# Guess what I just got in the mail from CCA?



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Interestingly enough after all the "do you know how much it would cost..." to ask each member how they feel about red snapper. I get a nice envelope asking for $110 a plate at their March fundraiser. It's in Corpus Christi at American Bank Center. I'd love to setup outside and hand out fliers about thier Red Snapper position.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Hey man they probabbly got Snapper Veracruz on the menu, commercially caught.


----------



## mahiavk (Sep 5, 2007)

not being a smartass but what is the ccas opion,been a member 4 about10 years


----------



## shanker (Jan 15, 2006)

rodwade, if you are serious about that, Im down to help make people aware of the CCA's stance.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Remember it is how the political machine CCA funds the machine. WIth the national presence it is necessary. There are other org's around if your interested... SEA is a local grass roots org that directs money directly into fisheries. All of the funds, no buildings to pay for. That is just one of the other available options if you have heartache about something CCA is doing, but CCA is required from the National Lobbyist standpoint. If your wanting to help your local fishery and want to see that it is healthy for future generations to come please do your part to take some action.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Correction 501-c-3's can't lobby according to IRS code. They can educate but not lobby.
RFA is the only 501-c-4 that can lobby with all its might. Heck we can legally do fund raisers for a politician or make outright donations. Look at the code. 

Many statements about lobbying have been made without a legal bases. Check the code it states no political activities in lay terms. Haynes and Boone Law firm cautioned TGCS about not being political or making political contributions as we are in the process of getting a 501-c-3 status.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

LOL u scared me...


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

CORRECTION AND I AM SORRY I SAID THAT WRONG. What I was trying to get across is that from the National spotlight perspective CCA is needed because of the size of the machine...


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

LOL- Fine as long as they figure out which way to aim the gattlin gun. Maybe they will adjust their sights. Commercial Snapper outlaws would be a good target.


----------



## RFA-ONE (Feb 1, 2008)

*Let me clarify*

so there is no misleading facts : CCA can and does lobby and as a 501-3 they are resrcted by IRS guidlines as to how much lobbying they can do and have complete restictions on political candidates and campaigns.
501-c4 s have no restrictions on lobbying and are free to be involved in the entire political process
The isuue should be are you happy with your groups mission and their mission statement and what they are lobbying for? Do they represent your interests?
Some like the CCA mission and some like the RFA mission. The beauty of this Nation is that we get choices.
No need to beat the CCA up if you are not happy Join RFA .if you dont like RFA Join CCA If you dont like any of us sit on the fence and do nothing. But that is not a good thing.
Jim


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

mahiavk said:


> not being a smartass but what is the ccas opion,been a member 4 about10 years


This is the crux of the problem. I was a member as well and didn't know CCA was going to support a movement based on bad science. I think their intentions are good, but many bad things have been done with good intentions. They claim to have a great working relationship with TPWD and even when their data said our fisheries were fine...they wanted to strip TPWD's well laid out plan for a Federal Gulf wide plan.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

What really irks me is that they oppose NMFS's plan to restrict limits on gags, but then support NMFS's attempt to restrict snapper in not only fed waters, but also out of their jurisdiction in Texas state waters. Not bashing them, but I would like to understand thier appearant lack of consistency in regards to faith of NMFS science.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

*Can we please get past all the anti-CCA speak?*

*rodwade* - Let's imagine you stage a protest at the American Bank Center and convince everybody to go back home rather than go inside and participate in the Corpus Christi Chapter Fund Raiser Banquet. Let's imagine further that dozens of others are similarly successful in their communities; you would surely get CCA's attention. Unfortunately, you would also close down the considerable good they do.

So if you really do care about Texas coastal resources, I would politely ask that you read the list I've placed below. And then before you launch any further into your campaign, let us know who can pull the wagon if CCA goes away.

*Jim Smarr -* About the aim; it appears that all nineteen targets listed below were drilled cleanly; $90,852 of CCA's loot could actually fit right into enforcement of snapper regs. Sure would be nice if all .orgs as you like call them would each pour in $90,852 from their own coffers.

*RFA-ONE - *Thanks for constructive comments.

Using money raised in Texas to support and help conserve Texas fisheries - during 2006 and 2007 - CCA Texas has:

-Funded the CCA Texas Marine Fisheries Larviculture Lab at UTMSI; price tag was $700,000. Species earmarked for study are southern flounder, snook, and ling among others.

-Contributed $200,000 to Shrimp License Buyback Program

-Provided $83,352 for surveillance and investigation equipment TPWD Game Wardens

-Funded graduate level scholarships $40,000

-Funded Bob Brister Memorial Scholarship $40,000

-Funded UTMSI Red Snapper Recreational Mortality Study $37,000

-Funded Bahia Grande interior channels $35,000

-Funded Port Mansfield East Cut study $32,000

-Funded snook studies at UTMSI $30,500

-Provided funding for hatchery calorimeter equipment $25,000

-Funded tripletail studies $20,000

-Contributed to Galveston Bay Marsh Restoration Project $20,000

-Provided navigation equipment for TPWD Coastal Fisheries research vessels $17,400

-Funded otolith sawing equipment for TPWD Coastal Fisheries $16,000

-Funded equipment to support TPWD flounder studies $13,875

-Funding to support TAMU Intern Program $11,260

-Funded range finding equipment for TPWD enforcement $7,500

-Funded generators for TPWD $7,500

-Supported Abandoned Crab Trap Cleanup $6,000

Grand total of Texan's conservation dollars at work through CCA Texas 2006-2007.... $1,329,387

And a post script: To all who say they willing supported GCCA but not CCA Texas because their money, "just ends up going out of state." Given the present membership (46,600) and strength of CCA Texas, we're doing more today than we ever did in the early years. Our money still does great things for Texas fisheries.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> CCA Texas, we're doing more today than we ever did in the early years. Our money still does great things for Texas fisheries.


Like supporting the FEDS, in taking away Texas water snapper, from guys who cant afford to own big expensive boats, therefore affecting the average middle class fisherman.........



RFA-ONE said:


> The isuue should be are you happy with your groups mission and their mission statement and what they are lobbying for? Do they represent your interests?


 Agreed...
Curently, I have taken a step back, and really looked at all organization.....Do I join one to look cool and have a fish shaped bumper sticker, like most have?

Who is looking out for ME and my intrest ?

There has got to be a balance between fish and fisherman......

As of right now, no one gets my money.......until someone proves what they talk about and show me where my money is going......


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

And in the "what have you done for me lately" column. 
-filed suit that got us 2 fish
-supported giving up Texas' State waters rights
-supported 5 Trout in LLM yet refused to remove them from the STAR tourney


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

[email protected] Please take a look through all of the threads concerning the state water snapper issue and you will hopefully understand why the Texas offshore fishermen are upset with the CCA. I agree with you that they do an outstanding job for everyone except the Texas offshore fisherman. They stood there ground against the commercials in the redfish wars. Yes that was great for you guys but now they want to support the NMFS taking away control of the STATE water snapper fishery based on what they agree is bad science? Why don't they support letting the feds regulate all state fisheries? Why do they support the offshore guys in Florida and not Texas? I don't know either but I would be willing to bet you a months pay that if the CCA supported a move by the feds to impose federal regulations on the redfish fishery that you wouldn't be so willing to support them.


----------



## RFA-ONE (Feb 1, 2008)

*Mission*

Mudskipper: An organizations' Mission Statement Is their Constitution, it defines who they are and what they do.
Read the RFA Mission statement and it is totally trasparent :Most agree some dont; There are always the other groups that are more enviorment or conservation first no matter what the science says. I respect their choice but dont agree.
We at RFA have Protecting the right of anglers as part of our mission and although the Houston group took pleasure in a recent article about their group being fish first and we are not as something bad, they got it wrong.
That is the farthest thing from the truth because when we make the sport of fishing a priority the fish always come first. Fishermen wont let the stocks go down they will fight to keep them healthy when they are not deprived of their right to fish. Fishing has to be first in order for fish to be first. It was the same for hunters. Ducks and land animals only became first becuase of the passion of hunters making hunting their first priority thus protecting and ending hunting. If it is only fish first then we would be regulated out of our sport by poor legislation, arbitrary regualtions, and bad science.
Jim


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Muddskipper - Hughoo222 - Calmday,

I am not for one second saying they've been 100% right 100% of the time. I too have had some serious disagreements with CCA policy and direction at times. Heck - I disagree with NRA on some issues but they still get my money because they're the best we have in that category. Ditto: DU, NWTF, RMEF and the Republican Party. I don't go around bashing them and tear up my card. Neither do I encourage that others should.

My sole purpose in joining this thread was to ask, "What about all the things they get right; what about all the projects and programs that benefit inshore and offshore anglers alike; if we drive a wooden stake through CCA's heart over snapper, who will take over all the good works they do?"

Personally - I will continue to back them until something/somebody better comes along for the conservation of Texas marine resources. When I find that group or organization I will be quick to tell others... "Hallelujah - help has finally arrived!"


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

RFA-One,
Looking at the CCA site all that they are concerned with is the bay systems and are more that willing to toss the offshore fishermen to the sharks.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Muddskipper - Hughoo222 - Calmday,
> 
> ..... I don't go around bashing them and tear up my card. Neither do I encourage that others should.


I did'nt see any of us 3 bashing any org. or encourageing others to in our post........

I have found myself asking, is a particular organization representing my CURRENT intrest.

Sure GCCA / cca has a good track record, but I can name numerous politicans that be considerd the same.......BUT today's issues is what matters.......

OUR rights to fish TEXAS snapper year around ! & scientific eveidence of why we should not be able to.

*Not "we need uniformity along the whole gulf coast"* because the FEDS said so.



[email protected] said:


> _'When I find that group or organization I will be quick to tell others... "Hallelujah - help has finally arrived!" _


*Have you ever considered maybe RFA might be the organization ?*

That's why I'm taking a step back, to see who I give my money to....


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

[email protected], I don't know Rodwade but I from what I recall, most of his posts on these snapper/CCA posts have been both thoughtful and moderate. I don't believe that he has been bashing CCA on any of the other threads, and certainly not on this thread.

I agree with him that that most CCA supporters appear to be very uninformed about the issue of CCA supporting NMFS in their attempt to convince Texas to adhere to federal snapper regulations. Most CCA supporters here either admit to knowing little or say that they disagree with CCA on this issue. I think that Rodwade's point here is that CCA should feel some obligation to keep all members informed about their decision making process. Likewise, all members should be aware of what they are actually supporting and why. What is CCA's mission if not keeping its own members informed on critical issues like this? If CCA doesn't do it, I would say that it is a worthy proposal by Rodwade. I'm scared of any Orwellian world in which either CCA or RFA supporters blindly follow their orgs decisions because they like what they read in the mission statement.

Rodwade did not call for members to quit CCA, just to learn exactly what the issues are. Supporters of CCA should not be afraid of members being informed of CCA's decisions. Supporters of CCA should, in fact, encourage all members to know exactly what decisions they are supporting.

