in support because of the one issue immediately at hand....the red snapper issue. It's not because RFA has a better membership price than that of the CCA. It's because the platform that RFA stands for is based upon the beliefs of the recreational fisherman. It's basically....a no brainer for recreational fishermen. 

Welcome aboard recreational fishermen....I'm about one week into being a RFA member...and I'm pumped about it !!!


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Belly, dude you don't see people complaining? That is all they are doing here. Not trying to find a solution. Just plain bellyaching because CCA took a stance that did not affect the outcome of any decision in any way. If CCA is so powerful why did TPWD make the decision they did. I do not have a problem with you or STx or anyone else joining another organization if you think it will help your cause. The problem I have is when some here bad mouth a good organization for taking a stance they don't agree with. Now, if the powers-that-be at CCA see that people are leaving and wake up and smell the coffee on this one then that would be great too. As I said before, focus you energies on the issue or some of you are going to lose sight of what your are fighting for. Tom


----------



## fish_eater (Jul 11, 2007)

Time to sell our boats. Cant even catch a good snapper. Two is'nt enough. I wonder how many people are getting big fines. We dont drive that far just to catch two snappers. I thinkI should bring my grill and cook Em out there . LOL


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> Belly, dude you don't see people complaining? That is all they are doing here. Not trying to find a solution. Just plain bellyaching because CCA took a stance that did not affect the outcome of any decision in any way. If CCA is so powerful why did TPWD make the decision they did. I do not have a problem with you or STx or anyone else joining another organization if you think it will help your cause. The problem I have is when some here bad mouth a good organization for taking a stance they don't agree with. Now, if the powers-that-be at CCA see that people are leaving and wake up and smell the coffee on this one then that would be great too. As I said before, focus you energies on the issue or some of you are going to lose sight of what your are fighting for. Tom


Pocboy, I'm guessing you are more of a bay fisherman. Would you still support CCA if they urged TPWD to close down a healthy redfish and speckled fishery in Texas because they are overfished in Florida?

Us recs not agreeing with CCA is one thing, but when they take action to take something away from us for no good reason, then they and anyone who supports those actions should be exposed as the hypocrites they are

You say that all we are doing is complaining and not working on a solution. I guess you chose not to recognize the fact that these posts by Beerforbait, Snap Draggin, and others were instrumental in creating a large turnout at the TPWD scoping meetings. I believe that is an extremely good example of the internet working as a tool for rallying the public to action. Don't you believe that us joining an organization like RFA which is working on building habitat through artificial reefs is a way of working for a solution?

Yes, I believe that CCA is wrong and I am cynical enough to believe that their decision to take the action they took was politically driven, and not driven by what is best for the fishery. CCA's actions should not be immune from criticism from me or others on this board.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Belly*

You don't see people complaining.... This thing hasn't stopped. You all made your point about CCA many threads and post ago but your still at it. T-shirts and bumper stickers, why don't you donate that money to the RFA or the organization of you choice instead of trying to bring down another. Get involved with an organization and do something, sitting here complaining and getting a few people to go to a meeting is not getting involved. Gater


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

I do need a bumper sticker to REPLACE the one I have recently trashed. I'm not gonna say what it was BUT it had a picture of a Redfish on it. WW


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Pocoboy

Complaining and not trying to find a solution.???

Where have you been ?

25 bumper stickers ?? Before its over I bet there will be hundreds maybe thousands of them out there..

When all else fails what do you do to try and get some attention..? Maybe bumper stickers to get the word out like to the folks who were signing up at the booth and didnt have a real clue as to what CCA has become. Thats all. We are not bashing anyone just letting the world know and then folks will began to ask questions. Thats all. CCA has done well on lots of issues but they are so wrong on this one but will not listen. Remember you reap what you sow.
That salary that I heard Walter Fondren gets a year could be used for something good. Like standing up for us recreationals.

Anyone wrote Ford or Academy yet and let them know whats happning ?

Charlie


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

*Gater and Pocboy*

Here is the deal guys. It is obvious that the lines are drawn as far as you two are concerned. Please do not take what we are doing as bashing CCA. As others have mentioned we are just making a point and trying to educate others that have no idea of what they have become OK. I would say that I was bashing them in that thread I previously posted, but not now.

We are not evil villians just because we are going to buy a shirt or bumper sticker saying something on it that you see as derogative to the organiozation that you so passionately defend. We live in a free country, and our forefathers fought and died to give us the right to freedom of speech. That is all we are exercising OK.

I personally have no quarrels with either of you. I do not even know either of you for that matter. All I ask is that you guys do not take it personally or make it personal by bashing individuals on here that are exercising their first amendment rights. Is that reasonable enough?


----------



## DZaidle (Feb 4, 2006)

_The TPW Commission met on January 22-23 in Austin to consider staff members' recommendations on regulation changes. The Commission decided to remove from further consideration both the shark and red snapper petitions. The Commission agreed to possibly revisit the issues should there be a "significant" change at the federal level. The full story is in the March issue of Texas Fish & Game magazine.--Don Zaidle, editor-in-chief
_


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Texas Fish and Game will do rub board style grinding the dirt out style reporting no maytag spin machine at Texas Fish and Game. I look forward to seeing the truth in print on the Red Snapper issue.

Everyone should support the magazine as it has been the only state wide publication
to follow the Red Snapper Issue from the start. Hard hitting facts seem to be missing from most articles surrounding the Snapper issue.
Thanks Mr Zaidle


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

That magazine gets delivered to my house!


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Unbound said:


> I believe I remember a previous post of yours that stated that you disagreed with them in this particular instance. Does it not bother you that CCA uses words like "confusion, uncertainty, and misinformation" to describe members who believe in anglers' observations of snapper being easy to catch and therefore plentiful in our waters. They then speculate "_if_" and "happen to have" to flip flop their condescending statement by saying, "We believe that ifthe anecdotal evidence is correct and we happen to have an abundance of red snapper in state waters, it is even more incumbent upon us to conserve those fish to rebuild the stock." Rebuild the stock for what? The commercials? Would that work for you with specks and reds?
> 
> When CCA reminds its members that "fish swim", do you take that to mean that snapper from Texas are going to swim to and repopulate waters off Florida that never really had the bottom habitat that favored snapper to begin with?
> 
> I may never convince you in my belief that CCA is playing politics and playing for a more economically valued base than Texas offshore recreational fishermen, but I respectfully look forward to your reply. Maybe, if nothing else, the two of us could show parkerb and Snap Draggin how to quit sounding like a couple of seventh graders trying to prove who ate whose booger first.


Hi Unbound,
This is good, we can talk about a point without trashing each other or the orgs we belong to. No, it does not bother me that CCA uses those words to describe the cocktail napkin data you and others are using as scientific data. And I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that snapper do move from state to federal waters. I don't remember reading that the texas snapper were going to florida, and I don't think that is what was meant by that statement, that is what you are supposing they meant. Like I asked Mont, what data is CCA or anyone supposed to be using? TPWD is going to watch things and make a decision according to Mr. Zaidle's post. I personally do think that the state should have the information and authority to take care of state waters. This is a point that I happen to disagree with CCA on. I will not, however, drop my membership, bash them, keep bringing up the salaries of it's employees, make fun of people that support them, or criticize them for putting the fishery first. I do not have a probem with people making bumper stickers, or whatever, that is their choice. CCA took a stand for the fishery, maybe it was political, but never the less, it was for the fishery. Their stand made no difference in the outcome of TPWD, except for inspiring a lot of people to make the scoping meetings, and that is a good thing. There are a few CCA haters that post, and you better believe what they post has their spin. I don't have all the answers. I have heard what is being said, and welcome the chance to post my point of view as well. I can say I am learning a lot about the red snapper, and human nature, and not all of it is pretty.
With respect,
Liz


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

Dang! I hate it when women don't agree to every word I say.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Yeah, but us nice ole boys get more that way, don't tell nobody OK Unbound? Myself, I think if RFA and 2Cool want to come up with some issue papers and "put it on a bumper sticker" that is fine. Hashing it out on the boards has been a little weird ... most of us know the issues fairly well, anyway. 

It's like one of my confused associates who signs his postings "educating fish one lure at a time." Well, how about educating the politicians, the folks with saltwater boats, and the general populace? 

One lure at a time, baby! 
-digger sam


----------



## c1 (Jan 11, 2006)

All we can do is just fish with the rules they give us. It does not mean their right or wrong, but that's the way it is. I have been frustrated with this issue for many years now. And what I have seen, most people want to point the finger at someone else. Many of us on this board have many different opinions. I know Charlie and myself have the same love of the species, but we have a large difference on opinion of the matter. Whos to say who is right and whos wrong? Charlie, myself, and many others on this board have fished for Red Snapper for many years now, and not one scientist has called, sent me a questions, or asked to get on board with me ever. If our government knew what what was going on, they would'nt change the rules every other year. I quess the maddness will last forever on this issue.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Cca*

Exactly what has CCA become...Just because they made a statement you disagree with they are some evil organization that does nothing for the fishermen. Charlie, Walter Fondren does not work for CCA and even if he did, the paid staff does not make those decisions. I never heard any complaing from you about CCA when you were picking up the keys to those 2 boats you won in the STAR. And wasn't it you that lead the push to get Snapper banned from the STAR only after you won that second boat since per the rules you could not compete for 6 years. Maybe you could use some of that CCA money you won to get those bumper stickers made. Gater


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

The facts are being changed with new hard fought for data. The new data is debunking old myths. The PhD's are starting to look at the model and the data stream inside the model. The data has been corrupt for many years. We at RFA have said all along the baseline data was junk science. We are now seeing the scientific communities look hard at the data. We have pushed for reviews for ten years. We chose not to accept the data at face value.

As far as the "New Clothing Line" and Bumper Stickers we had no input. I have had many friends with the other .ORG including local Chapter higher ups from across the State of Texas call me to ask some very serious questions about the Red Snapper Issue. I found that rather strange but yet comforting. Many were friends from days gone by when I was a member of the other .Org. We had a very friendly chat regarding the issues and the data. There is PhD pere reviewed data to back up the corrupt data now. The times are a changing.

I am pleased with the response at the various scoping meetings. I am sorry it has taken the two fish and 122 day fishing season in Federal Waters to realize what we have known a long long time. The data is corrupt and has been from day one.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Jim,

I'm a modeler. Please ask for the executable code and the data input files and I will be glad to look at it for you. I offer this without charging my normal hourly fee of $120. I do this because I believe in the case and am a hopeless Teckie.

There are several ways a model can SWAG the results (remember, "scientific wild-arse guess!). The data you'll have to help me with. How the model works can be linear, non-linear, or some strange hybrid thing that should be analyzed. In other words, it could be predicting 2014 results that are totally off base from the original "data."

It might take a FOIA request but without having the model and the underlying data, we can't even suppose that the inputs or processing is good, bad, or ugly. As they say, "just the facts, ma'am."
-digger sam


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Thanks I will PM you.


----------



## woody7 (May 28, 2004)

Making Red Snapper a gamefish AND closing the species to commercial harvest in state and federal waters is the only way to accomplish the recovery of the stock. If the commercial harvest is allowed to continue, any gains made through harvest reductions on the rec side, lack of shrimping bycatch and artificial reefing programs, mandatory fish venting ect. will be negated. The more the stock is replenished, the more the commercials will have to sell at the dock legally caught or not. We are banging our collective .org heads against a wall. And to nip the argument in the bud before it starts, yes we should allow recreational divers to spear snapper.


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*tpwd/federal regs*



chicapesca said:


> Hi Unbound,
> This is good, we can talk about a point without trashing each other or the orgs we belong to. No, it does not bother me that CCA uses those words to describe the cocktail napkin data you and others are using as scientific data. And I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that snapper do move from state to federal waters. I don't remember reading that the texas snapper were going to florida, and I don't think that is what was meant by that statement, that is what you are supposing they meant. Like I asked Mont, what data is CCA or anyone supposed to be using? TPWD is going to watch things and make a decision according to Mr. Zaidle's post. I personally do think that the state should have the information and authority to take care of state waters. This is a point that I happen to disagree with CCA on. I will not, however, drop my membership, bash them, keep bringing up the salaries of it's employees, make fun of people that support them, or criticize them for putting the fishery first. I do not have a probem with people making bumper stickers, or whatever, that is their choice. CCA took a stand for the fishery, maybe it was political, but never the less, it was for the fishery. Their stand made no difference in the outcome of TPWD, except for inspiring a lot of people to make the scoping meetings, and that is a good thing. There are a few CCA haters that post, and you better believe what they post has their spin. I don't have all the answers. I have heard what is being said, and welcome the chance to post my point of view as well. I can say I am learning a lot about the red snapper, and human nature, and not all of it is pretty.
> With respect,
> Liz


Liz,
I appreciate your perspective, but the problem with CCA's stance in a nutshell, is this;

1) The current 6.5 pound TAC, which CCA was instrumental in placing upon the snapper fishermen BTW, took into account that Texas and Florida seasons/regulations were already in place. In other words, promoting further federal government restrictions in our waters was un-warranted, un-needed, and un-wanted. Mont is right - CCA should stand up, admit that it is wrong on this issue, and move on. Stubbornly clinging to data that is obviously wrong (such as the 80% of all 0-1 snapper die in shrimp trawls, and 3% of historical abundance garbage) does nothing to further their credibility on the snapper issue. I can guarantee that it will only get worse in the future if CCA continues down this preposterous course.

