# CCA Stance on Snapper Regs



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I recently called CCA to voice my opposition on adopting federal regulations on state Red Snapper. I spoke with someone there named Pat Murray. He is the Vice President and Director of Conservation. He was very adamant about supporting the feds and would not budge.

I challenged him to come fish with me out of Sabine Pass and see how many Red Snapper we could catch. I told him he could pick any set of numbers I have for rocks, humps, wrecks, reefs, rigs etc. and we would fish them. I also stated that we could easily limit with four people on pretty much any given place, or just in a couple of places. He continually spouted bureaucratic BS and hoopla about the shortage of the stocks. I even mentioned to him that he sounded like one of those guys. He stood his ground.

I informed him that I would not take this lying down, nor would I just bend over and take it up the arse from CCA or the feds. I am personally not going to renew my membership, and I would hope that more 2 coolers will follow.

We need to make a stand on this issue or it will never cease. We as recreational fishermen ALWAYS have to bear the brunt of by catch and all other atrocities those commercial so and so's do. Let them clean up thier own mess for once.

If anyone wants to contact Pat Murray the number is (713)626-4234. He also gave me his e-mail address which is [email protected]. I have pasted the link to their site as well. I hope everyone that reads this floods his office with calls and e-mails.

Please let's show solidarity in this and try to salvage what we have instead of having to go backward again. I know there are folks on here that are going to say there is nothing we can do. Once they make up their mind it is a done deal. Well if we all take that attitude and just sit on our hands and do nothing then we are giving up and they win no matter what. I say we at least go down fighting. That way we can at least have the satisfaction of saying we tried instead of just giving up.

http://www.joincca.org/contact.html


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

It's a good idea to try to get CCA's attrention but you won't sway them now. Everyone needs to voice their opposition to TPWD of giving up our 4 fish state limit. They have the authority to keep it the same if enough of us call, write or show up at the meetings.


----------



## OffShore Man (Jan 10, 2005)

Good luck with CCA. I droped mine three years ago when it became clear that they were going down the wrong road on the snapper and conservation issues.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Forget CCA, come to the next meeting with us, I can assure you, I will have a TPWD Commissioner there. Let's concentrate on the TPWD.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Haute Pursuit said:


> It's a good idea to try to get CCA's attrention but you won't sway them now. Everyone needs to voice their opposition to TPWD of giving up our 4 fish state limit. They have the authority to keep it the same if enough of us call, write or show up at the meetings.


I realize we cannot sway them. Believe me Pat and I exchanged point counter point for 30 minutes. The point I am making is if they lose a lot of members due to this maybe next time they will ask the membership's opinion before making hasty decisions in the name of them.

Please do not get me wrong. I also told him that I was very delighted with the way things were handled on Redfish and Specks. I just disagree that the stocks are in as bad of shape as they are saying in Texas waters or even federal waters off the coast of Texas.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

pat was a fishing guide here in galveston at one time. he was a good guide. i think he sold himself out to the cca years ago. he should stand up for the fisherman. imo


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Well call him and let him know these opinions.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

pat knows exactly how i feel about the cca and the decisions they make.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I had to dig through a lot of email to find this. Steven Atran is one of the most qualified men I know that serves under the Gulf Council. He sent me this.



> Based on what I think your question is from what you wrote in the message board, when a TAC is set, all fish caught from that stock are counted against the TAC, even if caught in state waters. This is because the TAC represents the "TOTAL" catch from that stock that can be taken irrespective of political boundaries. Normally, the Council will ask each of the Gulf states to adopt compatible regulations, but if that doesn't happen, as has been the case with Florida and Texas for red snapper regulations, the federal regulations may reflect that and be set so that the projected total catches stay within the TAC. *Although, as I recall, the total amount of state-caught red snapper from Florida and Texas combined is not enough to have much of an impact on the federal regs.*


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


> I had to dig through a lot of email to find this. Steven Atran is one of the most qualified men I know that serves under the Gulf Council. He sent me this.


Sooo what is this saying? That they are going to force this on us no matter what.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

he's saying that the state leaving the waters open has already been accounted for in the TAC and that it is a very small amount anyways. In short, the state caught snapper don't matter.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


> he's saying that the state leaving the waters open has already been accounted for in the TAC and that it is a very small amount anyways. In short, the state caught snapper don't matter.


Well then where is the logic in adopting the federal regs and having a short season in state waters if the amount is so small?


----------



## WilliamH (May 21, 2004)

> I realize we cannot sway them. Believe me Pat and I exchanged point counter point for 30 minutes. The point I am making is if they lose a lot of members due to this maybe next time they will ask the membership's opinion before making hasty decisions in the name of them.


I would bet the majority of the CCA membership is due to the STAR Tourny and not because people want to belong to CCA. As long as the STAR is running, CCA will have members.