CCA supports NMFS in more restrictions on red snapper (an important Texas fish), but I now understand they do not support NMFS's proposal on gag grouper (an important Florida fish). If this is correct, CCA should let members know why they support one and not the other. If they wont explain their reasons, some may infer that they made their choice for purely political reasons.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

The purpose of having an organization with a leadership structure is so that the leadership makes the decisions and in the case of CCA the members aka local chapters do local things and raise money to support the organization. If CCA had to poll its members every time they had to make a decision nothing would ever get done. I also agree that Robwade's posts have been thoughtful and moderate but that has not been the case with everyone the past week or so. I think that EJ has a good point and one that I have been stressing in that some on here seem to think it is more important to spend their time and energy degrading CCA instead of working on the problem with the snapper. I think it is because they know that the feds are going to do what they are going to do and no one can stop them. 
Someone posted earlier saying CCA does nothing for the offshore guys but in fact they are currently working on the AJ issue. Tom


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

I'm not making the case for CCA to poll its membership, just to keep its membership informed. There is a big difference.

I appreciate that CCA disagrees with NMFS on the AJs but, c'mon, half an AJ, that's a no-brainer. So why then do they trust NMFS science on snapper? I also agree that there has been a lot of trash talk from both sides of this, pocboy. Yes, CCA has done and is doing good things as EJ has pointed out, and they are way too important of a player to dismiss. That is precisely why I agree with Rodwade. It is crucial that membership needs to know exactly what they are supporting.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

All I'm asking is that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Thanks for the discussion folks.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

POCBOY you seem to be able to read most of what I type except my NAME...it's roDwade, it get's a bit annoying after a few weeks and it is pretty disrespectful. 

EJ I understand where you are comeing from. However are we to excuse the current behaviors due to prior actions? I guess OJ and CCA have something in common! My issue with CCA is that they haven't informed me of anything since I joined except fundraisers and when they get a knotch on their belt. I would say a LARGE majority of their funding comes from the STAR tourney with Academy being a major reason for that. So what happens in CCA claims to be backed by 45,000 or so Texas members seems more then 75% of the members I've talked to DISAGREE with CCA's stance. Especially when CCA won't provide any reasoning other then "we voted on it" as why the decision was made. Seems the blind are leading the blind. I'd say less then 90% know about the red snapper issue or that CCA's stance was based on numbers that contradict TPWD's numbers. 
You assume that CCA is the only orginaztion that can accomplish these things. However we all know if one dissappears another will arise. If there is a market for it, someone with enough capital and time will fill the void.

Now lets look at conservation dollars or fisheries dollars donted by consumers as a commodity. The fishing community has $X to support causes...for every dollar that is spent with CCA, it's a dollar funding an organization which is trying to reduce my fishing rights AND it's taking a dollar away from an organization that could be helping my cause. So it's a two fold issue. 

I have a proposal for CCA....
If I can present a PHD infront of them. Who has NUMEROUS research documents showing a method for rebuilding the Red Snapper at a faster rate then TPWD currently shows. Would they be will to put money behind the project?

I've asked for weeks the Corpus Christi CCA for research based documents (links or even just titles I can look up) why they came up with their reasoning. I've listed NUMEROUS peer reviewed PHD level research documents stating how I've come to my opinion.


----------



## RFA-ONE (Feb 1, 2008)

*contradiction*

"If CCA had to poll its members every time they had to make a decision nothing would ever get done."
I find this very pecular because CCA has been selling CCA to their new people as a bottom up organization.
They say Their chapters make all the decisions. Just check out what they are telling folks in the Pacific North West
CCA cant have it both ways.
Bottom up doesn't work because there is no leadership with that format and they know that but it is not what they sell the public. 
RFA makes no bones about it we follow our mission statement which is a very strong mission and that drives the organization from the top down and that is what leadership is all about.


----------



## RFA-ONE (Feb 1, 2008)

*CCA Facts*

*A Few Facts About
COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION*​
CCA has more than 206 chapters of organized anglers throughout 17 coastal states with a current combined membership of more than 90,000, the highest level ever. CCA's state and national staff members coordinate more than 400 chapter events and fundraisers each year.​
CCA has more than 80 state and national committees, 150 national board directors, more than 900 board members - on local, state, and national levels - and tens of thousands of active volunteers contributing to the organization's daily development and growth.​
CCA is recognized by fisheries managers as instrumental in the recovery of redfish, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, speckled trout, striped bass, Gulf grouper, and Atlantic weakfish. ​
CCA helped establish game fish status for billfish and redfish, net bans in four states, and the prohibition of many destructive gear types. We have been instrumental in establishing far-reaching conservation legislation on both the state and federal levels.​
CCA has a legal defense fund that has been used to defend net bans and bycatch reduction devices, support pro-fisheries legislation, and enforce existing regulations. ​
CCA had led the battle to protect recreational anglers' freedom to fish. When it is adopted into law, the Freedom to Fish Act will provide reasonable guidelines for the use of Marine Protected Areas by fishery managers and restricts the use of no-fishing zones for recreational fishermen to instances where all other fishery management tools have failed to fix the problem. ​
CCA has a registered lobbyist in Washington D.C. and has been active in critical fisheries since 1984. We currently retain as many as 17 state and federal professional lobbyists.​
CCA members include a former U.S. President, former Cabinet members, Congressmen, Senators, ICCAT Commissioners, Fishery Management Council members, Governors, State Legislators, and state and federal fisheries managers.​
CCA makes decisions from the bottom up, involving our membership in all regional and national policy positions. We operate as a three-tiered organization - local, state and national.​
CCA has an award-winning national publication, TIDE magazine, a special youth publication, Rising Tide and numerous state newsletters.​

_For more information about CCA, call 1-800-201-FISH 
Click *Here* to Join Today!_​


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Dear rodwade,

I am not for one second saying you should excuse current behavior due to prior good deeds. Everything I listed as CCA Texas's conservation dollars at work are what has happened recently... 2006 and 2007. I hear so many say that CCA hasn't done anything since the Redfish Wars and this is patently unfair. I think it goes without saying that everything said and done needs to be included in the analysis, that's why I listed them.

For the record, CCA-Texas and S.T.A.R. are seperate entities and exist on seperate funds. The basic connection is S.T.A.R. is an organizing and membership tool, you have to be a member to fish the tournament. S.T.A.R. money is derived from entry fees and donation from sponsors. All proceeds of S.T.A.R. go to support tourney administration, prizes, and scholarship. S.T.A.R. has many sponsors, Academy being one, as you have pointed out. Major sponsors of the 2007 18th Annual CCA Texas/S.T.A.R. Tournament included: Ford Motor Co, Texas State Bank, Tilson Home Corporation, Texas Ford Dealers, Mercury Marine, Academy Sports and Outdoors, Columbia Sportswear, NAPA Autoparts, Houston Community Newspaper Group, Time Warner Cable, Whataburger, Nestle Pure Life, Forestar Real Estate Group, NRG Energy, Bluewave Boats, Shoalwater Boats, Contender Boats, Scout Boats, Texas Fish and Game Magazine, Texas Marine, Texas Oilman's Charity Fishing Tournament, Magnum Trailers, McClain Trailers, and Mount Houston Marine.

As for CCA basing their position on data that contradicts TPWD, let's go back to the TPWD news release and what Dr. McKinney said.

_Larry McKinney, Ph.D., director of the Coastal Fisheries Division, told commissioners that the decision to recommend tabling the red snapper consistency proposal was a difficult one and involved a trade-off between biological and economic benefits._
_"If we match the federal regulations, it reduces the risk of not meeting long-term goals for the entire Gulf of Mexico. From a conservation standpoint it is an end we would wish to achieve," McKinney said. "And, certainly, from a law enforcement perspective, it would make it easier to enforce the regulations."_

_On the other hand, McKinney said, recruitment of juvenile red snapper to the fishery in Texas waters has been steadily increasing - most likely as a result of reduced shrimping effort and bycatch - and biologists generally do not have a great deal of confidence in National Marine Fisheries Service population and modeling data for the species._

_The Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), a major partner with TPWD in red drum stock enhancement and other projects, favored state consistency with federal regulations, as did the Ocean Conservancy. The Recreational Fishing Alliance opposed consistency._

_" The CCA and the other organizations that are supporting the recommendation for consistency are to be commended for promoting the long term conservation of an important species in the Gulf. For us to make the recommendation to follow the federal regulations and drive a nail in the coffin of an important coastal fishery is very difficult," McKinney said. "Before we take that action we need better confidence about the conservation benefits that might be realized with the federal proposal, unfortunately at this time we just can't go there."_

_Biologists did tell commissioners that the issue may need to be revisited later this year or next if new information comes to light or federal action requires it._

It sounds to me like TPWD and CCA are nearly singing from the same hymnal, biggest difference being that TPWD are taking a "wait and see" before acting.

As for the rest of your statements, claims, and proposals I would suggest you write a polite letter to Robby Byers - Executive Director of CCA Texas with a copy to your local chapter president. Let them explain it to you, they are way better at it than I.

In closing I want to thank you for your fervor and concern for the fishery.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Well everyone, it seems as if the battle lines have been drawn and no one is either crossing them or jumping sides. There has been a point counter point about CCA for what seems like ages now. Most everyone has made some good sense on both sides; however I personally think the repetition is getting boring, and, well, repetitive for lack of a better word. 

I have a great idea for everyone to ponder. All of us that are RFA members need to step up and try to gain membership for the organization. All CCA members should get active and try to steer CCA in the direction of the artificial reef project. That way we are all in a win win situation. This bickering back and forth is getting us nowhere. 

I would like to ask Pocboy, KJON and the others that are affiliated with the various local chapters to get all their members involved and either petition CCA or take a vote of their members on the reef project. Once ALL members have participated please send the results to the powers that be. Let them know exactly what the actual funding members think and want. What are y'alls thoughts on that?


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

*and biologists generally do not have a great deal of confidence in National Marine Fisheries Service population and modeling data for the species.
*
* It appears that he is refuting the science used by the NMFS and CCA is too slow to understand that.*

* The most apparent thing is that CCA isn't concerned with offshore fishermen.
*


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

EJ I think being in a publishing area you understand you have to be VERY careful what you say about the people who write you checks. Think of the repercussions of TPWD bashing CCA who pays hundreads of thousands of dollars (if not millions) into the TPWD. I think TPWD took a pretty hard beating on the head when CCA showed they didn't belive in TPWD's research. If you look TPWD pretty carefully worded "_If we match the federal regulations, it reduces the risk of not meeting long-term goals for *the entire Gulf of Mexico*" _Seems Texas is having to pull other states weight due to thier inability to manage their stocks.

It's quite IRONIC that CCA states in their Statement that they are a bottom up company. I'd love to see the voting records from local chapters on the issue. I don't remember any local chapters telling me they had a vote?