2) Steve Atran, who works for the GOMFMC providing statistical data regarding the fish biomass, has acknowledged that all snapper caught in both Texas and Florida state waters is statistically insignificant. So, if the effect on the biomass is insignificant, yet the economic effect would have been VERY significant, Dr. McKinney (TPWD) made the right call on this issue. CCA should be more cognizant of the effect on its members, which in the long run, has an effect on the fishery which it claims to put first. (It's kinda like the instructions when taking an airplane flight...if the oxygen masks come down, afix yours first, then help your children do the same - you can't help them if you are out of the picture).

3) There is scientific data that shows that, by and large, snapper have a high fidelity to structure...in other words, for the most part, snapper do not migrate very far. So, if ALL of the fish caught in Texas and Florida waters is statistically insignificant, then the amount of fish swimming back and forth between state/federal waters is exponentially smaller in significance.

4) Your "cocktail napkin data" remark is not constructive to the process, nor is it accurate, as there is a significant amount of data to counter CCA's position here.

5) CCA's silence on the REAL problem affecting the snapper fishery (commercial overfishing) is deafening. Very strange, for an organization supposedly devoted to putting the fishery first - failing to look at what historically has depleted any fishery...commercial fishing, has many people wondering why. In fact, CCA has taken the side of the commercials thru their support of IFQ's which were implemented without the required VMS infratructure in place. In effect, this has given them a 365 day season on the honor system as Charlie has pointed out more than once. Not good for the fishery, as the IFQ system can be easily circumvented. The top federal law enforcement officer who pushed for IFQ's recently retired and went to work for Environmental Defense, I believe. There is something VERY fundamentally wrong with that, IMHO.

Sincerely,

Duplantis


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

excellent post Duplantis. You are wasting your time, making so much sense and all. CCA has no use for that. I expect CCA to look at the stock assesment, and say "what?. hold on a second". There is enough reasonable doubt on the latest stock assesments that need to be addressed. There are enough holes in this "best available science" that only a fool would blindly follow it. Why CCA takes this stuff as hard indisputable facts just baffles me. Maybe they REALLY want it to be true.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

My guess is that CCA has an agenda....the science has been a farce and CCA based all their agenda around that bogus science. The numbers have never been true...(CCA probably knows this)...and they have a stated platform based on those false pretenses. I don't know CCA's agenda....but I bet I know what they are looking for.


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

gater said:


> Exactly what has CCA become...Just because they made a statement you disagree with they are some evil organization that does nothing for the fishermen. Charlie, Walter Fondren does not work for CCA and even if he did, the paid staff does not make those decisions. I never heard any complaing from you about CCA when you were picking up the keys to those 2 boats you won in the STAR. And wasn't it you that lead the push to get Snapper banned from the STAR only after you won that second boat since per the rules you could not compete for 6 years. Maybe you could use some of that CCA money you won to get those bumper stickers made. Gater


Good point. I won't even mention the college scholarships awarded through STAR, oops I did.

I find it very odd that RFA people can take shots at a group when RFA has accomplished nothing in Texas. I remember someone asking(think his name was Tom) one of their top guys to list their accomplishments and he could not do it then. I would venture to say the answer would be the same now. Just an observation, but their platform seems to be "see what CCA does and go the other way". I'm not saying good or bad, right or wrong, but some folks that have been very critical of CCA probably did not ask what is the RFA track record. RFA can say this or do that ,but what are the results? What about the reef project that was supposed to start? What were the results of any action on their part?

I would like to know, it is important.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

yeah, CCA has done some good things for sure. Nobody is doubting that at all. On balance, especially if you look at their recent stances on fisheries, they are severely lacking. 

Heck, Pablo Escobar used to spend a huge sum of money to feed the poor of Medellin. In fact, there are a lot of people there that regard him as a hero. Does that mean that he is beyond criticism just because he spent a ton of cash on the poor and enriched their lives? Everyone in Cuba gets a free education and free healthcare in Cuba thanks to Castro. Does that mean that he is a great guy? Bottom line is that CCA deserves a large amount of criticism for their stances on snapper and other fisheries as well. You guys seem to think that just because they buy a few scholarships (well, those scholarships are really paid for by recreational fishermen) that they are beyond criticism. Ease up, I am in no way trying to compare CCA to PE or FC, just make the point that you have to look at the body of work, not just good deeds.

There are a lot of very good people in the rank and file of CCA, including some people who defend them on these posts. The sooner those people start holding the management of CCA accountable, the better.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

parkerb said:


> I won't even mention the college scholarships awarded through STAR, oops I did.


Come on, I joined CCA in the past to protect fishermen and the coast, not put kids through college. IMO, we all pay plenty to schools already. I just looked at my property taxes and over $3600 went directly to school taxes. I don't even live in a very expensive home.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

parkerb said:


> I find it very odd that RFA people can take shots at a group when RFA has accomplished nothing in Texas. . .
> 
> RFA can say this or do that ,but what are the results? What about the reef project that was supposed to start? What were the results of any action on their part?
> 
> I would like to know, it is important.


Oh, so you DON'T know. So why do you claim they have 
"accomplished nothing in Texas"

A number of initiatives have been discussed on this board. Information on others is readily available. The reef isn't a RFA project, by the way. But on that project, a good deal of funding has been secured, assessments filed with COE, etc.

Lately, I believe RFA had a good deal of influence on the recent decision to maintain the soveriegnty of Texas State Waters regards red snapper and shark fishing. You may have noticed something about hearings, etc. on this board a couple weeks ago.

Let me make something real clear. As a past CCA member, supporter, and sponsor. OH, you can attack me personally if you like. I don't care.

I don't believe CCA is "on the wrong side of the issue" because they "are getting flawed data" or "they're "for the fish"".

I don't think they CARE about texas red snapper, or red snapper fishermen, and they have traded their support on this issue to NMFS for "an issue to be named later", probably something to do with the east coast where there is more money, and thrown the resource, the texas red snapper fisherman, and the state of Texas under the bus and I think it is DUPLICITOUS and DISGRACEFUL and DISHONEST.

As a far as the Ocean Conservancy and the rest of the Enviros, I have 10000% more respect for them than I do for CCA. I've read their mission statements, and looked at their logic, and THEY (NOT CCA) are for the RESOURCE. And they're honest and in our face about it. I don't agree with them either, but they are a much more honest enemy than CCA.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

ParkerB is a sour puss. He hands out red marks because he's upset at the truths that have been revealed about CCA's stance on red snapper.

For those that received red marks from ParkerB...it's a double negative type thing...making it a positive. A red mark from someone that is clueless is a good thing.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

STxFisherman said:


> ParkerB is a sour puss. He hands out red marks because he's upset at the truths that have been revealed about CCA's stance on red snapper.
> 
> For those that received red marks from ParkerB...it's a double negative type thing...making it a positive. A red mark from someone that is clueless is a good thing.


Ease up on Parkerb. He seems like a very grounded and solid guy.:wink:


----------



## mredman1 (Feb 4, 2007)

*Yikes*



chicapesca said:


> No, it does not bother me that CCA uses those words to describe the cocktail napkin data you and others are using as scientific data. Liz


I found this napkin in a bar last night........Mike


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

mredman said:


> I found this napkin in a bar last night........Mike


Can't quite make out Annies phone number. Could you please post it?:birthday2


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

manintheboat said:


> Ease up on Parkerb. He seems like a very grounded and solid guy.:wink:


Dog poop is grounded and solid as well!!


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Ohhh Gater

Well I do think he(Walter Fondren) works for them just not officially on the payroll. Check into it Slam and you will be amazed or shocked. Were friends and I respect your opinions and have never responded (I dont think) directly to any of your post. You have your opinion and thats it. 

I just read all your post where you refer to Fondren and me and the Star tourney. Well you missed one, I won three Star tourneys last one when I took someone else. Yes I enjoyed the challenge and the winning. I did have a large part by spearheading CCA to remove Snapper from their tourney because they (fisherman) well killing many of the big brood stock fish. CCA is supposed to be a conservation organization and they took heed and removed it. It certainly was not because that after you win twice you are banned for 6 years thats for any and all of the catagories in STAR. I wonder what folks would say to Tiger Woods like "you cannot play " because you won the open last year. Oh well Slam again your my friend and its going to stay that way. 
I was in your shoes once and it took a long time for me to see the forrest for the trees. Come see me and lets have some Crown.

Charlie


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

It didn't work but at least I tried


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Charlie*

No disrespect intended, likewise I respect your opinions. You know more about Snapper than I do, problem is everyone has the right way to fix it. It's kinda like finding peace in the middle east, it would be great but they have been fighting for years with no solution in sight and no one has a clue on how to fix it. As someone who is not completely in the know on all the Snapper issues at hand, making it a game fish would seem to be the route to go and ban commercial fishing altogether. Doing that is not as easy as some would think. Unlike the Redfish wars and those commercials, your up against a different group with mucho denero. Glad to see TP&WD made the right call, I had a feeling they would. Now, for those numbers where you caught those fish today! Gater


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

manintheboat said:


> yeah, CCA has done some good things for sure. Nobody is doubting that at all. On balance, especially if you look at their recent stances on fisheries, they are severely lacking.
> 
> Heck, Pablo Escobar used to spend a huge sum of money to feed the poor of Medellin. In fact, there are a lot of people there that regard him as a hero. Does that mean that he is beyond criticism just because he spent a ton of cash on the poor and enriched their lives? Everyone in Cuba gets a free education and free healthcare in Cuba thanks to Castro. Does that mean that he is a great guy? Bottom line is that CCA deserves a large amount of criticism for their stances on snapper and other fisheries as well. You guys seem to think that just because they buy a few scholarships (well, those scholarships are really paid for by recreational fishermen) that they are beyond criticism. Ease up, I am in no way trying to compare CCA to PE or FC, just make the point that you have to look at the body of work, not just good deeds.
> 
> There are a lot of very good people in the rank and file of CCA, including some people who defend them on these posts. The sooner those people start holding the management of CCA accountable, the better.


Actually, the scholarships are funded by sponsors and it is over $3 million they have awarded in scholarships. Your analogy is ridiculus.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Gater

I should have called you. Yes you have a point there regarding fighting for many years. Back and forth on this board is not going to fix it. I do think by getting the word out with advertisements, bumper stickers is a start. There is lots of info (data ) available showing that the "data" used to make the present federal rules is flawed. I think that is beginning to come to the forefront and maybe, just maybe something will change. Yes I have been fighting this stuff for many years and am getting tired. As you know I have taken up Troutfishing again(thanks again for keeping me off the rocks). I have a strange feeling things are about to change at least I hope. Yor see what irritates me with the CCA they have endorsed the federal rules and even used their flawed data in the CCA, Enviro lawsuit. Folks need to know. 

Charlie


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

Levelwind said:


> Oh, so you DON'T know. So why do you claim they have
> "accomplished nothing in Texas"
> 
> A number of initiatives have been discussed on this board. Information on others is readily available. The reef isn't a RFA project, by the way. But on that project, a good deal of funding has been secured, assessments filed with COE, etc.
> ...


You made my point for me, thank you. The reef project is not theirs, but they act as if it is, that is until it went nowhere. Just like they will say it was their influence that swayed TP&W.


----------



## Whisky Delta (Apr 16, 2007)

*Little window fish has to go*

Enough. Until CCA's mission statement contains something that refers to recreational fishermen, I'm done, I'm out.


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*Texas Great Barrier Reef*

ParkerB,
Exactly where did you get your info that the reef project is nowhere?

Don't you mean now-here?

It is alive and well, I assure you.

TPWD listed RFA and their position on the monitor when announcing their decision, BTW.

Duplantis


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

STxFisherman said:


> ParkerB is a sour puss. He hands out red marks because he's upset at the truths that have been revealed about CCA's stance on red snapper.
> 
> For those that received red marks from ParkerB...it's a double negative type thing...making it a positive. A red mark from someone that is clueless is a good thing.