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

iv been putting pen to paper on my comment for the meeting, that was good Mont
thank you


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

WilliamH said:


> I would bet the majority of the CCA membership is due to the STAR Tourny and not because people want to belong to CCA. As long as the STAR is running, CCA will have members.


I say boycott the tournament as well. Let them buy all those prizes and not have the entry fees. Like I said we need to show solidarity or just bend over.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Get in your cars and come the the Gal Co meeting it aint over


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I tried that e-mail address Pat gave me that I posted at the begining of this thread. That address did not work. My remote host kept rejecting it. I called there and his secretary gave me another one. Please feel free to e-mail him at the address below.

[email protected]


----------



## BlueBound (Aug 19, 2005)

CCA is not our friend. Breaks my heart. It's not just an honest disagreement, they don't CARE about offshore fishermen, NOR (I'm starting to believe) Texas and Western Gulf fishermen of any type. 

There's a LOT more money on the EAST coast.

If anyone has a business making bumper stickers or those window stickers, I'll guarantee $100 for a print that shows the CCA logo in a circle with an international "not", the diagonal line, through it. 

If enough of these start showing up on trucks, boats, tackle boxes, coolers, etc., someone MIGHT notice. And, IMO, they would prompt many bay fishermen to ask why, which would be a good thing. 

Anyway, I'm in for $100. Anyone else?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Well then EVERYONE that is a member should share the same sentiment as I. If everyone gets out of the organization they will have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

BlueBound said:


> CCA is not our friend. Breaks my heart. It's not just an honest disagreement, they don't CARE about offshore fishermen, NOR (I'm starting to believe) Texas and Western Gulf fishermen of any type.
> 
> There's a LOT more money on the EAST coast.
> 
> ...


Count me in!


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Need anyone be reminded of who got us 2 fish via legal action. They have done a good job at throwing money at research and such but they also rake in a good bit of dough as well. I feel that it is critical to take action to stop the enviros and their false propaganda campaign.

They create an image of a dead ocean and people send money to save it, fact is the idiots attempting this have no clue nor do they give a **** about fishermen. However, some of them make well over $200k a year so they could likely care less what we think as long as they are paying the bills. Kill the money and the rest of it dies.

-The Gulf Restoration Network (Enviros)

-The Ocean Conservancy (Enviros) Also pushing for no fishing zones in the gulf and very well entrenched in the NMFS rule making process.


-CCA, who also got us 5 fish in the LLM yet still run the largest non-catch and release tournament in the United States.

Those are the culprits you can thank.


----------



## awesum (May 31, 2006)

Mont said:


> I had to dig through a lot of email to find this. Steven Atran is one of the most qualified men I know that serves under the Gulf Council. He sent me this.


I had to dig through a lot of email to find this. Steven Atran is one of the most qualified men I know that serves under the Gulf Council. He sent me this.

Quote:
Based on what I think your question is from what you wrote in the message board, when a TAC is set, all fish caught from that stock are counted against the TAC, even if caught in state waters. This is because the TAC represents the "TOTAL" catch from that stock that can be taken irrespective of political boundaries. Normally, the Council will ask each of the Gulf states to adopt compatible regulations, but if that doesn't happen, as has been the case with Florida and Texas for red snapper regulations, the federal regulations may reflect that and be set so that the projected total catches stay within the TAC. *Although, as I recall, the total amount of state-caught red snapper from Florida and Texas combined is not enough to have much of an impact on the federal regs.*

I would also like to use this in my statement at the Port Aransas meeting.


----------



## awesum (May 31, 2006)

BlueBound said:


> If anyone has a business making bumper stickers or those window stickers, I'll guarantee $100 for a print that shows the CCA logo in a circle with an international "not", the diagonal line, through it.
> 
> If enough of these start showing up on trucks, boats, tackle boxes, coolers, etc., someone MIGHT notice. And, IMO, they would prompt many bay fishermen to ask why, which would be a good thing.
> 
> Anyway, I'm in for $100. Anyone else?


I would also be willing to contribute to this endeavor.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

First thing's first. EVERYONE needs to get out of CCA. That is allIhaveto say on that. They are not for us. All they want is our money to finance thier agenda. Everyone needs to run fast and run far!!!


----------



## Third Wave (May 24, 2004)

It's amazing how the larger problems can be solved by burying the only hope out there.
Do you really think the Enviros are going to work through the beaurocracy to help you?
NO.
There is a political game, whether you like it or not, that must be played. Sometimes that game is not won by only moving forward. Sometimes it's diagonal. (See CHESS)

I do hope that offshore fishermen get to go catch all the snapper they could ever eat. But I also hope that you can find someone else to fight your battle the way you want it fought. Good luck. Sincerely.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Third Wave said:


> It's amazing how the larger problems can be solved by burying the only hope out there.
> Do you really think the Enviros are going to work through the beaurocracy to help you?
> NO.
> There is a political game, whether you like it or not, that must be played. Sometimes that game is not won by only moving forward. Sometimes it's diagonal. (See CHESS)
> ...