ONCE Again I'll find a way to pay for a PHD to come down to talk to CCA about a Texas initiave which has peer reviewed research behind it. If CCA wants to help rebuild Red Snapper stocks I'm putting this on the table right now. IF you know or are in contact with ANY CCA representatives please tell them to contact me and I'll start setting up the funding.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Dear rodwade,

Thanks for your courteous reply. If possible, could you copy me on the letter to Corpus Chapter president and Robby Byers along with their response? I'd like to see how it turns out.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

rodwade said:


> It's quite IRONIC that CCA states in their Statement that they are a bottom up company. I'd love to see the voting records from local chapters on the issue. I don't remember any local chapters telling me they had a vote?


Hi Rodwade,
OK, I have posted this before, but I will post it again. The bottom up organization is 100% correct. The people that make the decisions for CCA Texas are state board members nominated by their local chapters. They meet and the committees submit their findings, and votes are taken. CCA National is made up of National board members that are nominated by the state chapters. They meet and committees present their findings and votes are taken.
I guess the reason I feel compelled to post on this topic is because someone has to keep you guys honest. Some of what you are posting is just not true. But, because it is posted, it must be true. Gosh guys, like I said before, I respect your opinions. 
On to the next fire...
Respecfully,


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Unbound said:


> I agree with him that that most CCA supporters appear to be very uninformed about the issue of CCA supporting NMFS in their attempt to convince Texas to adhere to federal snapper regulations. Most CCA supporters here either admit to knowing little or say that they disagree with CCA on this issue. I think that Rodwade's point here is that CCA should feel some obligation to keep all members informed about their decision making process. Likewise, all members should be aware of what they are actually supporting and why. What is CCA's mission if not keeping its own members informed on critical issues like this? If CCA doesn't do it, I would say that it is a worthy proposal by Rodwade. I'm scared of any Orwellian world in which either CCA or RFA supporters blindly follow their orgs decisions because they like what they read in the mission statement.


Hi Unbound,
I beg to differ. CCA has put and does so in a timely manner, what it is doing and what is happening that it is involved in at the time in it's web site. Also, members get an E-Newsletter called "Lateral Lines" that keeps the membership updated on current activities in CCA. Not everything is posted on the CCA Texas website, a lot of stuff is on the CCA National website. We also get the Tide magazine and the Currents Newsletter all of which are very informative on current issues.
Respecfully,


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> Hi Rodwade,
> OK, I have posted this before, but I will post it again. The bottom up organization is 100% correct. The people that make the decisions for CCA Texas are state board members nominated by their local chapters. They meet and the committees submit their findings, and votes are taken. CCA National is made up of National board members that are nominated by the state chapters. They meet and committees present their findings and votes are taken.
> I guess the reason I feel compelled to post on this topic is because someone has to keep you guys honest. Some of what you are posting is just not true. But, because it is posted, it must be true. Gosh guys, like I said before, I respect your opinions.
> On to the next fire...
> Respecfully,


I guess they forgot to make Red Snapper a bottom up decision in Texas.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Snagged said:


> I guess they forgot to make Red Snapper a bottom up decision in Texas.


Yep, they gave bottom up a whole new connotation.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Snagged said:


> I guess they forgot to make Red Snapper a bottom up decision in Texas.


It was a statement, that is all. Based on the data CCA is using.


----------



## KJON (May 1, 2006)

Paper loves paper, you can find any study that fits your beliefs if you look hard enough, I have a degree in wildlife conservation and management,,,,and I'm still confused. Anyone ever sit down and read the Magnuson???? For that matter, how much research has been done personally by anyone on this site??? Instead of bickering we need to be uniting, RFA, CCA, NRA, TRA, AWS, AARP, HCC, SCA, FLW, RFT, I can't possibly read or make an intelligent guess as to where I stand on any of the organizations I belong to or have belonged to. But I will tell you this,,,, I respect all of them for what they are doing or what they think they were trying to do for me. Personally, I would ban ALL snapper fishing for 5 years, period. Then do a study and let the cards fall where they may. In the interim, what do you think would happen to the other species??? One problem spawns another,, bottom line (personally) commercials are the root problem, I will continue to work on that particular problem from within,,,,,with or without my brothers.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

chicapesca said:


> Hi Rodwade,
> OK, I have posted this before, but I will post it again. The bottom up organization is 100% correct. The people that make the decisions for CCA Texas are state board members nominated by their local chapters. They meet and the committees submit their findings, and votes are taken. CCA National is made up of National board members that are nominated by the state chapters. They meet and committees present their findings and votes are taken.
> I guess the reason I feel compelled to post on this topic is because someone has to keep you guys honest. Some of what you are posting is just not true. But, because it is posted, it must be true. Gosh guys, like I said before, I respect your opinions.
> On to the next fire...
> Respecfully,


Chicapesca I understand the people are voted into office by CCA members....how exactly does that signify a bottom up design? Are they voting what their local chapters request? Are they polling or asking local chapters how they feel on the issues? Can CCA member see how thier appointed representative voted on an issue? How long can these "elected officials" stay in "office?" Sorry for the analogy, but I'm not really sure how else to word it effectivly. Basically how long is a term?


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Rodwade*

I have asked you and many others here how many board meetings you have attended when you were a member. It has been explained many times over and over how CCA works and this structure has worked well. It gets pretty old when you keep complaining about something that do know nothing about. It seems you folks just can't let it go but this is pretty typical of the way the other organization operates. It is a big reason why others won't work with them. I would suggest you and the others keep your uneducated comments to yourself and move on. Gater


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

KJON said:


> Paper loves paper, you can find any study that fits your beliefs if you look hard enough, I have a degree in wildlife conservation and management,,,,and I'm still confused. Anyone ever sit down and read the Magnuson???? For that matter, how much research has been done personally by anyone on this site??? Instead of bickering we need to be uniting, RFA, CCA, NRA, TRA, AWS, AARP, HCC, SCA, FLW, RFT, I can't possibly read or make an intelligent guess as to where I stand on any of the organizations I belong to or have belonged to. But I will tell you this,,,, I respect all of them for what they are doing or what they think they were trying to do for me. Personally, I would ban ALL snapper fishing for 5 years, period. Then do a study and let the cards fall where they may. In the interim, what do you think would happen to the other species??? One problem spawns another,, bottom line (personally) commercials are the root problem, I will continue to work on that particular problem from within,,,,,with or without my brothers.


KJON that's the joy of PEER REVIEWED papers...anyone can write a "research paper". I'm sure you've written one or two during your studies. However for a Peer Reviewed paper, other researchers must come to the same conclusions. Dating all the way back to 1997 I've see Reef Fisheries Commite documents ducussing issues with Red Snapper numbers provided by NMFS. Yes I've read Magnuson. I'm working on my Masters right now, and would love to find a way to work Red Snapper Fisheries into my MS in Secondary Education. I just don't see it right now. I'd actually like to see some additional research on Snapper Fidelity on the Clipper and Rigs. Establishing a "home range" for snapper groups. I'd also like to do a literature review one some of TPWD's red snapper research for the past 30 years, making it into a cumulative finding. I can't support your "ban" on snapper for 5 years. You don't seem to take into account the financial impact on Towns like Port Aransas, SurfSide, Freeport, Galveston, and other cities which depend on off-shore Recreational and Headboats for income. Rather then tell everyone to hold off while you catch up. Simply do a search on Eric.gov and other websites on Red Snapper Mortality (peer reviewed only) or on Red Snapper Fidelity. Now here's the kicker....don't just read the intro's and conclusions! Read all of the data. You'll find a lot of the data saying red snapper do not have high site fidelity say their data is flawed or the thermoclines messed up thier transponders which counted the fish. I'd love to get Headboats and Rec together tagging snapper throwbacks. It would put a hard number on bycatch mortality and give some data on site fidelity. I'd love to see some guys showing of pictures of thier tagged snapper just like they do their banded birds.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

gater said:


> I have asked you and many others here how many board meetings you have attended when you were a member. It has been explained many times over and over how CCA works and this structure has worked well. It gets pretty old when you keep complaining about something that do know nothing about. It seems you folks just can't let it go but this is pretty typical of the way the other organization operates. It is a big reason why others won't work with them. I would suggest you and the others keep your uneducated comments to yourself and move on. Gater


Gater I ask you this...if I go to Academy and ask 100 people who are CCA members when the next chapter meeting is...how many people would you estimate could tell me the date? I get emails and letters from them about "functions" I don't get emails about meetings. If I knew CCA was going to support the Feds and wanted my input at a meeting I ASSURE YOU I would have been there. CCA uses member money to support THEIR ideals, not the ideals of thier members. However they throw their financial and political presence around like all 40k members back them. THAT IS THE ISSUE AT HAND. How many CCA DONORS and MEMBERS know what CCA is saying on their behalf BEFORE it happens? Only those at the meetings? Could you give us a idea what the average attendance is at your meetings? Seems with 40k members you'd need a pretty big hall to fit that many people. If no one (less then 5%) is showing up for meetings, maybe their needs to be some rethinking going on ESPECIALLY if CCA wants to promote a bottom up structure. If there is not bottom basically it becomes a talking head.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

gater said:


> I have asked you and many others here how many board meetings you have attended when you were a member. It has been explained many times over and over how CCA works and this structure has worked well. It gets pretty old when you keep complaining about something that do know nothing about. It seems you folks just can't let it go but this is pretty typical of the way the other organization operates. It is a big reason why others won't work with them. I would suggest you and the others keep your uneducated comments to yourself and move on. Gater


Dude! Keep my uneducated comments to myself and move on? :rotfl:

As uneducated as I am, I've been able to quickly catch my boats limit of snapper on most trips by doing a couple of drifts over one of few snapper holes I have. I may not be too smart, but I have concluded from those experiences that snapper here are not in that bad of shape. There are others on this board who are more educated in the ways of snapper than I am, and I suspect that they may not keep their comments to themselves and move on just because you said to.

If you can't understand my anger when I see my friends in the charter business being regulated out of business by NMFS (with CCA's blessing), perhaps you can educate me as to what I should feel. If you can explain CCA's appearant inconsistencies in backing NMFS on snapper but not gags, perhaps you can enlighten me. If you can't see the irony in the letter Rodwade recieved from CCA, asking him for money after he feels they stabbed him in the back, ...well, I can't really work with you there.