I bet you were a real card in grade school. I can only imagine the games you played.

What a boobish formula. I say if its red, then its red. Nothing personal, just disagree with a post. I get them too from time to time.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

parkerb said:


> Actually, the scholarships are funded by sponsors and it is over $3 million they have awarded in scholarships. Your analogy is ridiculus.


At least Escobar used his own money.

Is that boobish enough for you?


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

parkerb said:


> You made my point for me, thank you. The reef project is not theirs, but they act as if it is, that is until it went nowhere. Just like they will say it was their influence that swayed TP&W.


 Are you stating that the RFA and Jim Smarr are liers? Do you understand the laws reguarding slander? BTW I take that personally as a RFA memeber.
In your obscene ignorance perhaps you'd best do some research on the reef.


----------



## mamone (Jan 11, 2008)

Not to stir,but what has RFA done lately?and how long have they been around? i'm learning as i read.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

Whisky Delta said:


> Enough. Until CCA's mission statement contains something that refers to recreational fishermen, I'm done, I'm out.


That's a great post Whiskey....We all know that CCA puts out a great decal....but.....they could care less about recreational fishermen it seems.
If I had a CCA decal on my truck....I would do the same!


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

I think that people are mad at CCA, not because they don't agree with CCA per se, but because the position CCA supports is directly at odds with what they believe. If CCA wins their position on this issue, then we recreational fishermen lose. I wouldn't mind 'losing' (i.e. lower limits) if it helped the stock, but CCA is not helping the stock IMO with this agenda. So they are directly affecting me by pushing an agenda that is detrimental IMO, and therefore I cannot support them anymore. I will repeat what I said earlier: CCA won the redfish war by game fish status and slot limits, so why are they now taking a different stratagy that seems to directly support commercial fishery of an overfished species?


BTW, I think the 'red' is for reporting posts that you disapprove of (i.e. inappropriate material, etc), not to show you disagree with someone.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Bummer ending for what was at once time perty darn near hysterical funny, like Jib-Jab and stuff.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

mamone said:


> Not to stir,but what has RFA done lately?and how long have they been around? i'm learning as i read.


Look here for a start:
http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=149838


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I don't not have a problem with RFA but looky, looky what happens when someone criticizes them. I know it wouldn't happen but what if your little bumper sticker campaign did cause CCA to go away? What then? Who's going to help fund the hatcherys, who's going to supplement game wardens with vital equipment, I could go on and on with the positive things that CCA has done and is doing and many of you want to abolish them. If CCA ceased to exist today then nothing would have changed in regards to the problem with the Snapper. Whether CCA's stance on this is right or wrong you need to focus your energy on this issue and quit wasting it by lashing out.
Oh, and what has CCA ever done:
_UTMSI and CCA __Texas__ celebrate the grand opening of the newly built 3,000 square-foot CCA __Texas__ Laboratory for Marine Larviculture. The lab was funded by a $700,000 gift from CCA __Texas__. This facility will enhance what is already one of the most advanced marine research facilities in the world (2007)._

_*A project that has removed tons of debris and trash from Texas bays and beaches officially turned to gold when Coastal Conservation Association Texas' Bay Debris Cleanup program received the 2007 Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Award bestowed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) (2007).*_

_CCA __Texas__ provided over $75,000 in funding for TPWD awareness and equipment (2006)._

_CCA __Texas__ made a $200,000 commitment to the __Texas_ _Parks__ and Wildlife Department bay and bait shrimp license buyback program resulting in healthier and more productive ecosystems (2006). _

_CCA __Texas__ funds $20,000 for the __Galveston__ Marsh Restoration project (2006)._

_In the May 2005 issue of Field & Stream, writer John Merwin selects 50 legends of fishing, choosing among writers, showmen, teachers, conservationists, innovators, and tycoons. Under the section dedicated to The Conservationists, CCA National Chairman Walter Fondren heads the list for his part in the creation of the __Gulf_ _Coast__ Conservation Association in 1976 and in guiding its evolution into the national Coastal Conservation Association (2005)_

_CCA __Texas__ contributes $60,000 for the __Bahia__ Grande Dredging Project (2005)._

_CCA __Texas__ sponsored over $17,300 in supporting __Texas__ A&M Flounders Study (2005)._

_CCA __Texas__ exceeds $500,000 in funding for TPWD enforcement equipment and research (2004). _

_CCA_ _Texas_ _Big_ _Bay__ Debris Cleanup I and II surpass 1,150 tons of debris removed from bay systems from __Aransas_ _Pass__ to __Baffin Bay__ (2004). _

_Texas_ _A&M_ _University__ at __Corpus Christi__ scholarship funded, marking the fourth fully endowed CCA __Texas__ graduate-level scholarship. The other three scholarships are awarded at Texas A&M University at Galveston, TAMU-College Station and the University of Texas Marine Science Institute in Port Aransas (2004). _

_CCA __Texas__ State of __Texas Anglers Rodeo__ exceeds $2 million mark in college scholarships awarded (2003). _

_First-ever abandoned crab trap pick up removes more than 8,000 derelict traps from __Texas__ bays, setting the stage for additional successful events in following years (2002). _

_Successfully lobbied for the passage of SB 1410, which allows TPWD to establish a closed season for the use of crab traps in __Texas__ public waters (2001). _

_ Bycatch reduction devices become mandatory on shrimp trawls in __Texas__ bays (2000). _

_Successfully lobbied for passage of SB 1303, granting authority to Texas Parks Wildlife Department to establish a limited-entry license management program (1999). _

_First comprehensive state water plan passes __Texas__ Legislature (1997). _

_Use of bycatch reduction devices mandated in Gulf shrimp trawls (1997). _

_Sea Center_ _Texas__ hatchery in __Lake Jackson__ completed (1996). _

_Leading the charge to ensure sufficient freshwater inflows into __Texas__ bays and estuaries (1995 - present). _

_Successfully lobbied for the passage of HB1301 banning the sale of naturally raised, wild redfish was signed into law. Law eliminates market for redfish, except those that are farm-raised (1989). _

_Commercial harvest of adult redfish halted in the __Gulf of Mexico__ (1986). _

_Construction of the CCA/AEP Marine Development Center - Flour Bluff completed (1982). _

_Obtained gamefish status for redfish and speckled trout (1981). _

_Single-strand monofilament nets outlawed in __Texas__ waters (1980). _

_Founded as GCCA, creating the now famous "Save the Redfish" campaign (1977). _

_Yeah, y'all are right, CCA should just go away and stop doing all these horrible things for the fishery. Tom_


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Whisky Delta said:


> Enough. Until CCA's mission statement contains something that refers to recreational fishermen, I'm done, I'm out.


Very good WD, but I think I have a few extra stickers laying around the house that I might not have "filed" yet. I think I will slip one or two on when you are not looking! :biggrin:


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Who's going to do all that...the next org to come up with a STAR type tourny, which gains membership on it's boat, truck give aways.


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

Snagged said:


> Are you stating that the RFA and Jim Smarr are liers? Do you understand the laws reguarding slander? BTW I take that personally as a RFA memeber.
> In your obscene ignorance perhaps you'd best do some research on the reef.


I'm not sure I'm the one in need of research. Is it research or lack of knowledge that caused the permits to be filed wrong? At least that is what I think I read on another post. Don't have time to look right now.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> I don't not have a problem with RFA but looky, looky what happens when someone criticizes them. I know it wouldn't happen but what if your little bumper sticker campaign did cause CCA to go away? What then? Who's going to help fund the hatcherys, who's going to supplement game wardens with vital equipment, I could go on and on with the positive things that CCA has done and is doing and many of you want to abolish them. If CCA ceased to exist today then nothing would have changed in regards to the problem with the Snapper. Whether CCA's stance on this is right or wrong you need to focus your energy on this issue and quit wasting it by lashing out.
> Oh, and what has CCA ever done:
> _UTMSI and CCA __Texas__ celebrate the grand opening of the newly built 3,000 square-foot CCA __Texas__ Laboratory for Marine Larviculture. The lab was funded by a $700,000 gift from CCA __Texas__. This facility will enhance what is already one of the most advanced marine research facilities in the world (2007)._
> 
> ...


Very good post Poc, and very informative, but I believe there are a lot of items on there that were done by GCCA. That was a totally different organization as far as I am concerned. I am quite sure many others on here share the same sentiment.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

STxFisherman said:


> That's a great post Whiskey....We all know that CCA puts out a great decal....but.....they could care less about recreational fishermen it seems.
> If I had a CCA decal on my truck....I would do the same!


I had them on both my boats, but did the same thing as WD several weeks ago.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

This back and forth stuff is not going to help. One good thing is this board did get the word out. Now we need to get active ourside this board and let folks know what CCA has done or not done regarding our Snapper. Im checking on the bumper stickers today. Another note, I am speaking of CCA and the Texas Snapper issue only. Good fishing and I got a nice box of Texas Snapper yesterday evening. 

Charlie


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

parkerb said:


> I'm not sure I'm the one in need of research. Is it research or lack of knowledge that caused the permits to be filed wrong? At least that is what I think I read on another post. Don't have time to look right now.


 Suggest that you do your research, then make statements.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

CHARLIE said:


> This back and forth stuff is not going to help. One good thing is this board did get the word out. Now we need to get active ourside this board and let folks know what CCA has done or not done regarding our Snapper. Im checking on the bumper stickers today. Another note, I am speaking of CCA and the Texas Snapper issue only. Good fishing and I got a nice box of Texas Snapper yesterday evening.
> 
> Charlie


I agree Charlie. What do you propose we do? I am willing to help and I am quite sure there are more folks on here that will. We definitely need to get a game plan.

Good catch of state Snaps. I have my boat in the shop doing the winter maintenance to have it ready for spring, but I am going to head out as soon as I get it back, weather permitting. I may even head on out to blue water for some Wahoo or anything else I can coax up.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Just a thought folks and I am thinking out loud.. Dr. Russell Nelson former director of Florida Fish and Wildlife now works for CCA as their director (or something like that) for the Gulf of Mexico. He provides input to CCA regarding Snapper in the Gulf. To me that clears up at lot of CCA's position. How can someone with deep ties to Florida speak for us folks here in Texas? Maybe they have their eggs in the wrong basket..

Charlie


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Charlie, I don't understand your post: "Now we need to get active ourside this board and let folks know what CCA has done or not done regarding our Snapper". Is your main concern getting the snapper problem fixed or are you more concerned with destroying CCA? It is obvious to some of us that your goal, and that of several others here, is to ride this snapper thing as a way to discredit CCA. Get the word out, take your little bites out of CCA, but y'all are not helping the issue by attacking something that is not the problem. I've stated previously that I do not agree with CCA on this particular issue but someone please state for the what positive can come from your attempts to shut them down. If CCA were to make a statement today that acknowledged that they made a mistake and will change their stance then what do you think will change? I will make a guess and say not a dang thing. Why don't y'all take your money for bumper stickers and t-shirts and use it towards your goal of getting the snapper regs. changed, of course that would only work if that were truly your goal. Tom


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Tom

I am not going to get in a back and forth contest regarding this issue but i will try and answer your question. If you think I can destroy CCA you are wrong. To let folks know that CCA screwed up on this issue, yes. And IMHO CCA's position on this issue is a BIG PROBLEM. You state you do not agree with CCA on this issue what have they told you? Have you expressed your opinion ? Have you done any good ? I have done all of the above with CCA and have not changed a thing. Now am I going to hang my head and walk away, Hell no. 

If CCA changed their position(unlikley without pressure) on the Snapper issue I would be happy. There has been other minor issues with CCA but nothing to speak of. 

Tom I have fished for snapper for about 50 years in the Gulf. To see what has happened just makes me sick. This issue is dear to my heart and CCA getting on the bandwagon with Enviros kinda pushed me over the edge. Enough is enough. I had to take a stand. Out to destroy CCA ? No way If they would back up and rethink, and change their position heck, I would go away. IMHO they have done many good things regarding fishing but this Snapper issue is just plain stupid. I really think lots of it comes from Russell Nelson the Floridian. I think I stated my position pretty clear "CCA has done regarding our Snapper" Hope I have cleared up my position. And by the way I have lots of frriends at CCA who I have talked about this issue with. Pat, Bill, even Jeana.