This thread started out with the idea that CCA members are not aware of how CCA's desire to cut the Texas snapper season down to three months would affect those who fish offshore here. Something that CCA members themselves have stated on this board. If this thread offends you so much, I'd hate to think what a bucket of squid marinating on the deck of a headboat in six foot slop would do to your delicate sensibilities.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Unbound*

I can assure marinating squid in 6' sea would not bother me. However your comments here do concern me. You and others continue to spout off comments that are just plain stupid, there is not a nice way to put it. You can't let the topic go away, and you continue to complain about CCA when they are not the problem. Your Snapper limits and fishing days have continued to decline in the last decade all the while CCA and the RFA have fought long and hard to curb this decline. Now, all of a sudden, Jan. 2008, its all CCA"s fault because they made a statement based on questionable data, yet know one as come up with anything better that can be used and if they have why is it not being used. While the commercials continue to enjoy a cushy TAC, the recs pay the price, I guess this is CCA's fault as well. Was the statement the right thing to do, in my opinion not exactly but on the other hand if they did not make a statement and the NMFS did the two fish thing anyway CCA would probably be getting the same treatment for not doing anything.

Don't do the RFA membership like you do your CCA membership, get involved and don't wait for them to come to you, pick up the phone and call the RFA to see what you can do to help. Gater


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*Stupid! Is that the best you got?*

Do you even read my posts? I question the data. I've observed that some CCA members are unaware of this issue. And yes, I do question whether this particular stance was driven by science or politics. You think that is stupid?

I've also said that we need to work together and that we need CCA. You think that is stupid too?


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

gater said:


> You can't let the topic go away, and you continue to complain about CCA when they are not the problem. Gater


Ummmm.....I'm sorry, but I need to clarify this. You want me to just let CCA slide for trying to cut my red snapper season and limit by 1/2 or more? All the while using "questionable data" to justify it? I don't want to put words into your mouth so I want to be sure what your saying.

If CCA has been working on Red Snapper that long and still hasn't made any progress, maybe we need to push our money somewhere else?

My point of this post was this
1.) To point out how CCA has the money and time to send out glossy invitations to me via snail mail but can't email me with chapter meeting info or poll me online (several commercial websites out there are already setup to do this.)
2.) To find out if others would be interested in Setting up a booth outside their meeting and doing CCA's job of informing their paying supporters how they are using their resources. Maybe even organize a fund raising snapper on the grill across the street with some live music call it. The charter and head boats could doc down there by the T heads and show their support for getting the info out.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Rodwade*

CCA is not the only one who has been working that long, I mentioned the RFA as well. My point is, they both have worked hard to change things but it looks as thing are going the wrong way. You just can't leave CCA out of it, you don't see me bringing up the RFA. The first time your org does something you disagree with are you going carry on the way you do with CCA! Gater


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Gater...you should know that answer. I've been an RFA member maybe a week or two now. If they try some of CCA's shananagans you can bet you'll hear about it from me. I remember hearing about the cost of polling the members....well here ya go...
http://www.TexasSpearfishing.com Vote on the poll on the homepage.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

gater said:


> You just can't leave CCA out of it, you don't see me bringing up the RFA. The first time your org does something you disagree with are you going carry on the way you do with CCA! Gater


Can't speak for Rodwade but for me the answer is YES. Why do you want us to leave CCA out of it? They filed a suit in-line with the Enviro groups that affects all us Texas Rec's. Do they want a do-over now? Too late. We don't really need CCA and if you look at past history, there would be no CCA without Texas. We will overcome with or without them. Enjoy your stickers.


----------



## Bevo34 (Feb 10, 2005)

Anyone have the gif of the dead horse being beaten?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Gater, 
let it go they would rather bash CCA then create an avenue to help their cause. It's just easier that way. Cast blame ...bear not responsibility.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Haute*

And what exactly has anyone else done. Just the thought of trying to bring down an organization such as CCA because you don't agree with them on an issue is just crazy. You surely must get tired of all the BS, but you and the others just keep at it. I'm not so sure you will overcome, you only been at it for 20 years but I'm hoping you all will get it right sooner or later. Gater


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

You are underestimating us my friend... If you gave a rats hoo-haw about our cause you would be explaining it to your Master, CCA. You don't evidently, and you are content with echoing your bretheren at CCA. Why do you think you are on the defensive in your home state? Could it be that your idols are wrong or confused or sidled up with enemies to recreational fishermen? All I know is something stinks in CCAtown.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Bevo34 said:


> Gater,
> let it go they would rather bash CCA then create an avenue to help their cause. It's just easier that way. Cast blame ...bear not responsibility.


CCA is part of "our" problem... it isn't going away my friend like it or not. They sold us down the road and the powers that be know it. Even if you are too blind to see it. I am a member and have donated/bought things at their auctions for years. My finanacial assistance stops until they are willing to address the issues facing us Texsan's offshore. Show me...


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Haute*

Sold you down the road.... You all have a problem and don't know how to fix it. The one thing you do know how to do and do it well is place blame. It's not CCA's fault we have a Snapper issue and if you wish to stop your financial assistance please do, I'm sure they will really miss you and the 20 followers you have here. CCA understands your cause but what is it exactly you want them to do, use your data, do you have any data, and if you do what makes you think its the right data. Until you, the RFA, NMFS, CCA and whoever else may involved can all agree on what data should be used to address this fishery the whole thing will remain a screwed up mess. I don't have any idols at CCA and do you ever stop and think maybe you are the one thats confused. You and your counter parts here have discussed CCA salaries, Trout and Redfish limits, the STAR, boycotting the STAR, petitions, and many more topics that none of you have a clue about. The other thing you you do not have a clue about is how to fix the Snapper problem. Gater


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

gater said:


> Sold you down the road.... You all have a problem and don't know how to fix it. The one thing you do know how to do and do it well is place blame. It's not CCA's fault we have a Snapper issue and if you wish to stop your financial assistance please do, I'm sure they will really miss you and the 20 followers you have here. CCA understands your cause but what is it exactly you want them to do, use your data, do you have any data, and if you do what makes you think its the right data. Until you, the RFA, NMFS, CCA and whoever else may involved can all agree on what data should be used to address this fishery the whole thing will remain a screwed up mess. I don't have any idols at CCA and do you ever stop and think maybe you are the one thats confused. You and your counter parts here have discussed CCA salaries, Trout and Redfish limits, the STAR, boycotting the STAR, petitions, and many more topics that none of you have a clue about. The other thing you you do not have a clue about is how to fix the Snapper problem. Gater


I have been trying not to post anything on here anti CCA or in rebuttal, but this post deserves a comment from me as far as I am concerned. Gater, you are totally out of control! Especially in the last sentence you wrote there. You have said some outrageous things on here, but I believe that one takes the cake! If you would clear your brainwashed head, open your mind and READ some of these posts on here you would see that there is WAY more than just one person on here that has more than a clue about how to fix the alleged Red Snapper problem. In fact there are SEVERAL VERY WELL educated people on here that have forgotten more about Red Snapper than you will ever know. My suggestion to you is to proofread your post, think about what you just wrote and alter it before hitting the submit button. It sure would help your credibility.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Bevo34 I guess economics doesn't play into the equation. To me this IS an avenue to help my cause. Every dollar I can get FROM CCA is a dollar to keep my 4 fish and a way to pull anglers money away from an organization who underminds TPWDs work on fishery rebuilding. CCA knows what they need to do, go after commercial long lining, help increase offshore enforcement, that $30k they funded for Snapper Research hope they are not trying to catch those snapper at man made structure because their NMFS model say's fish don't count there. Maybe put some $$ behind research based managment techniques.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Snap*

Brainedwashed and out of control thats a good one. And what exactly outrageous things have I said....I'm not going to disagree with you about some folks here being knowlegable about Snapper but they haven't fixed a thing and if anyone had a clue why would we even be in this position today. All I see here is a bunch of different opinions and like I said, until you can get the right folks to agree your spinning your wheels. Gater


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

gater...we are in this position today because of politics inside the organizationS, NMFS, Congress you name it. It's not CCA's fault, but their solution is not acceptable to me, it's my duty, and right, to try and stop it and educate others.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

*"Maybe put some $$ behind research based managment techniques."*

Rodwade - slow down man, you're way out of your depth with that comment sir - you need to visit the marine science departments at TAMU Corpus Christi and UTMSI. The teams at these universities are some of the top marine fisheries scientists in the world, and you can review that with your peers if you like. I think you might be more than a little amazed (not to mention proud) at what goes on there. I think CCA's dollars are well spent with the research teams of UTMSI, TAMU, and TPWD.


----------



## EndTuition (May 24, 2004)

gater said:


> I'm sure they will really miss you and the 20 followers you have here. Gater


Underestimating your opposition is a rookie mistake. But, if you really believe that, why are you even bothering to post ? CCA does a lot of good, but on this issue they have angered a lot of folks who have the time, money and passion to challenge them, just like citizens challenge their government on issues that are important to them. It doesn't mean they don't want any form of government, it means they want the goverment to work for them. In this case we get to not pay our taxes if we don't like what they do with them.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

End, I absolutely agree with your post. The problem some of us have is not with the guys that want to take CCA to task, but with with the guys that think CCA should go away. Should CCA be more communicative...of course. Should they close their doors because they made a decision that a lot of people, me included, don't agree with....of course not. Tom


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> *"Maybe put some $$ behind research based managment techniques."*
> 
> Rodwade - slow down man, you're way out of your depth with that comment sir - you need to visit the marine science departments at TAMU Corpus Christi and UTMSI. The teams at these universities are some of the top marine fisheries scientists in the world, and you can review that with your peers if you like. I think you might be more than a little amazed (not to mention proud) at what goes on there. I think CCA's dollars are well spent with the research teams of UTMSI, TAMU, and TPWD.


EJ I don't belive so on Red Snapper. CCA's site itself only shows $34k or so in snapper research. Why doesn't CCA research the model NMFS uses to estimate fish population, I hear it's a matter of the model being changed to match the desired output. Why doesn't CCA tag red snapper and use telemetry monitoring to show red snapper fidelity. I'm not saying CCA doesn't do good work on redfish or trout, but on red snapper I don't think they are on the right page. Please if I'm wrong show me CCA sponsored Red Snapper Research which has been peer reviewed. I have been wrong before. But I just haven't found any research yet.
EJ the reason I request peer reviewd documents is because you can babble **** and publish it. I'm sure you've seen it in magazines. Wiki on Peer Reviews: "The peer review process has a normative function by encouraging authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views."


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

gater said:


> I can assure marinating squid in 6' sea would not bother me. However your comments here do concern me. You and others continue to spout off comments that are just plain stupid, there is not a nice way to put it. QUOTE]
> 
> That is the spirit. If somebody doesn't agree with your position, either call them stupid or personally insult them. Feel good about yourself? You were probably the captain of the debate team back in the day, I bet.
> 
> ...


----------



## gulf_addict (Aug 26, 2005)

There are alot of "perceptions" about which .org is about this and which .org is about that and who do I support and is best for me. Some have stated they are confused and don't know who is best to give their money too. Since I fish everything from freshwater to the floaters I would have to agree about not knowing who to give my money too. However, I do have a suggestion for all the .org's that may make it simpler for us average anglers to understand some of the goings on and help all fisherman, present and future. These are simple guidelines used by an organization that has been pretty successful at what it does during it's entire existence.