Charlie


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*Cca Has Lost Its Way*



Pocboy said:


> Charlie, I don't understand your post: "Now we need to get active ourside this board and let folks know what CCA has done or not done regarding our Snapper". Is your main concern getting the snapper problem fixed or are you more concerned with destroying CCA? It is obvious to some of us that your goal, and that of several others here, is to ride this snapper thing as a way to discredit CCA. Get the word out, take your little bites out of CCA, but y'all are not helping the issue by attacking something that is not the problem. I've stated previously that I do not agree with CCA on this particular issue but someone please state for the what positive can come from your attempts to shut them down. If CCA were to make a statement today that acknowledged that they made a mistake and will change their stance then what do you think will change? I will make a guess and say not a dang thing. Why don't y'all take your money for bumper stickers and t-shirts and use it towards your goal of getting the snapper regs. changed, of course that would only work if that were truly your goal. Tom


PocBoy,
CCA is a part of the problem - that's the rub. CCA has an influence on legislation affecting red snapper; i.e., recent lawsuit forcing a 2 year rebuilding plan based on flawed data, AND CCA's endorsement of federal regs in state waters.

Getting the word out, organizing, and informing people how an organization is affecting their lives is a good thing, especially if it effects change inside that organization.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

We just want to build the reef and solve the problems. Once Texas Territorial Waters are teaming with fish due to extensive habitat then the NMFS will have to agree building habitat is more important than wasting time on worthless regulations. Habitat has always solved wildlife and fish problems in the long run. 

Help us fix the problem for many species. Just Habitat and lots of it. That takes work not just passing laws and pushing agendas though. Build the Reefs.

Dang I forgot the move in Congress to put the flexiblity back in the Red Snapper rebuilding time frame. Guess there is still a need for a little more in the political arena to undo the current restrictive plan.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Charlie and Duplantis, I appreciate how you feel but I'm just wondering why you are not putting your resources towards something that you can maybe affect. As much as I support CCA I just don't think they are going to change their stance on this one. I see a lot of y'all banging your heads where you could be diverting that energy in a direction that could show some results. Tom


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Multitasking*

REEF

REBUILDING TIME FRAME FLEXIBILITY FOR SNAPPER

SEEMS WE ARE MULTI TASKING AT RFA


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Duplantis*

I don't know why its so hard to understand but the people/membership is CCA.
Pat does not work for CCATexas, Bill is the STAR Director, Walter has been retired for 4 years. THESE PEOPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE DECISIONS! If this really is that big a deal, why are you wasting your time with CCA over a statement that really means nothing, TP&WD showed that. I'm sure the RFA would love to have your energy and thats were it should be directed. Gater


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

And apparently RFA can multi task...


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Dang Don't want to forget we are ordering pens to fill out new membership applications. Seem to be running out of ink. LOL


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*Cca Has Lost Its Way*



gater said:


> I don't know why its so hard to understand but the people/membership is CCA.
> Pat does not work for CCATexas, Bill is the STAR Director, Walter has been retired for 4 years. THESE PEOPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE DECISIONS! If this really is that big a deal, why are you wasting your time with CCA over a statement that really means nothing, TP&WD showed that. I'm sure the RFA would love to have your energy and thats were it should be directed. Gater


Because CCA has already burned us (recreational fishermen) with the lawsuit, and now this added endorsement of federal regs in state waters is insult to injury.

CCA does have an influence on legislation - if they would just butt-out, then that would be one thing, but they won't butt-out.

So, it requires time and energy to effect change - thus bumper stickers and other mechanisms for getting the word out.

*CCA HAS LOST IT'S WAY!*


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

I think our energy has been effective. TPWD went with the recreational fisherman despite the $500,000 donation from CCA in the past. 

I will admit, I agree with a lot of things CCA has done for Texas, especially the bay. That is a reason I was a member for such a long time. However, the snapper issue is much more than just a little decision. It was a huge one and CCA should really step back and look hard at their position. Also, CCA is getting too invoved with other fisheries and waters. Perhaps regional restructuring would be helpful. 

I agree with Jim S. Habitat is the real solution. Keep the habitat in Texas waters and we can worry a little less about the feds.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Tom

I have put lot of enegry in on the Snapper issue. I have attended meetings for years. (NMF's), written letters, called representatives both State and Federal. It has accomplished nothing. Its the "ivory tower issue". I think I understand the old saying "to change the things that I can" and have sense enough to stay away from the things I cannot. I feel (we recreational fisherman) may be able to make a change here, Thats all. Pocoboy remember (well maybe you do) that GCCA had to walk before they could run. RFA probably in the same boat. Hopefully in time they will have the same success as GCCA in marketing their product.
Gater 
Who should I direct my questions to if not Pat or folks in the local office ? They talk like they support CCA's present position. I thought they mite have some input.


Charlie


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I truly hope that RFA can be the one to run with this. If CCA's stance is not productive to this issue then some other group needs to take the lead, however I cannot see the benefit of damaging CCA to support RFA. I know, what have you done for me lately?


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*Cca Has Lost Its Way*



Pocboy said:


> I truly hope that RFA can be the one to run with this. If CCA's stance is not productive to this issue then some other group needs to take the lead, however I cannot see the benefit of damaging CCA to support RFA. I know, what have you done for me lately?


PocBoy,
Again, CCA is damaging recreational fishermen's interests - the only way to stop it is to try to effect change within CCA.

The only way to do that is to inform people about what CCA is up to - it really has nothing to do with supporting RFA.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Charlie, I don't understand your post: "Now we need to get active ourside this board and let folks know what CCA has done or not done regarding our Snapper". Is your main concern getting the snapper problem fixed or are you more concerned with destroying CCA? It is obvious to some of us that your goal, and that of several others here, is to ride this snapper thing as a way to discredit CCA. Get the word out, take your little bites out of CCA, but y'all are not helping the issue by attacking something that is not the problem. I've stated previously that I do not agree with CCA on this particular issue but someone please state for the what positive can come from your attempts to shut them down. If CCA were to make a statement today that acknowledged that they made a mistake and will change their stance then what do you think will change? I will make a guess and say not a dang thing. Why don't y'all take your money for bumper stickers and t-shirts and use it towards your goal of getting the snapper regs. changed, of course that would only work if that were truly your goal. Tom


Poc, what you do not understand is that we all tried real hard to get CCA to change their minds. The posts on previous threads show that. Pat and everyone else there wanted nothing to do with our reasoning or pleading. In fact they were downright arrogant and combative; therefore we are left with no other option.

I appreciate your defending them, but it is futile. We have made up our minds and that is that. You can type all you want about their accomplishments. We do not care. We have been betrayed by the very organization that we gave our money to. We obviously share the same passion as you, but for different reasons.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

gater said:


> I don't know why its so hard to understand but the people/membership is CCA.
> Pat does not work for CCATexas, Bill is the STAR Director, Walter has been retired for 4 years. THESE PEOPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE DECISIONS! If this really is that big a deal, why are you wasting your time with CCA over a statement that really means nothing, TP&WD showed that. I'm sure the RFA would love to have your energy and thats were it should be directed. Gater


We have plenty of energy for BOTH, I assure you.


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

Under no circumstance will you ever see NRA take the side of the antigun groups. So why would the cca back the commercialsand the enviros(the anti rec. fishing group). Pocboy and gater are the realy problem you are following the pied piper and don't realize it. When an issue you care about comes about and they turn their back on you will you just accept it and say but they fixed the redfish problem 20 years ago or will you demand they listen to their members. And if they don't will you continue to support them even though they no longer stand for what you believe. SHEEP


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Cca*

Charlie, I think Robbie is now the ED of CCA Texas....CCA works from the bottom up, individual chapters is where this should start. The problem you have or might have with the direction you are headed is that out of 45-50,000 members in Texas, only a fraction of them (I'm guessing here) are offshore/Snapper fishermen. Thats not CCA's fault, thats just the way it is. Gater


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

dlove, you not of that which you speak! CCA went with the data they have and decided to do what they thought was best for the fishery. To say that they back the commercials and enviros is a pretty silly statement for you to make. Once again I'll repeat that I don't necessarily agree with CCA on this stance but I refuse to throw away all the good they have done, continue to do, and will do in the future. Are you implying that they haven't done a single good thing since they took care of the problems with the redfish 20 years ago. If one issue causes you to turn your back on an organization that has accomplished what it has then all I have to say is I'm no sheep, but you are certainly a goat.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Dlove*

Turn their back on the membership, once again the membership is the ones making the call. I have disagreed with CCA on several issues over the years, and I disagree with them on this, however I will continue to support them not because of what they have done in the past but for what our future may bring.

And as the coast gets more populated you can bet there will be imortant issues that arise and we may be in agreement on those and we may not. CCA may make some good moves and maybe an unpopular one. If the RFA made a decision that you don't agree with are you going to cancell your membership and refuse to support them, I hope not, but thats what you are doing here!

Just a thought, how would everyone here react if CCA did not make a statement or they came out with a statement to keep the State regs intact and the State chose to follow the Feds. Would we still have the TP&WD HAS LOST ITS WAY stickers or would we refuse to buy fishing license, what would be your recourse, just wondering! Gater


----------



## mamone (Jan 11, 2008)

jim smarr said:


> REEF
> 
> REBUILDING TIME FRAME FLEXIBILITY FOR SNAPPER
> 
> SEEMS WE ARE MULTI TASKING AT RFA


Hey are ya'll still doing the blockade at the jetties? if so i'm sure you could use snapp draggin's head as a battering ram.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

"Under no circumstance will you ever see NRA take the side of the antigun groups." 

Check out the 1989 Exec. Order - signed by Bush Sr. - with respect to importation of foreign assault weapons.


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*Texas Great Barrier Reef*



gater said:


> Turn their back on the membership, once again the membership is the ones making the call. I have disagreed with CCA on several issues over the years, and I disagree with them on this, however I will continue to support them not because of what they have done in the past but for what our future may bring.
> 
> *And as the coast gets more populated you can bet there will be imortant issues that arise and we may be in agreement on those and we may not.* CCA may make some good moves and maybe an unpopular one. If the RFA made a decision that you don't agree with are you going to cancell your membership and refuse to support them, I hope not, but thats what you are doing here!
> 
> Just a thought, how would everyone here react if CCA did not make a statement or they came out with a statement to keep the State regs intact and the State chose to follow the Feds. Would we still have the TP&WD HAS LOST ITS WAY stickers or would we refuse to buy fishing license, what would be your recourse, just wondering! Gater


Gater,
You brought up a good point - the populations along the coast will rise in the coming years. "Conservation" of any resource is only going to go so far.

Therefore, you need to generate more of a resource to meet the demand. Scientific, peer-reviewed evidence now shows that artificial reefs significantly enhance red snapper populations. Also, there is evidence that Alabama's reef system (which stretches along a coastline about equal to Freeport to Matagorda) not only has accounted for about 40% of the recreational TAC, it is SUSTAINABLE! Think about it - a 40+ mile strip of Gulf accounts for 40% of the recreationally-caught snapper, and it's sustainable?

Imagine if we replicated that success story across the entire Gulf - the results would be phenomonal.

The answer here in Texas?

*The Texas Great Barrier Reef!*


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

You are ether for recreactional fishermen or your not. If the CCA would do what they did with the redfish and push to list snapper as a gamefish they could make their current members and former members all happy. It looks as though it doesn't matter and the state regs. will remain the same. So hopefully they will have a change of heart and decide snapper fisheries are worth there time and we can get them listed as a gamefish and the eastern gulf might have a few snapper again. CCA wanted to be on the winning side so if the recreational fishermen won the battle to conviced TPWD to keep the regs. the same maybe cca will come over to the good side so they can take the credit.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

CCA used the data they had and made a decision that would in the long run help the fishery thus helping the recreational fishermen. Thus CCA is for the recreational fishermen as dlove just pointed out. Thanks for the headsup dude.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

mamone said:


> Hey are ya'll still doing the blockade at the jetties? if so i'm sure you could use snapp draggin's head as a battering ram.


Why don't you come by and pick me up to bring me there?


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

*Not fair!*

It wouldn't be fair to the boats in the blockade.


----------



## mamone (Jan 11, 2008)

Snap Draggin said:


> Why don't you come by and pick me up to bring me there?


Lol! yea last time i went to pick you up you never showed..lol this time you bring the beer buddy,when are we going fishing again? hada blast the last trip (beside you throwing up all over the boat)lol!!!!we'll take my boat yours is getting tired.call ME buddy!..


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> Why don't you come by and pick me up to bring me there?


What's wrong, the tires flat on your Huffy?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> It wouldn't be fair to the boats in the blockade.


OK Poc, don't start no **** and there won't be any ****.:slimer:


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> CCA used the data they had and made a decision that would in the long run help the fishery thus helping the recreational fishermen. Thus CCA is for the recreational fishermen as dlove just pointed out. Thanks for the headsup dude.