1. Know yourself and seek self inprovement.
2. Be technically and tactically proficient.
3. Know your people and look out for their welfare
4. Keep your people informed
5. Set the example
6. Ensure the task is understood, supervised, and accomplished
7. Train your people as a team
8. Make sound and timely decisions
9. Develop a sense of responsibility among your people
10. Employ your organization in accordance with it's capabilities
11. Seek responsibility and take responsibilty for your actions

This may seem simple and self evident. But as some people on here will recognize these ideas and their origin will attest to, they are proven. It seems to me that if ALL the .org's could employ a few of these ideas and work together, OUR fisheries would benefit the most. My .02 for the morning.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> End, I absolutely agree with your post. The problem some of us have is not with the guys that want to take CCA to task, but with with the guys that think CCA should go away. Should CCA be more communicative...of course. Should they close their doors because they made a decision that a lot of people, me included, don't agree with....of course not. Tom


Well then Poc, how about you leading the charge and letting them know how you and everyone else in CCA feels about their position? Afterall you are a dues paying member, or is it a total dictatorship where no one dare speak out against the powerful regime for fear of reprisal?


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

What has happened? For the last 20 or so years a group of fishermen has gave and gave and gave for the betterment of the fishery. Acording to the guardians of this fishery it is still getting worse. These fishermen have seen the limit go from 10 to 2 a season put in place and now that season has been shortened even more. They are thinking, what next? How come things are not getting better? Is big brother not doing his job? Is big brother taking money under the table? Are people cheating on thier Quota's because they can? Gosh what is going wrong? Then there is an org. that they have been a member of for years, maybe not every year but most years. And this is a great org. They brought the bay game fish back from almost total collapse. Why are they not helping my fishery? Then Big brother decides he needs the state I live in to help him enforce something he has mandated while everything he has done for 20 years has not worked. While this debate is going on this org. that I have supported over the years has thrown in with big brother. You can only Imagine how I feel about that deal?
At one of the scopeing meetings I herd a public servent make the statement This is not a democrecy and that really made my blood boil. Maybe we can return to that one day? You know the concept of rule by the majority? All I want from my old org is for them to side with the fisherman on this issue. And take steps to bring the fishery back that does not include taking fish from the recreational fisherman. Taking fish from the rec. fisherman has not worked so far now has it? Even though I will not rejoin the org I am speaking of, untill they change, I will go to more scopeing meetings and call congressmen if my bay fishing brothers get in a scrap and need my help! And I think all of the offshore guy's I know would do the same. I have to support who I feel is for me. And I will do anything I can to change the mind of whom I feel is not helping me. I don't have to justify what I want to anybody and neither do you by the way. I don't care who did what what and why. You can say I am a what's in it for me guy or what ever. I am tired, old, orny and tired of the C and want something done now before big brother decides he is entitled to everything even my dreams. Thanks and lets pull all the Allies together to fight the common enemy.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

Gater, PM sent.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

We tried to get the CCA to join our cause protesting the GLO's decision to allow seismic testing between Corpus and Brownsville, a massive project over over 80,000 five-pound charges just in the Lower Laguna Madre.

The CCA replied that they were a conservation society interested in protecting fish and nothing more.

[Excuse me, they were blowing up tons of fish and running them off the flats!]

Same philosophy for red snapper. They don't want in increase the allowables (TAC) because they only know how to do conservation - less fish caught.

But I will say this, the CCA makes their decisions in some national headquarters and the local chapters are prohibited from making their own press statements in any official capacity. They don't fish off Texas, and most of their lawyers never burned a thumb on a fishing reel either. Can you imagine how the local CCA boys and girls feel about all this?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Swells said:


> But I will say this, the CCA makes their decisions in some national headquarters and the local chapters are prohibited from making their own press statements in any official capacity. They don't fish off Texas, and most of their lawyers never burned a thumb on a fishing reel either. Can you imagine how the local CCA boys and girls feel about all this?


They don't even have a clue as to what the Corp/National office is pushing. CCA has turned into a GREEN Org... they could care less about recreational fishermen. Their voting record and alliances make that point very clear.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Join SEA or some of the other grass roots orgs like it.....


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

I got my bumper stickers


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

*"they could care less about recreational fishermen". *Do you even think before you post?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> *"they could care less about recreational fishermen". *Do you even think before you post?


Do you read up on current events?


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

If you were to state that "on this issue I believe that CCA could care less about recreational fisherman", then that would make sense. For you to say that CCA could care less about recreational fishermen just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

POC I agree...they have done some good things for trout and redfish.
However they have drawn a line in the sand, and currently we are on opposite sides.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

That is a Green spin on it... if it makes you feel better to see it that way, more power to you. The point is that CCA is becoming more of an eco-terror org than a recreational fishing/conservation org. Have a look ar their bedfellows lately.


----------



## lunkerbrad (Feb 17, 2007)

I Drop Them Back When They Went From Gcca To Cca I New That Are Money Was Not Going To Help Are Coast .
Then I Joind Two Years Ago Thincking They Have Change Nope . I Am Not A Member This Year And Not A Star Supporter . My Loss .


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I sleep fine at night knowing they are there and that your attempts to discredit and malign them do not affect them at all.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> I sleep fine at night knowing they are there and that your attempts to discredit and malign them do not affect them at all.


I'm sure all of your CCA bretheren feel the same way. It has been posted that they are well aware of the issues many of us have with them. Your post and their silence speak volumes.


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

POcboy and Gater have that Clayton Williams mentality if rape is enevitable just lay back and enjoy it. For some reason it bothers them that the offshore fishermen demand an organization stand up for them if they are to support it, and aren't going to lay there and take it.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

There is a difference between demanding and bashing. Your need to divert you anger towards the problem, which is not CCA. No one here ever said you could not be angry or even disappointed in them. *Some* of you are blinded by your anger at what the feds are doing and are lashing out. Join some other organization that you think will help with your cause but I will continue to defend CCA as long as they are being attacked with an unreasonable thought process.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Lunkerbrad*



lunkerbrad said:


> I Drop Them Back When They Went From Gcca To Cca I New That Are Money Was Not Going To Help Are Coast .
> Then I Joind Two Years Ago Thincking They Have Change Nope . I Am Not A Member This Year And Not A Star Supporter . My Loss .


This what I keep refering too, and uneducated comment about CCA because you don't agree with them. Disagreeing is fine with me, I don't agree on this issue either but don't make comments that are not true. CCA Texas money raised in Texas stays in Texas. Gater


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> If you were to state that "on this issue I believe that CCA could care less about recreational fisherman", then that would make sense. For you to say that CCA could care less about recreational fishermen just doesn't make any sense.


 Yes, it does if you bother the read the CCA statement. They are for "the fish" and don't care about those who pay the bills.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Wow snagged, you hit the nail on the head. If they are for the "fish" then aren't they ultimately for the "fishermen"? If there are no fish then there would be no recreational fishery.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Snap Draggin said:


> Well then Poc, how about you leading the charge and letting them know how you and everyone else in CCA feels about their position? Afterall you are a dues paying member, or is it a total dictatorship where no one dare speak out against the powerful regime for fear of reprisal?


Hey pocboy, you never replied about this one. How is that going anyhow since we need someone from the inside to finally do something from the bottom up?


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

The statement show that CCA is closer to the tree huggers than to fishermen when coupled with their recent actions.

CCA has done good in the past, that was the past. What I and others are concerned with is the present and the future. CCA has too often sent me notice of fund raising needs, but never notice of elections of officers. CCA has not at any time asked membership for their vote to proceede on a path.


----------



## RFA-ONE (Feb 1, 2008)

*this needs to stop*

The bottom line is if those of you who support the CCA and their support to end overfishing and the arbitrary tiimeframes associated with that mangement regime it is OK. Conservation will occur and the recreational fishery and industry associtated with it will collapse
For those of you who don't believe in arbitrary timeframes and the arbitrary end of overfishing definitions associated with that then support the RFA and pour your efforts to help us get limited flexibilty in the federal law. Conservation will occur also but the recreational fishing community will still remain viable during the process
That gentlemen is the diffference between the CCA position and the RFA position
Lets just respect each others position and aggree to diasagree. 
No one will change CCA and and no one will change RFA's direction on this issue
So make your choice and don't bash. RFA is First For Anglers
Pick the group that best suits what you believe in as a citizen of this great Nation. www.JOINRFA.ORG read our mission statement and then read CCA's mission statement that speaks volumes


----------



## Bevo34 (Feb 10, 2005)

RFA-ONE said:


> The bottom line is if those of you who support the CCA and their support to end overfishing and the arbitrary tiimeframes associated with that mangement regime it is OK. Conservation will occur and the recreational fishery and industry associtated with it will collapse
> For those of you who don't believe in arbitrary timeframes and the arbitrary end of overfishing definitions associated with that then support the RFA and pour your efforts to help us get limited flexibilty in the federal law. Conservation will occur also but the recreational fishing community will still remain viable during the process
> That gentlemen is the diffference between the CCA position and the RFA position
> Lets just respect each others position and aggree to diasagree.
> ...


Interesting tactic......bash one organization to get support for yours while saying we should not bash each other. You must either be a member of the media or a democrat. But we won't get into that.

The only way the anti-CCA people on this board will be happy is if CCA goes away and all CCA members who don't jump ship because of a decision that some people believe is not in the their best interest get 30 lashes. I believe that in the interest of mont's bandwidth we need to agree to disagree and move on.

If you'll excuse me, I need to go to work on our CCA banquet.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Bevo34 said:



> Interesting tactic......bash one organization to get support for yours while saying we should not bash each other. You must either be a member of the media or a democrat. But we won't get into that.
> 
> The only way the anti-CCA people on this board will be happy is if CCA goes away and all CCA members who don't jump ship because of a decision that some people believe is not in the their best interest get 30 lashes. I believe that in the interest of mont's bandwidth we need to agree to disagree and move on.
> 
> If you'll excuse me, I need to go to work on our CCA banquet.


If anyone was bashing CCA it was me. What I would like is for CCA to get it;s collective head head out of it's collective anus and get in line with what the supporters want.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Bevo34 said:


> The only way the anti-CCA people on this board will be happy is if CCA goes away and all CCA members who don't jump ship because of a decision that some people believe is not in the their best interest get 30 lashes. I believe that in the interest of mont's bandwidth we need to agree to disagree and move on.
> 
> If you'll excuse me, I need to go to work on our CCA banquet.


I'd be happy with CCA joining our cause actually, much like they did for the Texas redfish cause... Oh wait, that was our GCCA. I could live with the 30 or so lashes as well. I hope your banquet has plenty of greens bro.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Snagged said:


> If anyone was bashing CCA it was me. What I would like is for CCA to get it;s collective head head out of it's collective anus and get in line with what the supporters want.


LOL!!! I appears to me that you have hit the nail on the head! But wait, that only works in a democracy, and not a dictatorship.


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

Bevo34 said:


> If you'll excuse me, I need to go to work on our CCA banquet.


 Hopefully you'l have PLENTY of leftovers!! WW


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Wow snap, rfa is a democracy? That's just great and when they need to poll it's members it probably takes an hour or so to call all 85 members here in Texas. 
Oh and wet dreams, you couldn't get into the S.A. CCA banquet because it is sold out every year. Seems like rfa-one wants to step into the ring and I knew it would only be a matter of time.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Mr. Snagged*

From some of the comments you made on here I wonder just where your head is. Now we have the RFA stating to bash CCA while trying to get support for them. That is a typical RFA statement from the leadership and a prime example of why no one else wants to work with them on anything. You don't see the Chairmen of CCA Texas on here talking about the RFA, they are a little more educated and proffesional than that. Gater


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

gater, were did RFA bash CCA? Maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Rodwade*

You might want to go up a few post and read the post from RFA-ONE again....you may not call it bashing but I do and the comment is very unproffesional. Gater


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

gater said:


> From some of the comments you made on here I wonder just where your head is. Now we have the RFA stating to bash CCA while trying to get support for them. That is a typical RFA statement from the leadership and a prime example of why no one else wants to work with them on anything. You don't see the Chairmen of CCA Texas on here talking about the RFA, they are a little more educated and proffesional than that. Gater


I am ONLY a supporter of RFA, not an official.
The CCA has a communication problem and refuses to aknowledge it.
The CCA leaves no line of communication open so these boards and others are being used to attempt to reach them.
I understand that you and a few like yourself object to having your personal diety discussed in public unless large offering of insense and muir are first placed at the feet of the idol. Sorry but most of us do not subscribe to your religion.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Let's see, you want them to communicate with you so you bash them and insult them....yeah, I wonder why they don't want to talk to you?
Diety, insense, muir? Now that's....


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Wow snap, rfa is a democracy? That's just great and when they need to poll it's members it probably takes an hour or so to call all 85 members here in Texas.
> Oh and wet dreams, you couldn't get into the S.A. CCA banquet because it is sold out every year. Seems like rfa-one wants to step into the ring and I knew it would only be a matter of time.


Well you and gater have been ranting about how everything is handled from the bottom up in your beloved organization. That to me would be a democracy; however it appears that the regime in your organization has a different plan on how they intend to run it, and I would venture to say that democracy is nowhere to be found in their ideology.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Snagged*

*I'm only a supporter not an official!!!!!* So are you telling me you don't have a voice in the RFA as a due paying member. It's my understanding they listen to the membership, at least thats what I read somewhere. I would think as a due paying member of a Organization that listens to its members they would at least listen if you asked them to leave CCA out of thier comments. I would be embarrassed if the Chairman of CCA got on a public forum or any publication and talked down about another organization. Are you sure CCA is the one with the communication problem. Gater


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Speaking of Communication Problems*

Look at the numbers at the scoping meetings on the issue of Red Snapper and Shark rules recently held by TPWD. Texas has spoken. TPWD only witnessed in the live public comments 1 person support changing Texas Territorial Rules. We all know who that was.



The RFA Texas Membership has always had my cel number to voice concern with fishery matters. The RFA has not proposed items that would cause an uproar in our membership. 



There seems to always be the hit squad after me personally. Same old tired comments.The Enviro's now have cranked up their hit squad in concert. We must be doing a few things right to cause all the discourse. 



Seems yesterday I spent most of the day squashing a rumor that TPWD was caving in to the Feds on the recent Red Snapper and Shark Texas Territorial Waters bag limit stance. Seems the Fla. newspaper in the area where the hearing will be held for their scoping was mislead so that Fla. would cave to Fed pressure. RFA managed to get statements from a Commissioner, Coastal Fisheries Team and The Chairman even instructed Scott Borrus to be available to the press in Florida to quell the rumors for Bob Zales II. Dirty tricks and back door press releases seem to be fair play. The Recreational Fishermen over there needed to have the facts. We know who the man was that "Informed the Press" in Florida according to Bob Zales II.



Texans needs Florida to push hard against the Fed Limits in State Waters. The teams on the other side of this issue will not stop at anything to get their way. Bob will post up on this issue once the hearings are held. He is very busy as we were trying to hold States Limits. I understand buses have been chartered. I understand there will be one vote like here most likely to go with the Feds according to Bob. Same letter as read into the record in Port Arthur by the one lone yes vote to allow fed regs in state waters.



Speaking of Communication Problems -If all the membership was truly aware?


----------



## cabolew (Aug 12, 2005)

My organization can pee farther than yours!!! Big deal. The answer is create habitat and they will thrive!!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Amen on Habitat. Open Natural Fish Passes and Offshore Habitat is our platform and has been. I seem to have to wear a rain coat working on the Cedar Bayou Vinson's Slough issue though. 

Habitat is job one for all species. Building habitat cost money and is hard work.
We are working to improve habitat. TGBR and Open Passes would mitigate habitat loss.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

*Quote Jim Smarr, "Habitat is job one for all species. Building habitat cost money and is hard work."*
Amen to hard work; sweaty and muddy too... as in Crab Trap Cleanup. I have a spot in my boat if you want to find out how hard, sweaty and muddy the work can be.

*

*


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

EJ- I have a PHD in Crab Trap Clean Up and even cutting up Shrimp Boats releasing hatchery fish long before you came to Texas. My hands have been very dirty for a long time . I do not need a ride. Surprised you would offer due to your history of dealing from the bottom of the deck with me and RFA. I had rather carry the traps on my back. I have a long memory.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

*"I have a long memory."*

Me too. Thanks for pouring gasoline on the olive branch and lighting it Jim. A PM would have worked just fine if you wanted to make things personal.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Js*

EJ for some reason I don't think he's capable of that. The only thing he is good at is flapping his gums about others and boasting what he has done. What good leadership, if I was a paying RFA member I would be busting with pride about now. By the way, has the sand started flying at Cedar Bayou yet!!!Gater


----------



## snapcon (Oct 11, 2005)

Mr Smarr has worked tirelessly for this fishery. I know others have as well. Mr. Smarr continues to try and speak to what efforts RFA is working on. Mr. Smarr has had more personal attacks directed at him and his group of supporters than any other person on this board for a long time. Every time there is a dissagreement or remark that sound remotly critical of the .org that did such a good job on the near shore coastal fisheries issues back in the 70s and 80s you neysayers start with what RFA does not do or what Mr. Smarr did not say.
The bottom line is that RFA has some tremendous ideas on ways to improve the fishery in the GOM. The mean spirited politics of mud slinging need to go away and stick with fighting NMFS and their flawed commercially biased system. Anyone that has followed this debate over the past several years should know that by now. Continual back biting such as that which went on last year is a huge waste of megabits. I guess my point is that if you dont have anything contructive to offer to this keep you keyboard quite. If you do have an issue keep it civil.
There are two ways to look at life.
The glass is half empty or the glass is half full.

I know that the RFA glass is way more than half full and from what i have heard, it continues to grow.
They are working tirelessly to not only protect our rights to persue this vocation which most of us seem to love, but work within a system that has alot of cards stacked against us. I am very grateful to know that these groups are there. Some of us have realized that them we thought were working for these same percieve rights really have evolved into having other agendas.

So in the end, i guess the point is everyone should look at the FACTS and make your own conclusions. I have and I am a proud member of the TEXAS RFA.
Thanks Jim Smarr and Jim Donifrio. There is is growing number of regular fisherman that have seen the light.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Snapcon*

QUOTE: *Mr. Smarr has had more personal attacks directed at him and his group of supporters than any other person on this board for a long time.*

It's not just this board, its the other one as well....Do you ever stop and wonder why!!! Gater


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

> Do you ever stop and wonder why!!!


I don't. Perhaps it's because he had the intestinal fortitude to step up to the plate and take a stand for what he believes in while others shoot at him from the relative safety afforded them by a home computer? All one has to do is go back and read "all" of the threads and posts that relate to the recent TPWD / NMFS issue and see for themselves who is taking the high road and who is not. I won't badmouth either organization but I have made my choice based mostly on what both sides of the issues have published here. I was personally and actively involved in politics for a number of years. I've seen these games before and find them quite distasteful. I'll walk with the man who "consistantly" takes the high road. Tight lines to all, H/U


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

gater said:


> QUOTE: *Mr. Smarr has had more personal attacks directed at him and his group of supporters than any other person on this board for a long time.*
> 
> It's not just this board, its the other one as well....Do you ever stop and wonder why!!! Gater


Yes I wonder why gater. Why would anyone PERSONALLY attack someone when they are speaking out against an ORGANIZATION that is dead wrong? What kind of person or persons would do such a despicable thing gater?


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Snapcon said "the .org that did such a good job on the near shore coastal fisheries issues back in the 70s and 80s". So despite your disagreement with CCA on this snapper thing you are saying that CCA has done nothing positive for 18 years?

Hooked, "see for themselves who is taking the high road and who is not". Supporters of one organization (rfa) bashing another organization(CCA) over one issue is not what I would call taking the high road.


----------



## chad (Sep 7, 2006)

I think the .org horse is ready to be packed up and sent to the glue factory...


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Kettle, Pot*

Whoa, this from the guy who launched what amounted to a good ole witchhunt against the RFA last year on this very site. I seem to recall some fervent threads over in the old Conservation forum when EJ was a moderator where opposition to CCA's stance or it's cheerleaders would surely mean banishment, this is the reason many RFA members and others left this site and some were sent to banned camp. 
Karma.

QUOT<A href="mailto:[email protected]]"I">[email protected]]*"I have a long memory."*

Me too. Thanks for pouring gasoline on the olive branch and lighting it Jim. A PM would have worked just fine if you wanted to make things personal.[/QUOTE]


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Snap Dragin*

I think you answered your own question! Do you ever think you would see the United Way Chairman degrading the Salvation Army in public because he don't like they way they run things. I'm sure the RFA has done some good things and I'm sure JS is behind some of those things but to pubilicly degrade another organization is just plain unproffesional. You can argue that all you want but you know it's not right....at least I hope you do! Gater


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

*Chad says, "I think the .org horse is ready to be packed up and sent to the glue factory."*

EJ says, "I couldn't agree more. And while you're at it, sweep up the ashes from the olive branch and place them in an urn for me. I have a place in mind to sprinkle them."


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Supporters of one organization (rfa) bashing another organization(CCA) over one issue is not what I would call taking the high road.