Fight the fight Pocboy but at what point are you going to give it up. CCA has already stated that they are for conservation not rec fisherman. They were the first to promote a MPA in texas waters and thats when I quit promoting them. In a very short time they will do it again. Times chage and the big bucks (what they are concerned about) is in inviro/conservation not rec fisherman. You really need to look out west to see what they will be taking away from anglers here in texas. Not one frekin penny out of my hand will ever go to support a MPA How bout you?

edited/addition
Pocboy, Not bashing you at all!!! I think the members of CCA are great and do donate a lot of time and $$ But they really need to think where things are heading. There will only be 2 sides in the comming MPA wars.


----------



## easy1 (Jan 21, 2008)

I'm done with CCA.


----------



## Mako Mike (Jun 8, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> dlove, ... I'm no sheep, but you are certainly a goat.


I am offeneded to continually be reading your comments of other members during this and other discussions.

To the other members: Argue your points without insulting the man or the messenger.

Pocboy. I am annoyed at anyone that stands behind an argument that is so obviously false and far removed from fact. "CCA used the data they had" - Gathered by whom, gathered how, how much research? If you look even haphazardly over your shoulder you can see the inaccuracies in the collection methods that will point out the FACT that the data is invalid due to those very methods. And they didn't "have the data"... NMFS gave them the data.

Effect? Based on this data, NMFS pushed and got recreational reductions for red snapper, touting conservation... while simultaneously allowing commercials more ease. I am all for conservation, heck, a total moratorium is possible if it were that bad. But you don't push recreational reductions one hand while simultaneously making it easier for commercials to pilliage the resource on the other and say you are doing it for reasons of conservation.

CCA supports what NMFS pushed. That is why we all feel so violated. You can be mad about a mass defection, but truth is it isn't defection, it is getting on board with an organization that has a better way to address this issue.

Their first position is this: Be fair. And they are willing to go to the mat for that position. This is why they are getting drug through the mud.
Their second position is this... reduction in limits is conservation... this doesn't help to cultiavate and replenish the resource, be proactive and make it as easy as possible for red snapper to rebound.

So, be fair with regulations and be proactive about replenishing the resource is the best argument I have seen. They have already received my $100.

CCA outirhgt insulted me, and expected me to take it laying down. I do my own research. False data can never be touted as accurate data. Enough has been said on that I will not beat a dead horse.

What I can't figure out is why CCA isn't co-sponsoring the TGBR... it is exactly what they do and why they ever got my money money to develope habitat and cultivate the resource!

My only conclusion is this. Due to the limitations of CCA's interest (I have a feeling if it doens't swim float or fly in a bay, that CCA really isn't interested), red snapper have just fallen off their radar and they were too easily convinced to back the NMFS push for recreation reductions. They should have asked the obvious questions. When they come back on their own website, in full public quarum, and say what was said... to me at least... they loose all credibility.

I don't care what they did 20 years ago... I don't care what they did last year... I want to know what they are going to do. I don't donate based on what was done, but what will be done. And it has to make sense. I used to say I would always be a CCA member for STAR and what they do with children's scholarships. Then the children's scholarships were decreased and the whole truck/boat prizes stayed the same... that did it for me.

Keep your opinion of me to yourself if you wouldn't mind. I respect your willingness to offer an opposing side to this argument, but just like I told some very important people recently... when you attack people opposing your message, your message looses all credibility.

That is part of the human condition and a societal fact. Now... Imma throw you some green for reading down this far!


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Good for you easy. Now my chance to catch that tagged red this year just went up.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

OK guys seems the same folks on the board when I left earlier and yall still there..

heres the prices I got on bumper stickers,

125 (96 cents each) $120 bucks
250 (60 cents each) $150 bucks
500 (40 cents each) $200 bucks
1000 (27 cents each) $270 bucks

Whats yall's pleasure ?

Another note.. I caution all yall out there to not let this get down to the name calling ****. 
Mont has left this particular post up to allow some discussion on a serious matter. I promise if it gets out of hand it will be gone.. 

Charlie


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

*He started it!*

Mako, point taken, but if you look at his post he called me a sheep and I'm just not going to let anyone do that, whether it's true or not. Tom


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

I think it might have been Ben Franklin who opined, "tis better to ride a poor horse in search of a good one than get down and walk." So before you kill off CCA for their red snapper position, you might want to find somebody to keep all these other balls rolling...

UTMSI Larviculture Research Lab - $700,000

Shrimp License Buyback - $200,000

TPWD Game Warden equipment - $83,352

Graduate-Level Scholarships - $40,000

Bob Brister Scholarship - $40,000

Red Snapper Recreational Mortality Study - $37,000

Bahia Grande Interior Channels - $35,000

Port Mansfield East Cut Study - $32,000

Hatchery Calorimeter Equipment - $25,000

UTMSI Snook Research - $30,500

Tripletail Studies - $20,000

Galveston Marsh Restoration - $20,000

Navigation Equipment Coastal Fisheries- $17,400

Otolith Sawing Equipment TPWD - $16,000

TPWD Equipment for Flounder Studies - $13,875

Texas A&M Intern Program - $11,260

TPWD Range Finding Equipment - $7,500

TPWD Generators - $7,500

Crab Trap Cleanup - $6,000

*Total for 2006-2007 - $1,342, 387*

_Please note, these funds were all raised by the 46,000-or so members of CCA-TX and spent in Texas on Texas projects during years 2006 and 2007. This is what CCA-TX has done for us lately. Has any other group or organization come anywhere close?_


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

How many would it take to cover a 26' boat??LOL


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

[email protected]

Yup lots of good stuff there. Also some stuff that CCA takes credit for (money wise) that is donated by vendors etc. But thats OK. They have done lots of good things in the past. All I am saying is on the Snapper issue "they have lost their way". I keep hearing they used data available. Yes they did but they knew all along it was not accurate. Maybe Russell Nelson kept the correct info from them I dont know.

Charlie


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

wacker said:


> Fight the fight Pocboy but at what point are you going to give it up. CCA has already stated that they are for conservation not rec fisherman. They were the first to promote a MPA in texas waters and thats when I quit promoting them. In a very short time they will do it again. Times chage and the big bucks (what they are concerned about) is in inviro/conservation not rec fisherman. You really need to look out west to see what they will be taking away from anglers here in texas. Not one frekin penny out of my hand will ever go to support a MPA How bout you?
> 
> edited/addition
> Pocboy, Not bashing you at all!!! I think the members of CCA are great and do donate a lot of time and $$ But they really need to think where things are heading. There will only be 2 sides in the comming MPA wars.


Mr. Wacker,
You hit the nail on the head sir. CCA is for the fishery. Which is for the fishermen, in an indirect way. That is the reason I am not going to give it up. 
Respecfully,
Liz


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*Cca Has Lost Its Way*



CHARLIE said:


> OK guys seems the same folks on the board when I left earlier and yall still there..
> 
> heres the prices I got on bumper stickers,
> 
> ...


Charlie,
I say we go for 1,000 stickers - that's a good start.
Put me in for $40. Where do I send it?
Duplantis


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Charlie - From what I'm told all funds shown here were raised via member effort. I know with 100% certainity that the $700,000 for UTMSI Larviculture Lab was 100% member funded and is therefore named the CCA-Texas Laboratory for Larviculture. I attended the dedication ceremony. No corp or gov $$$ and nobody's name on the building except CCA-Texas.

So - it is your opinion that as regards red snapper they've lost their way; fine sir... you have every right to that opinion. But who will take their place on all the other issues if you kill them off? That's my question.

One other point... 2006 and 2007 would be not too distant past.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Mako Mike said:


> Pocboy. I am annoyed at anyone that stands behind an argument that is so obviously false and far removed from fact. "CCA used the data they had" - Gathered by whom, gathered how, how much research? If you look even haphazardly over your shoulder you can see the inaccuracies in the collection methods that will point out the FACT that the data is invalid due to those very methods. And they didn't "have the data"... NMFS gave them the data.
> 
> CCA outirhgt insulted me, and expected me to take it laying down. I do my own research. False data can never be touted as accurate data. Enough has been said on that I will not beat a dead horse.
> 
> I don't care what they did 20 years ago... I don't care what they did last year...


Hey Mike,
I have a hard time understanding why you have a problem with their data. They have to work with what they have. You wouldn't want them to make up data now would you? When you did your own research, did you have a control? What did you base your data on, seasons, water depth, structure, moon cycles, water salinity, water temperature, in state waters or federal waters, from sabine to brownsville, or all of the above? The point I am trying to make is, research done by biologists, wether paid for by the state, or by NMFS, is what these entities use. Yes, it might be inaccurate, but it is what it is.
And just in case you are interested in what they did last year, read the above post by Capt. EJ.
Respecfully,
Liz


----------



## c1 (Jan 11, 2006)

[email protected], How much of the money listed in your post directly goes into Red Snapper research? I'm just curious. And what is the money going towards? I have never came accross a research vessel in the Gulf of Mexico for Red Snapper. I really do appreciate your post, but it is not real clear how the money is helping Red Snapper fishery research.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

[email protected]

I keep "trying to kill them off" not true, I couldnt if I wanted too. I am saying there must be some accountability there for a bad mistake. Like (as you have heard) hold their feet to the fire. Thats all period. Someone to take their place ? Well I dont know but times do change as CCA has. I just think they need to get back on track. And I didnt say all the funds I said some of the funds. Glad you were at the dedication. 
And I honestly think that their Dr. Nelson from Florida may be part of the problem. 
Maybe too many eggs in one basket. 

Liz
Dont forget CCA's employee or he works for CCA Dr. Russell Nelson. He's straight from Florida and used to work for Florida Fish and wildlife. Texas is not Florida a totally different habitat and should not be regulated the same.
CCA is trying too hard to accomidate the other State's chapters. IMHO. 


Charlie


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

In addition Mr. Mako, since you seem to have read all of my posts you will hopefully remember that I stated several times that I did not agree with CCA's stance on this issue but that I would not stay silent while people maligned the organization. You have your views and I have mine but I don't have to stay quiet and my opinion here is just as important as yours. If someone takes a poke at me I will poke back.


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

chicapesca said:


> Mr. Wacker,
> You hit the nail on the head sir. CCA is for the fishery. Which is for the fishermen, in an indirect way. That is the reason I am not going to give it up.
> Respecfully,
> Liz


So when they say we need 30% of the gulf to be a MPA for the good of the fishery even though there is no reasonable data to prove that this will help in any way you will roll with that too? 
There record on the snapper thing is really poor, For years they raised money using the shrimper boat gig and now that is pretty much a dead horse so now they want to beat up on the very hand that feeds them even though they know the data is wrong. Siding with the inviros and letting the comms rape year round. This is just getting stupid.

EJ, since you have all #s go a head and post the salarys, trips, and fixed assets gained for 07 too.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

C1, as you've probably noticed CCA tends to devote it's resources towards coastal fishes and not too much towards offshore. As I stated earlier, maybe someone needs to start an organization, much like GCCA was when it started, that is devoted mainly to snapper. Maybe money could be spent and donated towards something like that instead of buying bumper stickers. Now I'm sorry if that offends anyone but that is just the way I feel.


----------



## Aggie (May 27, 2004)

A recreational mortality study for the rec fisherman. This was prob funded by cca's commercial friends. Can you imagine the benefits cca could afford us if they put the same money towards funding a 'study' like this for the commercial snapper fleet. Not only would it show the devastation from the commercials to the fishery but the commercials would also not be able to cheat while they had an observer on board. 

Only problem i see is this would severly upset their commercial friends in the snapper industry and much of their funding could disapear.


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

I don't really think anyone is trying to kill cca we just want them to wake up and fight for us(the texas offshore fishermen). If we can reduce membership by a few thousand they might start to think about change. If not at least we are supporting a group who will RFA Texas. 

I'll buy fifty bucks worth of stickers send me a PM of were to send it.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> C1, as you've probably noticed CCA tends to devote it's resources towards coastal fishes and not too much towards offshore. As I stated earlier, maybe someone needs to start an organization, much like GCCA was when it started, that is devoted mainly to snapper. Maybe money could be spent and donated towards something like that instead of buying bumper stickers. Now I'm sorry if that offends anyone but that is just the way I feel.


I agree that historically, CCA has focused more on inshore than offshore, but to be fair, if you look at the first page of the CCA website, they promote Red Snapper as a "fishery focus". It is not as if the red snapper issue got lost in the focus because they were only paying attention to inshore. I agree with you on where we should be spending our money and focus. I would rather spend my money towards getting the TGBR built than to buy a bumpersticker blasting CCA or any other organization deserved or not.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Pocboy.

Certainly doesent offend me. Heck I hope something comes of this like the GCCA was in its heyday. Never can tell huh.. You never responded to my post regarding Im trying to kill CCA. Thats so far from the truth its hilarious. I couldnt do it even if I wanted. Just a little accountability thats all. Im speaking of the Snapper issue only !!Try and help them get back on track. Something to get their attention. They are appearing to me to be "untouchable" but let me assure you there not.. I have to do my thing and if I fail well at least I tried. If I didnt I wouldnt be worth 2 cents. At least in my eyes.

Charlie


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Aggie: The study is funded by CCA Texas member donations, conducted by University of Texas Marine Science Institute (Dr. Joan and Dr. Scott Holt), to determine mortality following hook and line capture. 

A similar study was funded by CCA-Texas in 2003 (maybe 2004) to provide post release mortality for spotted seatrout. The seatrout study was conducted by Dr. Greg Stunz of Texas A&M Corpus Christi and provided valuable data for resource managers. Hopefully the snapper study will prove equally valuable. Drs. Joan and Scott Holt have earned world-wide acclaim for their works at UTMSI.


----------



## Aggie (May 27, 2004)

I understand the purpose behind the study.....


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Charlie, of course you're not trying to kill CCA. I just got a little riled up and sometimes when that happens I let the keys fly a little too easily. Like the song says "you do your thing and I'll do mine".


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

I don't need a funded study to tell you when I let them go flipper eats them.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mako Mike said:


> I am offeneded to continually be reading your comments of other members during this and other discussions.
> 
> To the other members: Argue your points without insulting the man or the messenger.
> 
> ...


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Pocboy

Yup, I understand been there and done that. Good fishing.

Charlie


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Aggie said - "I understand the purpose behind the study."

I say - "Good. Now that we have that part of it cleared up, do you also understand who paid for it and who is conducting it?"

The reason for my answering you is very simple... The study was created with honest intent, funded by honest dollars that were contributed by honest people, and the study is being conducted by one of the finest research teams in the world. It would be sad if somebody gained a poor impression of it.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Snap, please indicate to me where I made this personal.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Mako, point taken, but if you look at his post he called me a sheep and I'm just not going to let anyone do that, whether it's true or not. Tom


Yeah Poc, I agree with that, but think back. You know you have done some name calling and such in the past. I know you have because some of it was directed at me.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

wacker said:


> So when they say we need 30% of the gulf to be a MPA for the good of the fishery even though there is no reasonable data to prove that this will help in any way you will roll with that too?


Mr. Wacker,Would you please reference this for me? Thank you,Liz


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Snap, please indicate to me where I made this personal.


I would have to dig through the posts, but there was a lot of name calling and unnecessary things said by you in the thread I posted about boycotting CCA. You know you did it, so let's just start new with a clean slate OK. Like I said I think you are better and smarter than parkerb. I would put you on top of that sludge at worst. :biggrin:


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

EJ

There have been studies done but as you know there is a problem coming from Florida. They state there is no problem with hook and line mortality. Could it be the water depth or Russell Nelson? As you know the mortality rate in the offshore areas (water beyond say 100 ft) there is a serious mortality rate. Probably more like 75 to 80 %. yet folks (CCA included) allow commercials to keep 13 inch fish and recreationals have to keep only 16 in fish. Now folks say (Feds) and CCA supports their regulations, say there is a serious problem with recreational bycatch, mortality, duh really Dick Tracy. This is just some of the scientist's stuff we have to deal with. You think thats good data ? 

Charlie


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

What happenned in past posts has nothing to do with what is going on here. You and I were both guilty of that in the past. In this thread I have only "name called" once in response to something directed at me. I have poked, prodded, pried and even cajoled to make a point but if I am taken to task I will and have owned up to it. As for MM, he apparently has greater issues than me to deal with.


----------



## mamone (Jan 11, 2008)

Snap Draggin said:


> Mako Mike said:
> 
> 
> > I am offeneded to continually be reading your comments of other members during this and other discussions.
> ...


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

A few offshore fishermen in Texas are not going to kill CCA, POCBOY. Rest easy about that. 

I wouldn't mind if they did, but it's not going to happen. However, offshore fishermen of the Eastern Gulf and the Atlantic Seaboard definitely need to be informed. 

CCA is not "bravely standing up for the resource against the greedy recreational fishermen" as their noble propaganda would have you believe. I expect that we will see a great deal of cooperation between CCA, commercial interests, and NMFS soon benefitting Florida fishermen (commercial AND recreational), brokered by Russell Nelson - payback for their support of the NMFS and the commercials AGAINST recreational fishermen, in Texas. 

There's nothing altruistic about CCAs stance on this issue at all. It's dishonest and destructive to the resource, and they know it. 

I'm in for $30 worth of stickers, Charlie.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Here is the issue as I see it. 
CCA has political and financial influence with not only TPWD but NMFS. NMFS CAN actually take over the State fisheries per Magnuson Stevens after informing them of the descrepancy of State and Federal regulations and giving TPWD the opportunity to change it. 
CCA has been outspoken about Reducing Rec limits.
CCA states Snapper are not doing well.
CCA states Snapper "swim" and that is why Texas Snapper need further restrictions. This goes against SEVERAL peer reviewed research papers that I've displayed in other posts.
CCA states that fisherman who go by TPWD data and some of the best peer reviewed literature are "narrow minded"

For this I think CCA should either be dissolved or stay out of Red Snapper fisheries. One or the other, there are no other compromises for me. As long as CCA continues to push incorrect research and PETA-esk propaganda, they are the enemy of fisherman anywhere. Today it's red snapper, next week AJ, after that...redfish are limited to 1 fish?

Ironically they have redfish and spotted sea trout, BOTH under strick managment due to fishing pressure, as classes in thier KILL tournament. Sounds like good practices there!


----------



## easy1 (Jan 21, 2008)

Is this about Red Snapper? or someone's feelings getting hurt?...geez


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Robwade, CCA has already taken the initiative to protect AJ. I was wondering, is STAR the only KILL tournament that takes place on the coast? I was thinking that there were probably 2 or 3 more but I'm not sure. When I go to the banquet meeting tomorrow night I'll see if they want to take a vote in S.A. to dissolve CCA or not.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

*What has CCA ever done:*

_UTMSI and CCA Texas celebrate the grand opening of the newly built 3,000 square-foot CCA Texas Laboratory for Marine Larviculture. The lab was funded by a $700,000 gift from CCA Texas. This facility will enhance what is already one of the most advanced marine research facilities in the world (2007)._

*A project that has removed tons of debris and trash from Texas bays and beaches officially turned to gold when Coastal Conservation Association Texas' Bay Debris Cleanup program received the 2007 Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Award bestowed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) (2007).** Money came in grant **from GLO. CCA again takes credit for job well done using other peoples money and claiming total Credit. Jerry Patterson made funds available. *

_CCA Texas provided over $75,000 in funding for TPWD awareness and equipment (2006)._

_CCA Texas made a $200,000 commitment to the TexasParks and Wildlife Department bay and bait shrimp license buyback program resulting in healthier and more productive ecosystems (2006). _

_CCA Texas funds $20,000 for the Galveston Marsh Restoration project (2006)._

_In the May 2005 issue of Field & Stream, writer John Merwin selects 50 legends of fishing, choosing among writers, showmen, teachers, conservationists, innovators, and tycoons. Under the section dedicated to The Conservationists, CCA National Chairman Walter Fondren heads the list for his part in the creation of the GulfCoast Conservation Association in 1976 and in guiding its evolution into the national Coastal Conservation Association (2005) __Jack Cowan was the man that started GCCA w__hile fishing with Perry R. Bass. These two did work out he redfish bill. Cowans idea. Mr. Bass provided funding and legal help. Walter was not around. The legend o__f Walter is way blown out of proportion North of the Copano Causeway. The legend seems to grow in Houston but history is well known here. We laugh about what Walter has become._

_CCA Texas contributes $60,000 for the Bahia Grande Dredging Project (2005)._

_CCA Texas sponsored over $17,300 in supporting Texas A&M Flounders Study (2005)._

_CCA Texas exceeds $500,000 in funding for TPWD enforcement equipment and research (2004). __Wow 17,857.14 a year._

_CCATexasBigBay Debris Cleanup I and II surpass 1,150 tons of debris removed from bay systems from AransasPass to Baffin Bay (2004). __Seems the General Land Office's Coastal Coordination Council gave CCA 500,000 for this project. GLO or Jerry Patterson got very little if any mention. They were embarrassed when RFA was there in the room to thank GLO for the Funding after they had touted as them spending their own money. CCA again working on Other Peoples Money._

_TexasA&MUniversity at Corpus Christi scholarship funded, marking the fourth fully endowed CCA Texas graduate-level scholarship. The other three scholarships are awarded at Texas A&M University at Galveston, TAMU-College Station and the University of Texas Marine Science Institute in Port Aransas (2004). _

_CCA Texas State of Texas Anglers Rodeo exceeds $2 million mark in college scholarships awarded (2003). __Funding from corporate_ donations not membership dollars. OPM again

_First-ever abandoned crab trap pick up removes more than 8,000 derelict traps from Texas bays, setting the stage for additional successful events in following years (2002). __Using other peoples money ,boats and claiming they did it._

_Successfully lobbied for the passage of SB 1410, which allows TPWD to establish a closed season for the use of crab traps in Texas public waters (2001). _

_Bycatch reduction devices become mandatory on shrimp trawls in Texas bays (2000). __Bottled Nose D_olphin have learned to use the BYRDS as a cafeteria eating almost everything being excluded. Video is available to back this statement up. Gary Graham filmed the dolphin interaction. CCA still ignores BRD's are not a useful tool 

Just a dolphin lunch ticket.

_Successfully lobbied for passage of SB 1303, granting authority to Texas Parks Wildlife Department to establish a limited-entry license management program (1999). _

_First comprehensive state water plan passes Texas Legislature (1997). __Humans will always prevail in the water wars in the future. Money wasted that could have been used to open natural fish passes to insure bay water quality._

_Use of bycatch reduction devices mandated in Gulf shrimp trawls (1997) __Shrimp Bycatch reduction devices have shown to be worthless, The Bottle Nose dolphin has learned to eat everything exiting the vents. Further more the removal of longliners inshore to the 50 fathom curve allowed the 0 to 2 year old Red Snapper to rebound dramaticly two years prior to BYRD's being implemented. Commercial Long lines were a much more devastating problem than shrimpers due to killing breeders. CCA seems to ignore commercial longliners in the equation._ 

_Sea CenterTexas hatchery in Lake Jackson completed (1996). _

_Leading the charge to ensure sufficient freshwater inflows into Texas bays and estuaries (1995 - present). __Humans will win out over fish on freshwater inflows. Opening all Coastal Passes would have been the best long tern solution._

_Successfully lobbied for the passage of HB1301 banning the sale of naturally raised, wild redfish was signed into law. Law eliminates market for redfish, except those that are farm-raised (1989). _

_Commercial harvest of adult redfish halted in the Gulf of Mexico (1986). _

_Construction of the CCA/AEP Marine Development Center - Flour Bluff completed (1982). _

_Obtained gamefish status for redfish and speckled trout (1981). _

_Single-strand monofilament nets outlawed in Texas waters (1980). _

_Founded as GCCA, creating the now famous "Save the Redfish" campaign (1977). _


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Charlie - Please, let's not mix issues, your reference to other programs and other data are really quite a ways off track. The study referenced in the 2006-2007 list of CCA-Texas projects included a snapper mortality study. In fact, the study is ready to kick off right now, I'm told. The program was originally slated to go last fall but got delayed due to problems with UT's research vessel. Perhaps you might want to contact the Holts at UTMSI? They may welcome your input, they may even invite you to participate. I was invited to participate in a tripletail project this past summer. I donated several days on the water in my boat, tackle, and other gear. It was fun.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

chicapesca said:


> Hey Mike,
> I have a hard time understanding why you have a problem with their data. They have to work with what they have. You wouldn't want them to make up data now would you? When you did your own research, did you have a control? What did you base your data on, seasons, water depth, structure, moon cycles, water salinity, water temperature, in state waters or federal waters, from sabine to brownsville, or all of the above? The point I am trying to make is, research done by biologists, wether paid for by the state, or by NMFS, is what these entities use. Yes, it might be inaccurate, but it is what it is.
> And just in case you are interested in what they did last year, read the above post by Capt. EJ.
> Respecfully,
> Liz


Liz
TPWD has 30 years of data, all of which has baseline numbers, historical data, trawl numbers and several other factors. ALL of which states Texas Red Snapper numbers are INCREASING at their current rates. TPWD has more data the CCA could ask for in state waters. CCA choses to ignore this data and use **** for thier reasoning. Why would CCA not support TPWD even after all the work they have done with them?