You said it yourself Pocboy. I have not seen anywhere where said supporters of an ORGANIZATION have attacked any of you supporters of another organization PERSONALLY. Read the title to this thread. I do not see anywhere where it says guess what I got in the mail from gater or Pocboy. Do you? With that said, why are you, gater and a few others making it personal by attacking others PERSONALLY? What kind of reasoning are you using if any?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

gater said:


> I think you answered your own question! Do you ever think you would see the United Way Chairman degrading the Salvation Army in public because he don't like they way they run things. I'm sure the RFA has done some good things and I'm sure JS is behind some of those things but to pubilicly degrade another organization is just plain unproffesional. You can argue that all you want but you know it's not right....at least I hope you do! Gater


How did I answer my own question gater? I guess you are trying to avoid answering it by placing it back on me; therefore I will ask it again. Why are you, Pocboy and a few others attacking individuals PERSONALLY whan they are writing derrogative things about an ORGANIZATION? Is that easier for you to understand?


----------



## kinja (May 21, 2004)

Gater, EJ, and POCBOY-This is getting old and coming from me that's saying alot. Let it die a quick death and lets move on.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Snap Draggin*

Your leader made it persomal along time ago and it was left alone but he he has a bad habit about running his mouth. When both of your leaders bring up CCA its personal. They have no other argument but to bring up the other organization, thats the kind of people I want leading me. You go ahead and follow them but I would'nt be standing in the middle of the Gulf when JS parts it. I'm going to go help Chad and EJ load that dead horse!!!! Gater


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

Ok, guy's the verdict is in. I am going to clean up what this un-biased oponion said. I had someone at work whom does not do any type of fishing read this entire thread. They said "Those people backing the cca have made "A's" out of themselves and look stupid. I don't like some of the people on the other side but, It seems all they want is some help or someone to say they are sorry and a commitment to help thier cause. Also I did not realize our goverment did things so half "A""
I say, there will no longer be a certain magazine in my home. I was on the first crab trap clean up. If Jim is only running his mouth at least he is running it for me and my kind. If you are not an offshore fisherman please go back to the crabtrap board or where ever you belong. People here are trying to save our fishing rights. And last Never get in a war of wits when you have no ammunition!


----------



## bigpun91 (Oct 2, 2005)

I have read the thread, I do not fish for snapper, I dont fully understand the issue, I have never heard of RFA. with that being said, this thread is like being in a room with a bunch of 5th graders. some of you guys need to grow up, suck it up and start acting like grown men. this board is for fishing, thats what I want to read and talk about not a bunch of cry babies nit picking about someones opinion. Im out


----------



## BertS (May 21, 2004)

86228 said:


> Ok, guy's the verdict is in. I am going to clean up what this un-biased oponion said. I had someone at work whom does not do any type of fishing read this entire thread. They said "Those people backing the cca have made "A's" out of themselves and look stupid. I don't like some of the people on the other side but, It seems all they want is some help or someone to say they are sorry and a commitment to help thier cause. Also I did not realize our goverment did things so half "A""
> I say, there will no longer be a certain magazine in my home. I was on the first crab trap clean up. If Jim is only running his mouth at least he is running it for me and my kind. If you are not an offshore fisherman please go back to the crabtrap board or where ever you belong. People here are trying to save our fishing rights. And last Never get in a war of wits when you have no ammunition!


lol....you gave us an unbiased opinion?

you bash CCA and your member title is RFA supporter....and your buddy's opinion sounds unbiased?

more fanning the flames

I would look carefully at the past accomplishments of any group, before donating money to any group. If a group has a track record of talking alot, but not getting results, why would I put my money in to support that group, and supply a paycheck to their board, or president, or what ever?

Finally, what has been said several times in this post, by folks in both groups. Everyone is on the same team, wanting a better, long lasting fishery, the bickering and pizzin contests go a long way to detracting from that goal.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Whew 86228, you settled it. Were they specific as to who made an "A" of themselves or did it apply to anyone who backed the CCA? Do us a favor rfa supporter and next time check your ammo pouch...it's a bit lacking too. 
bigpun, you're right except I'm in a room with 6th graders all day and some of them make more sense than some of *us* sometimes.


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> Whew 862285647839, you settled it. Were they specific as to who made an "A" of themselves or did it apply to anyone who backed the CCA? Do us a favor rfa supporter and next time check your ammo pouch...it's a bit lacking too.
> bigpun, you're right except I'm in a room with 6th graders all day and some of them make more sense than some of *us* sometimes.


Good, I knew you would see it my way. I did not stand there while they read the thread. I did not ask them any questions about why they thought what. We don't talk about fishing because they don't care about fishing. I am sorry you became offended about the ammo deal. Although I did not mention any names. I guess since there is only 3 of you guy's on the other side. One shot killed the whole flock. And like I said in another post you bay guy's are my fishing brothers and if your passion gets in a bind I will come to your aid and bring whatever Calvery I can muster with me. I have declared war on the group you are currently supporting and I also would like to sign a peace treaty as soon as they get back behind the fisherman. Please Read FISHERMAN


----------



## bigpun91 (Oct 2, 2005)

pocboy you have a point, 
bert said it -there is a common thought in the past 13 pages of wanting to make the fishing better, larger limits etc. stop fighting and put your heads together and come up with some solotion and present it. there are alot of years of snapper exp. here, use it.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*86228*

Ok, as a counter measure I had three of my neighbors who don't fish read this and from what they said............whoops I forgot I'm supposed to be burying the horse. Gater


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Bottome line is I would buy any of you a beer and have no problem discussing this face to face and I'm sure we would get along. Of course I'd have to buy 86228 a shirley temple. J/K Also, I'm sure that after enough beers you'd see things my way.


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> Bottome line is I would buy any of you a beer and have no problem discussing this face to face and I'm sure we would get along. Of course I'd have to buy 86228 a shirley temple. J/K Also, I'm sure that after enough beers you'd see things my way.


POCBoy you are on but, you will need to bring GATER and EJ. And if you don't mind I like everclear in my Shirley Temples.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

86228 said:


> Ok, guy's the verdict is in. I am going to clean up what this un-biased oponion said. I had someone at work whom does not do any type of fishing read this entire thread. They said "Those people backing the cca have made "A's" out of themselves and look stupid. I don't like some of the people on the other side but, It seems all they want is some help or someone to say they are sorry and a commitment to help thier cause. Also I did not realize our goverment did things so half "A""
> I say, there will no longer be a certain magazine in my home. I was on the first crab trap clean up. If Jim is only running his mouth at least he is running it for me and my kind. If you are not an offshore fisherman please go back to the crabtrap board or where ever you belong. People here are trying to save our fishing rights. And last Never get in a war of wits when you have no ammunition!


WOAH!!!! Where did you come from? LOL! I believe that pretty much sums it up! Especially the unbiased opinion of someone that does not do any kind of fishing. But wait, I thought gater said he was attacking others personally, because of what reason? Can anyone on the so called "our" side ever recall there being any personal attacks by "our" people on "their" people PERSONALLY unless we were defending "ourselves" from personal attacks from "them?"


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Bottome line is I would buy any of you a beer and have no problem discussing this face to face and I'm sure we would get along. Of course I'd have to buy 86228 a shirley temple. J/K Also, I'm sure that after enough beers you'd see things my way.


Pocboy, I don't want to rain on your parade bud, but there is not enough beer in Texas to make me to see things your way.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Snap, chill out dude. Were having some beers and a spiked shirley temple here.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Snap, chill out dude. Were having some beers and a spiked shirley temple here.


I am in on that, but please read above.

Also poc, I am just making a point here bud. No one on the opposite side of CCA ever attacked anyone of you personally on here. You guys took it personally and the mud slinging started. That was all I was saying OK. BTW, where are we meeting for the beers to try to sway me? I sure hope you have a lot of cash or a high limit on the plastic LOL.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Snap, I'm betting two tequilas and a chaser and you'll be swaying alright. I don't think any *one *person is guilty of starting anything here but all I know is nothing good is getting done either.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Snap, I'm betting two tequilas and a chaser and you'll be swaying alright. I don't think any *one *person is guilty of starting anything here but all I know is nothing good is getting done either.


You know what Poc? I hate it when you say something I have to agree on LOL. You are absolutely right. I even said the same thing when I said you guys took it personally and the mud slinging started. I never said *one *person. Everything derrogative *I* ever said on here to someone personally was in self defense. That is all I was saying. We have said bad things about CCA, but we were right on. No one that was "bashing" CCA ever singled you, gater, bevo, or anyone else out for that matter. It was you guys that singled us out and some of you still continue to do it. You have refrained from it for a little while now and I commend you, but there are still others that have not. Surely you are reasonable and intelligent enough to realize that what I am saying is 100% true and accurate.

Oh, one more thing. I would DEFINITELY be swaying and much more before I even came close to seeing things your way on CCA LOL.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

dlove said:


> POcboy and Gater have that Clayton Williams mentality if rape is enevitable just lay back and enjoy it. For some reason it bothers them that the offshore fishermen demand an organization stand up for them if they are to support it, and aren't going to lay there and take it.


This is the most preposterous remark I've seen made on all of these posts.

But I digress...

CCA did not make this decision... it was shot down by TPWD. End of story.

I've grown weary of these threads yet here I am reading them again. Just like the bluewater guys are insisting we don't know the facts, so we don't know what we're talking about. Clearly all the facts aren't being thrown into the mix about CCA either.

Get with the group you're going to be with and march to their drum... but BE ACTIVE. Most of the people complaining will stand up and state that they were not ACTIVE in their CCA. Signing up and paying money to be a "part" of an organization doesn't mean you're playing an active role. No, you won't know what's going on if you're not in the trenches fighting the good fight.

EJ... awesome comments. Thank you for your posts.

Stay cool...
baylvr


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

86228 said:


> I am sorry you became offended about the ammo deal. Although I did not mention any names. I guess since there is only 3 of you guy's on the other side. One shot killed the whole flock. And like I said in another post you bay guy's are my fishing brothers and if your passion gets in a bind I will come to your aid and bring whatever Calvery I can muster with me. I have declared war on the group you are currently supporting and I also would like to sign a peace treaty as soon as they get back behind the fisherman. Please Read FISHERMAN


I am a fisherman. There are more than 3 of "us" reading this post, we just don't choose to join in the "mud slinging".

I'm a bay fishin gal and I came to the side of the Big Blue guys on this issue and will continue to do so even in the face of all the bashing.

The group I currently support are behind the fishermen as they are fishermen themselves. But their first agenda always has and always will be the resource. That goal has never waivered. You can be in opposition to how they accomplish that, but bashing those of us who choose to support them on a personal basis on a fishing board is just not good brotherhood material.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I like that your sig line is in GREEN baylvr! LOL Just messin with ya!


----------



## bigpun91 (Oct 2, 2005)

I challange anyone here to take my wife and I on our first snapper trip so we can make up our own mind. ps I'll bring the bait:cheers:


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Wow I have stayed from this stuff for a few days. Just read the last few pages. Its still going on. Folks its just life, CCA made a mistake and RFA is benefiting from it. Let it go and everyone try and get things fixed. I know it wont be easy but its possible. CCA know whats up as RFA does. I think the best thing is for folks both CCA and RFA to keep a close watch and CCA members let their organization know their feelings and see if CCA listens and responds to your liking. If not make a change if you want if not stay. RFA folks being a much smaller organizition seem to "hear" more input from their members. RFA members do with your orgization as I suggested CCA members do with theirs. Back and forth on this board is a waste of time. OK now for the margaritas and Shirley Temples, where's it gonna happen ? Good fishing

Charlie


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

There's a little bar just outside of La Vernia.....