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Rowade*

Since when are Trout and Redfish under strict management. Its comments like these that make you scratch your head. By the way disd you see the press release on CCA's stance with the Amberjack. Gater


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Robwade, CCA has already taken the initiative to protect AJ. I was wondering, is STAR the only KILL tournament that takes place on the coast? I was thinking that there were probably 2 or 3 more but I'm not sure. When I go to the banquet meeting tomorrow night I'll see if they want to take a vote in S.A. to dissolve CCA or not.


Pocboy They are the only tournament sponsor who kill fish, then want to take recreational limits lower due to......killed fish. Would you think it's a smart choice to sponsor hell, CREATE the LARGEST kill tournament featureing 2 or 3 of the fish species which YOUR .org states are in the biggest trouble? Kinda like crapping in your hand and complaining about the smell!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> What happenned in past posts has nothing to do with what is going on here. You and I were both guilty of that in the past. In this thread I have only "name called" once in response to something directed at me. I have poked, prodded, pried and even cajoled to make a point but if I am taken to task I will and have owned up to it. As for MM, he apparently has greater issues than me to deal with.


OK, here's the deal. Gater rants and raves with the best of us, but he does it with facts. I know you have posted facts as well, but you do throw personal jabs in there a lot. I realize you are passionate as I already stated. We are as well, but just keep it to facts and no personal jabs OK. You don't want to be considered in the same low or no class as mamone and parkerb do you? Think about the PM you sent me and let's keep it to facts and no jabs OK. That is all I am asking. I know I have been guilty of the same, but it was only after someone attacked me personally.

I have mamone and parkerb on my ignore list. I cannot see what they post in any thread nor can I receive any PM's from them. You are better than that. I know because you have enough class to apologize from time to time. Just think about what you are about to write. If it is something jabbing or attacking someone personally please do not write it OK.

I would like to ask that of EVERYONE. Like Charlie said, Mont will close this thread down if it gets dirty. If everyone on here will just ignore parkerb and mamone everything will be just fine. Think of them as a screaming crying baby. If you ignore them they quit. If you pay attention to them they keep on screaming and crying. I believe those two DEFINITELY fit in the crybaby category, and neither has any class at all. The rest of us need to show some class and keep it clean OK.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

gater said:


> Since when are Trout and Redfish under strict management. Its comments like these that make you scratch your head. By the way disd you see the press release on CCA's stance with the Amberjack. Gater


Yes and everyone on here commended them for it; however they are DEAD WRONG about Red Snapper. If they would just recant and concede we would not be pushing so hard against them.

Hey Poc, how about starting a petition of ALL members in Texas that are against their stance on Red Snapper? If you would rather me do it I can. Let me know what you think about that.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

rodwade said:


> Why would CCA not support TPWD even after all the work they have done with them?


Rodwade, I guess they disagree with some of those numbers you mentioned. CCA does support TPWD, but on this issue, they have to go with what they feel they need to go with. I'm willing to bet they work with TPWD on things you and I aren't privy to. 
Respecfully,
Liz


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

EJ didnt mean to mix projects just stating it has already been done before. I hope the new test will be more accurate and beneficial. I certainly can provide some input on this issue from over 50 years fishing for Snapper but since my name does not end with PHD seems no one wants to listen. I have been there and done that. I hope re inventing the wheel will come up with factual information and I am shure it will. A Texas project will be great if we just did a Texas thing but as you know NMFS governs the entire Gulf and its two, maybe three different habitats. 

Re providing time, boat, etc. Myself and Gary Graham took the then head of NMFS and showed him where and how the brood stock snapper lived and that they should be counted in the stock surveys. He didnt have a clue and not until recently did they even acknowlege they existed. They stilldont count them. PS check out the increase of longliner landings in the past few years. Thats another part of the problem. 

Sorry if I come off a little rough around the edges sometimes its just I have fought many years regarding our snapper and its getting worse. I bet you wouldnt let NMF's manage your money cuz you would be broke . Good fishing

Charlie


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Rob, are you implying that none of these fish would be caught and eaten if the STAR did not exist. STAR gives people who are already fishing the opportunity cash in if they happen to get lucky. So now there are thousands of people who are fishing during the STAR tournament that would not normally be fishing? I don't think so.


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

Since when are Trout and Redfish under strict management.

Well there is an 8inch slot and only three fish limit and trout have just recently been added to the slot rule and bag limit cut in half in the lower laguna madre. I would say it is very restricted. if they are doing such a great job why do the slots and bag limits keep getting smaller. It seems to me if a fishery is recovering they would make the limits more liberal. Wrong they will never increase a bag limit of slot limit only continue to shrink it more and more. The feds are wanting to make AJ 1/2 per person exactly how does that work.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

gater said:


> Since when are Trout and Redfish under strict management. Its comments like these that make you scratch your head. By the way disd you see the press release on CCA's stance with the Amberjack. Gater


Gater you're kidding right? You call the current 3 fish limit on redfish and the ever closing keeper "slot" as well as the new regulations for Southern Waters south of Marker 21 and the one oversized fish limit? You wouldn't call that strict management?

yes....I find it odd..Commercials are the problem with AJ's but not red snapper. Jeeze are we not seeing the forrest through the trees? AJ's don't have the financial impact Red Snapper do to Recreational Fisherman and the Headboats.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Snap, I don't fish for snapper so it is not high on my priority to start a petition.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

CHARLIE said:


> OK guys seems the same folks on the board when I left earlier and yall still there..
> 
> heres the prices I got on bumper stickers,
> 
> ...


How many are you planning on getting Charlie? I will probably start off with 125 and get more as I am getting low. Please let me know. If we all get together and buy in bulk one time we can do better.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Well from the info im getting I think we should start with 1,000

Charlie


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

dlove,

It wouldn't have anything to do with more people fishing would it? 

Recreational fishing and deer hunting here in Texas are similar in that respect. 

Though there is no problem with the herd, it is getting much more difficult from an economic stand point to hunt because there are so many more people with big bucks($) coming into it raising lease rates. 

With fishing, all forms, inshore and offshore, there has been an increase in activity on the recreational side, more fish have not magically appeared, so down the road each of us will have to take less. 

I can't remember the last time I walked a shoreline alone in the bay, or had a rig or rock offshore to my self for any period of time.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Snap, I don't fish for snapper so it is not high on my priority to start a petition.


I understand, but you are talking about making a difference from within. I as well as many others are not going to be within any longer, so I figured you could take the members and get one going. No problem, I will do it.

If anyone on here wants me to get up a petition please e-mail me your name. I will put it on a Word document, print it out and deliver it to the president of my local chapter. My personal address is [email protected]. Please feel free to send your name if you disagree with CCA on their stance on Red Snapper, and are a member or was planning to be until this issue came up. I will type some sort of paragraph stating why all the names are on there. Maybe you could put cancelled when you send me your name if you plan on cancelling your membership. I will even start a thread about the petition. Let's hope there are so many names my printer runs out of ink LOL.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

willyhuntin

See thats the thought process it sounds good but recreationals have progessively taken less over the years and rite now the Commeercials are Snapper fishing on their "honor" year around 24/365. Nope its not rite..

Charlie


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

willyhunting said:


> dlove,
> 
> It wouldn't have anything to do with more people fishing would it?
> 
> ...


I would like to throw my two cents in on that one if you don't mind. Red Snapper do not get pressured by recs that badly any more out of my home port. Mainly due to gas prices, low limits and short seasons in federal waters.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Rob, are you implying that none of these fish would be caught and eaten if the STAR did not exist. STAR gives people who are already fishing the opportunity cash in if they happen to get lucky. So now there are thousands of people who are fishing during the STAR tournament that would not normally be fishing? I don't think so.


LOL 
You can't have it both ways....you claim they give away THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of dollars in trucks, boats and scholarships...now you want to say that people wouldn't be compelled to fish because of them? You can't have it both ways! If you belive people don't go fishing to try and get the rewards, you probably belive that people would play slot machines even if they didn't pay out!


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

Charlie, 

I speaking of overall population dynamics of fishery participants.

Don't misinterprete that to mean that i don't believe Snapper management is FUBAR.

When this fishery has been managed to kill 28 millon pounds of fish for 9 millon yield for the 10 years preceding this one, this is the boat we fall into. Discard mortality is the culprit in this, not the activity of fishing it self.

I am with you on the snapper issue.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Rowade*

Nope I'm not kidding, I'm serious. Gater


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

There are more people fishing but with more breeder size fish and all the hatchery fish and no commercial harvest. There are plenty of fish out there most of the folks out there now days are burning fuel and wasting time. Just sit at the cleaning stand and watch. What I'm saying is if TPWD caves into the 2 fish fed. limit we will never see it go back up it will just get smaller no matter how many fish are out there and how many studies say the fishery is fully recovered. protect it or loose it


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

dlove said:


> There are more people fishing but with more breeder size fish and all the hatchery fish and no commercial harvest. There are plenty of fish out there most of the folks out there now days are burning fuel and wasting time. Just sit at the cleaning stand and watch. What I'm saying is if TPWD caves into the 2 fish fed. limit we will never see it go back up it will just get smaller no matter how many fish are out there and how many studies say the fishery is fully recovered. protect it or loose it


I am not sure if you are aware of this or not, but the decision has already been made by TP&WD. They told the NMFS to take a hike.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

CHARLIE said:


> Well from the info im getting I think we should start with 1,000
> 
> Charlie


PM me and let me know how to get the money to you for what I owe OK.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Williehuntin

Yes there is big problems with mortality rate. commrcials are allowed 13 inch fish and recreationals 16. Whats wrong with that picture. We now havve PHD's saying the recreational mortality bycatch is the problem. Were killing too many fish Duh Dick Tracy what a investigator. How about an equal size limit or the first 5 or 6 or more fish caught. Heck you would kill way less fish that way. Oh well I wish I was PHD so I could understand. Im such a big dummy. Good fishing
All right no comments on the big dummy thing. Ha

Charlie


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

I knew that I just worded it wrong I meant if they would have caved. Which is what cca wanted and why I will not re up my membership or my wifes or my sons.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Hey everyone, I posted a new thread about a petition for CCA. I would appreciate it if everyone that is against their stance would sign it. It does not matter to me if you are a staunch supporter or not. If you are against their stance please sign the petition. I would like to thank everyone in advance for their cooperation and participation.


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*Texas Great Barrier Reef*



willyhunting said:


> dlove,
> 
> It wouldn't have anything to do with more people fishing would it?
> 
> ...


willyhunting,
Don't automatically resign yourself to ever-reduced seasons and bag limits. Yes, the populations along the coast will rise in the coming years. However, "conservation" of any resource is only going to go so far.

You can to generate more of this resource (Red Snapper) to meet the demand. Scientific, peer-reviewed evidence now shows that artificial reefs significantly enhance red snapper populations. Also, there is evidence that Alabama's reef system (which stretches along a coastline about equal to Freeport to Matagorda) not only has accounted for about 40% of the recreational TAC, it is SUSTAINABLE! Think about it - a 40+ mile strip of Gulf accounts for 40% of the recreationally-caught snapper, and it's sustainable?

Imagine if we replicated that success story across the entire Gulf - the results would be phenomonal.

The answer here in Texas?

*The Texas Great Barrier Reef!*


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Rob, if STAR did not exist do you think that there would be less people fishing at the coast and keeping big fish of any kind? People join STAR because they are going to the coast to fish and hopefully get lucky. They do not spend their $15 and fish every weekend to get their money's worth. If you ever fished STAR did you plan an extra weekend or two to increase your chances? I doubt it very seriously. People fish when they can.


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

Charlie,

I would be all for a first 5, but to the council, the only fish that count are to ones 'landed' that is why we have 16" limit, we would land the Tac so fast with the first 5 that we would have 40-60 fishing days. These idiots do not take into account the fish that are slaughtered through mortality discards when we fish longer under a size and bag limit of 2.

Someone brought up Dr Joan Holt and studies conducted out of Aransas. One done at the tail end of '99 on head boats showed that on average in late Sept/october out of Galveston you had a catch to landing ratio of 218:1. 218 discards to "land" a legal fish, assuming a 50% moratlity rate (many here, as do I, believe it to be higher) of the discards, 109 fish were killed to "land" 1. Here in lies the problem.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

POC yes I DID fish star and I WOULD target the species which has the most openings or that I had the best chance of winning. Would I still fish sure, but I can definatly tell you I'd target a better tasting fish then redfish if I didn't think that there was still 5 more boat/truck combos out there. Why do you think people pay $15 unless they had some hope they would win? Do you not think people will try what ever means possible to get a winning fish?