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I like that your sig line is in GREEN baylvr! LOL Just messin with ya!


It's my favorite color! HeHe!!


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

Baylvr
How is this the most preposterous remark. Gater said The feds are going to do what they want so it doesn't matter what cca's stance is. He also said he disagrees with cca's stance but he doesn't snapper fish so he really doesn't care. And how do you suggest we get cca's attention none of you cca folks have mentioned how to get there attention. You just accept that you don't agree with their stance and forget it. We want them to realize they need to listen to their supporters because without them they don't exist. We don't want them to close up shop we could never do that anyway we just want them to do whats right.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

dlove said:


> Baylvr
> How is this the most preposterous remark. Gater said The feds are going to do what they want so it doesn't matter what cca's stance is. He also said he disagrees with cca's stance but he doesn't snapper fish so he really doesn't care. And how do you suggest we get cca's attention none of you cca folks have mentioned how to get there attention. You just accept that you don't agree with their stance and forget it. We want them to realize they need to listen to their supporters because without them they don't exist. We don't want them to close up shop we could never do that anyway we just want them to do whats right.


I just felt the rape comment was overboard my friend... that's all. I welcome everyone's opinion as I stand for your right to speak freely on the same ground I stand for mine.

As for CCA... they're hearing you. You just won't see the top dog of CCA come on a fishing board and have a battle of wits. They're answering you by posting on THEIR website. Go to the CCA website and read the public comments.

As EJ said... write to the powers that be in CCA... they're posted on the website. Write to your local chapter President... they're posted on the website. Or better yet, join up and VOLUNTEER your time! Everything is right there for you to use. The information on where the money goes and who's making the decisions is right there on the website. What more can CCA say?

Do *I* support their stance on Red Snapper... no, I did not. I wrote to my state office who sent a guy to talk with me personally. I spoke my mind at my local board meeting. I stay active with the group.

That was my whole point... join whatever group you feel strongly about. But be ACTIVE! Don't sit on the sidelines and complain when it's not getting done your way. Become a board member of your local chapter... then ask to be a board member on the state level... if you don't like how it's being done, run for the office and do it your way.

Fussing on a fishing board isn't bringing back the population of Red Snapper. Being active... doing the studies required... writing peer reviewed study papers... these are Proactive efforts!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

bigpun91 said:


> I challange anyone here to take my wife and I on our first snapper trip so we can make up our own mind. ps I'll bring the bait:cheers:


Where do you live? PM me if you are willing to come to Sabine Pass and I will gladly put you on some snapper. Oh, BTW ice and gas are in the costs as well, but we can all pitch in.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

baylvr

Just a note and not getting in the middle of this but my response regarding the "top dog" of CCA not showing on a fishing board. Publishing a reply on their website, and not getting into a discussion ? What does that really say ?? Not responding to a request to CCA as to who really made the decision regarding Snapper and State waters ? Ill leave it at that. Good fishing.. 

Charlie


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

CHARLIE said:


> Wow I have stayed from this stuff for a few days. Just read the last few pages. Its still going on. Folks its just life, CCA made a mistake and RFA is benefiting from it. Let it go and everyone try and get things fixed. I know it wont be easy but its possible. CCA know whats up as RFA does. I think the best thing is for folks both CCA and RFA to keep a close watch and CCA members let their organization know their feelings and see if CCA listens and responds to your liking. If not make a change if you want if not stay. RFA folks being a much smaller organizition seem to "hear" more input from their members. RFA members do with your orgization as I suggested CCA members do with theirs. Back and forth on this board is a waste of time. OK now for the margaritas and Shirley Temples, where's it gonna happen ? Good fishing
> 
> Charlie


Welcome back Charlie! I guess you can see that not much has changed. I agree that all this back and forth BS needs to stop. To quote an infamous famous person "can't we all just get along?" I believe we have all ran out of points and counter points.

Like Charlie said to the members of CCA. Please contact the people in charge of making the decisions and let them know they are wrong about Red Snapper. Baylvr, I hope you are doing just that while trying to make a difference from within. If people like you, Pocboy, bevo and gater would work on them from the inside I believe the message would be powerful. Especially when bay fishermen and women like yourselves make the point.

Maybe when the weather cooperates better and everyone gets to go fish things will calm down on here, but until then let's try to figure out something else to talk about. I mentioned this earlier, but got caught up in the hoopla again. What say everyone just let this lay and concentrate on the important issues?


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

I asked some of my trailer park neighbors who can't read to read this post and tell me what they understood. They said, "bla bla bla bla bla bla." They can't read but they sure got the gist of the last ten pages. :headknock


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Almost finish*

My name has been mentioned a few times in those last few post and uh..uh................................................Man EJ, that horse ain't very deep, I hope the Coyotes don't dig it up. Gater


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

CHARLIE said:


> baylvr
> 
> Just a note and not getting in the middle of this but my response regarding the "top dog" of CCA not showing on a fishing board. Publishing a reply on their website, and not getting into a discussion ? What does that really say ?? Not responding to a request to CCA as to who really made the decision regarding Snapper and State waters ? Ill leave it at that. Good fishing..
> 
> Charlie


I got a response. I guess it depends on the manner in which one approaches folks? I'll leave it at that.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Man I hate to do this but, I guess part of an answer is better than none. Thanks. I agree with your earlier post.. Let your voice be heard, work for your goal and lets get on with the issue. Good fishing

Charlie


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

CHARLIE said:


> Man I hate to do this but, I guess part of an answer is better than none. Thanks. I agree with your earlier post.. Let your voice be heard, work for your goal and lets get on with the issue. Good fishing
> Charlie


I apologize for giving you part of an answer. I guess I misread the question? Let me try again if only for the sake of posterity alone.



CHARLIE said:


> Publishing a reply on their website, and not getting into a discussion ? What does that really say ??


It says, "We're going to take the high road and post a response to the inundation of hate mail and nasty grams in a professional manner". I guess it's left to everyone's personal perception? I found it ethical. Those who are in opposition are going to find fault in everything they try to do from here on out. I feel this is a good example of such.



CHARLIE said:


> Not responding to a request to CCA as to who really made the decision regarding Snapper and State waters ?


That was covered earlier... it was made at a national level by folks who have been placed in those positions by local and state boards.

Let me say again... *I* did not agree and I let my opinion be known to the higher offices on the Snapper issue. I firmly believe unless you have an Ox in the CCA ditch, it's hard to see what the goals of the organization are. I have dogs in both fights, folks like Capt Mike Jennings and Capt Dustin Lee are very dear friends and fisher "family" if you will, so I've tried to educate myself on both sides.

My whole point behind even responding on these threads is to make everyone see that the goal of the CCA is conservation... it's in the title. Bottom line.

I hope this answer is more to your liking. I apologize for seeming to brush it off.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

*Pocboy, *Gater, EJ, and baylvr,

I just wanted to say thank you. As a direct resault of this thread the RFA has picked up an additional 1,000 plus new members.

:dance:


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Whoa, over 150 posts on 16 pages, I ain't never heard such a smack-down in years! Way more fun than when my brother went to take a sheet and the piglets got him, or when he caught a ling and his pants fell off. *LOL*

But at the end of the day at least we can shake hands and have a cold beer, right? 

I seemed to recall that I said the CCA made a decision in their headquarters that might not exactly wash on the waterfronts in Texas. I even heard that some CCA members really do see the economic impact of lost headboats and private charters, and less people having access to fewer fish. Even the old bait camps and recreational fish stores are closing down. It truly must hurt.

Let's just get-r-done with some real action, and make the best of what we can.  
-sammie


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

baylvar

Thanks and I apreciate your total resonse and opinions.. Yes, we must all work and try and correct the position that CCa has taken. I know its not going to happen and certainly no one will take down CCA. I also appreciate RFA and their guys having the gonads to show up and take the hits and not hide behind a board statement to be exposed and take the hits they have from folks. Good fishing and lets continue to get the word out and stay busy. Lets get past all this.

I did send a question to CCA Natl. Not nasty and didnt get any response. Glad you heard from them.

Charlie


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Snagged*

That's great, I'm happy for RFA that they gained 1,000 new members because of this issue, I sincerley mean that. Now remember one thing though, membership numbers and money is only a piece of the pie, that truck needs wheels to roll so you and the others need to get busy. Maybe all this bickering was a good thing, if nothing at all, it got people fired up and fighting mad (in a good way) no matter what side of the fence your on....Peace out and good Luck! Gater


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Thanks Gater.
Those of us who have joined RFA are voicing our thoughts and I can state in all honesty those statements are being heard and acted on.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Snagged, now I'm through argueing, but 1000+ new members because of this one thread...I'm going to snopes that and see what they say. If rfa did gain 1000+ members then good for for y'all and I hope you make headway with the feds where others have not. Tom


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Tom,
It's about getting leaders who listen and then explain what is best. At least this org is trying and keeping us informed.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Wow...I didn't think this thread would make it this far. I've been busy with school and packing for my trip to Chicago tomorrow. I've PM'ed a few people on here and spoken with them. I wasn't around for much of the personal issues. For the most part I just see this as a way for people to gather around similar to "the guys" getting together at the local tavern and having the ford v chevy debate. If CCA members learned something about current or past members feelings on being left out of the process or by feeling betrayed I guess it was mission accomplished. If 20 current CCA members learned something about CCA's stance on red snapper it was all worth it.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

I dunno, I'm just a crewman for the Texas Mosquito Navy and I don't care who does the right thing or says it right, I just want to have some fun, be safe, and catch a fair fish. 

Do y'all big chiefs get that?

If perchance the red snapper really are so bad ... and I wish I had an ugly stick to run off all the little ones before I got a nice sow ... I'd give it up and play with ladyfish and tarpons in the surf. See what I mean? -sammie


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

"It's about getting leaders who listen and then explain what is best. At least this org is trying and keeping us informed".

Biting my tongue....sitting on my hands....


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Sitting on your hands? Yet you are still compelled to post. Let it go poc, your posts are beyond tired.


----------



## HonkyFin (May 28, 2004)

*Wow !!*

Nothing like some Unity to solve a problem.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Man, MYOB, you're not the boss of me. If you don't like my posts then move along.


----------



## Bevo34 (Feb 10, 2005)

HonkyFin said:


> Nothing like some Unity to solve a problem.


That was the picture I was looking for 4 or 5 pages ago.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Pattillo said:


> Gater, EJ, and POCBOY-This is getting old and coming from me that's saying alot. Let it die a quick death and lets move on.


Your boss told you to lay down several pages back POC...LOL

Just messing with you POCBOY!


----------