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

Duplantis,

I am all over habitat, This needs to be everyones highest priority. The bottleneck in this whole thing is structure. 

Truth be told(it is a stretch in fisheries management) Snapper populations are not at 3% historical levels(CCA), with the amount of man made structure in the gulf one should be able to reason that it is at all time highs. pressure is aswell, so the only way out is to add more habitat and correct flawed mangement techniques.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Snagged*

Jack Cowan and Perry Bass started CCA and Walter Fondren was not around...where did you get that misguided info! Gater


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Willy
I also would push for hook size and type regulations for commercials, larger hooks would be less bycatch. Seems reasonable for recs as well. We could reduce our smaller fish by useing larger hooks/bait. I also think TPWD(which get's fed funding to mangage fed regulations) should put aside certain calender days (known only to them) to make runs out to commerical fishing vessals. Institute a mandatory reporting system similar to Crab fisheries in Alaska, and any undocumented fish when boarded would be fined at 5-10x the commercial value of the take.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Ladies and gents, this thread has sprawled like spilling 5 gallons of oil on a clean garage floor. Let's start a few new ones, dedicated to the basic subjects being discussed, IE habitat, CCA, the fisheries process, ect. A little organization goes a long ways.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

TPW took steps to see very similar measures were put on the books last year, along with a circle hook requirement in state waters and the ability to prosecute fishing violations to the extent of federal law, problem with the old system was the feds were backlogged and most got off with a plea and a slap on the wrist, now Texas gets to serve up some justice! Also the 4 fish period rule, meaning you are welcome to commercially snapper fish here in state waters BUT you better have no more than 4 fish per person onboard!:biggrin: A couple of the Texas RFA guys got much of the footwork done on these matters.



rodwade said:


> Willy
> I also would push for hook size and type regulations for commercials, larger hooks would be less bycatch. Seems reasonable for recs as well. We could reduce our smaller fish by useing larger hooks/bait. I also think TPWD(which get's fed funding to mangage fed regulations) should put aside certain calender days (known only to them) to make runs out to commerical fishing vessals. Institute a mandatory reporting system similar to Crab fisheries in Alaska, and any undocumented fish when boarded would be fined at 5-10x the commercial value of the take.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Mont,
it's hard for me to understand your analogy....what's a clean garage floor? LOL


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Mont

Thanks for letting her run so long. It was getting kinda repitious(sp) same folks.

Charlie


----------



## Farmer Jim (May 21, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> CCA went with the data they have and decided to do what they thought was best for the fishery.


Who are "they"? I asked before and all you experts on CCA ignored the post. Who decides what the CCA position is on an issue? Is there a committe? Is it one person? Are the chapters surveyed? Does anybody even know?


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Farmer Jim said:


> Who are "they"? I asked before and all you experts on CCA ignored the post. Who decides what the CCA position is on an issue? Is there a committe? Is it one person? Are the chapters surveyed? Does anybody even know?


That is one big problem I have with them. I don't see any opportunities for input from the members. I know they have local meetings, but noone seems to know. However, the members sure know about the STAR tournament and prizes. Makes you wonder.


----------



## Farmer Jim (May 21, 2004)

Scott, I don't know if it is a problem or not. I'm not trying to be critical by asking those questions. I am honestly trying to understand the process. There are several people on here who talk like they have knowledge of CCA and I hope one of them can give an answer. 

Complaining about what "they" did, or defending what "they" did, is kind of like Don Quixote sparing with windmills.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

My friend Gater stated that CCA is run from the bottom. Like by the chapters etc. Seems to me everyone affiliated with a chapter had no knowlege of what was happning. I would like to know too who are "they". Ill still put my money on Russell Nelson who used to be the Director of Fish and Wildlife in Florida and now works for CCA.

Charlie


----------



## Farmer Jim (May 21, 2004)

CHARLIE said:


> My friend Gater stated that CCA is run from the bottom. Like by the chapters etc. Seems to me everyone affiliated with a chapter had no knowlege of what was happning. Charlie


Charlie I saw Gater's post saying that also. Does anyone know what type of input the Texas chapters provided?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Farmer Jim said:


> Charlie I saw Gater's post saying that also. Does anyone know what type of input the Texas chapters provided?


I would venture to say NONE. I would also speculate that nobody on the "lower" levels was even asked. Gater gets a little carried away at times and says things that are somewhat unreasonable while trying to protect CCA. No ofense Gater, just an observation, OK.


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> I would venture to say NONE. I would also speculate that nobody on the "lower" levels was even asked. Gater gets a little carried away at times and says things that are somewhat unreasonable while trying to protect CCA. No ofense Gater, just an observation, OK.


Furthermore, I don't think real people belong to those chapters. I here they are actually cardboard shaped to look like people. They have strings attached to their hands so they can raise their hands to vote on an issue. They have those tennis shoes with wheels and they just roll them around from city to city.

The force is strong with you SnappY.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Parkerb

Maybe you can tell me who "they" are. Not being nasty I would really like to know.

Charlie


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

gater said:


> Jack Cowan and Perry Bass started CCA and Walter Fondren was not around...where did you get that misguided info! Gater


Guys,



Jack Cowan and Perry R. Bass were fishing on St. Joseph Island. They were not having any luck. They happened up on a gillnet. Jack told Perry here are our fish. Jack told Perry this simply had to be outlawed.

They started at that minute what was to become known as Gulf Coast Conservation Association. Jack and Perry did the leg work on the net ban bill. Six other Rockport men were among the founding fathers of GCCA. Jack painted a painting titled "The Spoilers" to commemorate the events of that fateful day on the water. The spoilers was one of Jacks best known works.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*218 to 1 was ratio of fish caught vs kept at 18" slot*

We did ask UTMSC in Port A to do a mortality study. The problem was the NMFS GOMFC was forced by Florida and Alabama to go to an 18" min. size limit. We knew the regulatory discards would be devastating to the biomass in the Western Gulf of Mexico. We fought hard to stop the slaughter as mentioned above. We even filed a lawsuit to shutdown the fishery. The NMFS stalled the Federal Court and our Attorney. We finally got the decision handed down on the Thursday before the season closed on the upcoming Sunday night if I remember correctly. Judge Head ruled the waste/mismanagement by NMFS was unlike any plan he had seen in a fisheries management plan. He felt closing the season should have been done but that people were already in route to the Coast due to a holiday weekend. He did admonish the folks at NMFS and the Amicus Brief folks on the side of NMFS and told them they were on the wrong side of the suit. Party Boat Companies came on board with us as they did not want the 18" rule due to regulatory discards. We felt we won as the Judge also stated he did not want to see the Feds back in his court involved in another ridiculous management plan such as an 18" min. size min with the degree of waste. UT did complete the release mortality study, The numbers were horrible as 218 to 1 was the ratio of fish caught to obtain a slot fish. Orange Beach Rodeo managed to hold their tournament as they wanted despite the carnage in the deep water fishery of the Texas Coast. The study was done with a grant and the overall conclusion was not 218 to 1 but still bad. Most for hire sector boats tried to avoid snapper fishing during that time frame due to the damage being done. I will try to find the study in the files or get a copy for anyone wanting to see it. We simply can not release snapper and expect survival in the deep water fishery along the Texas Coast. The study was fairly straight forward as far as the results we got.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

"*Snap* gets a little carried away at times and says things that are somewhat unreasonable while trying to protect *his position*". Wow, the same could be said about you snap. No offense, ok!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Snagged that is the the way folks in Rockport remember the way netting was outlawed.
A few good men gathered at the Duck Inn madder than heck over the netters. Commercial fishing does not have a good track record of maintaining the resource for the future. Every fishery seems to reach an overfished status with their $$$$ sign mentality.
We should all be thankful Jack and Perry had a bad day fishing.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

My observations of CCA are that chapters provide members to sit on commitees at the state and national level. They are the ones that make decisions and the main focus of the local chapters is to raise money. I can't imagine the cost if they tried to get a vote from every member before they made a move. I don't expect my congressman to call me and ask my opinion every time he votes for something. Now, with that being said, I would hope that CCA would now try to get a feel for what their members think at chapter meetings and such regarding important issues such as this. Not a vote, but just a general idea of what the members think about the issue. Tom


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Pocboy

Maybe you can help me with who "they" are ? Im still betting it was something from Dr. Russell Nelson the ex. Florida fish and wildlife guy now working for CCA. Any ideas ?

Charlie


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Charlie, I'm just a peon board member in S.A. who hasn't been able to go to a banquet meeting yet because of my daughters basketball practice. I know nothing as far as Dr. Nelson goes.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

OK Poc, thanks for the quick and honest reply. Hope the basketball team does well. Good fishing.

Charlie


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Pocboy,
As a board member can you find out the organizational structure of the company? It seems CCA has no problem sending emails and letters when they are having an auction or a fund raising event, seems an online poll of members should not break the bank. I mean you can even use free online polling services for it.


----------



## Duplantis (Jan 19, 2008)

*Cca*



Pocboy said:


> Charlie, I'm just a peon board member in S.A. who hasn't been able to go to a banquet meeting yet because of my daughters basketball practice. I know nothing as far as Dr. Nelson goes.


Dr. Nelson is the guy who usually (last time I checked) addresses the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council at their meetings representing CCA's position. He used to be the head of the Florida Wildlife Commission until forced to step aside.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Duplantis

I know you are exactly right. I just think he probably had plenty input on the CCA position. Yes I know all about Dr. Nelson

Charlie


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

CHARLIE said:


> Parkerb
> 
> Maybe you can tell me who "they" are. Not being nasty I would really like to know.
> 
> Charlie


PM sent


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Snap Draggin*



Snap Draggin said:


> I would venture to say NONE. I would also speculate that nobody on the "lower" levels was even asked. Gater gets a little carried away at times and says things that are somewhat unreasonable while trying to protect CCA. No ofense Gater, just an observation, OK.


Snap I don't say things that are unreasonable to protect anyone. Statements here about who started CCA, the Redfish and Trout are overpressured and thus we have reduced limits and there are many other statements here that are false. I'm not going to give you a bunch of BS, I have no reason to. I said it before, I don't know squat about Snapper and it's problems or how to fix them but I do know CCA and I do know something about our inshore fishery. So before you make UNREASONABLE statements like the one above, know what you are talking about first. Gater


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> "*Snap* gets a little carried away at times and says things that are somewhat unreasonable while trying to protect *his position*". Wow, the same could be said about you snap. No offense, ok!


At least what I say has merit and truth to it, unlike others of YOU on here!


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> At least what I say has merit and truth to it, unlike others of YOU on here!


Guess you subscribe to the National Enquirer too?

Little you say is based on facts, except the fact you're angry at CCA. That is your right and anyone elses too, but don't try to make yourself out to be innocent of the stuff you accuse others of doing. You could wind up losing your fan base.


----------



## Farmer Jim (May 21, 2004)

gater said:


> I don't know squat about Snapper and it's problems or how to fix them but I do know CCA...........


In that case could you please tell me who is the "they" who establish CCA positions on issues. Particularly, who determined their position on having Texas adopt the federal Snapper and Shark regulations.

Charlie has expressed his feelings that Dr. Nelson came up with the position. Is it possible that one person has decided the policy position for all of the chapters and the tens of thousands of members on an issue this far reaching and important. Surely no organization representing sportsmen would allow that.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Farmer Jim*

This is an old post that might clear things up for you... see if its what your looking for! Gater

*Snap Dragin* 
I did not intend to drag you back into this I was trying to make a point.! Just so you and everyone else understands....

CCA is run by the membership members, the paid staff such as the Executive Director, Assistant Directors, the STAR Director and any other paid staff in that office do not have a vote in this issue or any other. Input can be given from the staff, biologist, lobbyist and others but its the committees, boards and executive committes that make the decisions. These committes and boards are made up of due paying volunteers such as KJON in Sabine. Every Chapter President is a voting member, I think there are around 50 Chapters give or take. The phone numbers for these individuals are posted on the website and many have cell, home, and work numbers there. There are also voting members that are elected to these boards on a 2-3 year running term. If you are a paying member your membership card states what Chapter you belong too.

Just because someone in that office did not return a call or respond to an email does not mean they do not care about your concerns. They are busy, they do a bunch of traveling and cannot respond to each and every communication but believe me your voice is heard. That is why there is a statement concerning this issue on the website.

Once again, I disagree with the stance that CCA has taken but I will not bash them because of it. I support the organization because of what they have done and continue to do. It's your right not to support them if you so choose and I respect that. I don't offshore fish much anymore but I understand your frustrations and concerns and I'll keepy fingers crossed that TP&WD does whats right and keeps things the way they are. Ga


----------