What is your point here? Are you referring to CCA? If so they are not fighting our battle. By the way, the move they are making is not diagonal, it is backward.


----------



## Third Wave (May 24, 2004)

*If not...then quit hate mongering*

Nevertheless.
I do hope you find someone to step up and tell the Feds that all the money they spent determining how many fish there are or aren't and who gets them was wrong.
CCA tried that. They had to file a lawsuit to stop them from eliminating the season all together based on truly wacky science.

But you're right...CCA is not on your side at all. (somewhat facetious)

If CCA is not fighting "your" snapper battle then okay...But that doesn't mean they aren't fighting the other worthwhile battles for you and me.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Third Wave said:


> Nevertheless.
> I do hope you find someone to step up and tell the Feds that all the money they spent determining how many fish there are or aren't and who gets them was wrong.
> CCA tried that. They had to file a lawsuit to stop them from eliminating the season all together based on truly wacky science.
> 
> ...


It is apparent to me that Snapper to you are not "worthwhile." I personally think they are. If you will, go back and read in this thread where I commended CCA for their efforts on Redfish and Specks; however I think it was GCCA then. Hmmmm maybe a different organization altogether. Perhaps the other posts in this thread are "worthwhile" as well.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Third Wave said:


> Nevertheless.
> I do hope you find someone to step up and tell the Feds that all the money they spent determining how many fish there are or aren't and who gets them was wrong.
> CCA tried that. They had to file a lawsuit to stop them from eliminating the season all together based on truly wacky science.
> 
> ...


One more thing. I believe you are missing the point altogether. The point is that we do not need the feds telling our very competent state biologists what kind of regulations to put on STATE Snapper waters. As far as I am concerned CCA has not fought that battle at all. The issue at hand is to leave the state limits and no closed season as is, or status quo if you will.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

The mere idea that CCA is immune from criticism because they have done well in the past is simpleton and shallow. There are always consequences for our actions, why are they any different? Fact is the enviro's are on the inside of the process, CCA is also inside and rather than call out the flawed bycatch and mortality issues as well as others that are concerns of the rec angler they sided with the folks who really do want an end to fishing and joined in said lawsuit. It is way more than a bad PR move, and based on their stance the STAR tourney seems to be a fish killing machine that serves no purpose than to pay their bills and throw some to TPW which is fine, but also a great press release for CCA to talk the talk. They had best learn to walk the walk. Any company run on such bankrupt ideals would be under in no time.


----------



## shoalcat_james (Sep 18, 2007)

You know I go to a restruant and the menu says when in season on some items. Why take the snapper from the once to twice off shore fisherman. They need to put a leash on the commercial guys. Commercial fishing gets it the first 10 days each month and 10 of thousands of snapper. Why not pull commercial fishing back to a seasonal catch. I wouldn't mine only being able to eat snapper at a restaurant when in season. I bet if you took ALL the red snapper that the recreational fisherman catches all summer in the Texas coast; would not add up to 10 days of commercial fishing and there load. I will not re new my CCA to they hit the people that are the biggest problem.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Hughoo222 said:


> The mere idea that CCA is immune from criticism because they have done well in the past is simpleton and shallow. There are always consequences for our actions, why are they any different? Fact is the enviro's are on the inside of the process, CCA is also inside and rather than call out the flawed bycatch and mortality issues as well as others that are concerns of the rec angler they sided with the folks who really do want an end to fishing and joined in said lawsuit. It is way more than a bad PR move, and based on their stance the STAR tourney seems to be a fish killing machine that serves no purpose than to pay their bills and throw some to TPW which is fine, but also a great press release for CCA to talk the talk. They had best learn to walk the walk. Any company run on such bankrupt ideals would be under in no time.


Excellent and very well put. That is EXACTLY what I have been trying to convey here the entire time. The fact that EVERYONE must be responsible for their actions and that nobody should be exempt or excluded. The politicians already have a free pass on that, and I think that is not even fair. We must hold everyone accountable for their actions as we are held accountable for ours on a daily basis!


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Not the first 10 days now...no they have it everyday, yes every day. I agree with the last part, why do they not go after the Comercial Snapper boats. The comercial guys have no enforced limmits, they are on their honor to be truthfull about their personal quota......they are honest ,,,,,right? 



shoalcat_james said:


> You know I go to a restruant and the menu says when in season on some items. Why take the snapper from the once to twice off shore fisherman. They need to put a leash on the commercial guys. Commercial fishing gets it the first 10 days each month and 10 of thousands of snapper. Why not pull commercial fishing back to a seasonal catch. I wouldn't mine only being able to eat snapper at a restaurant when in season. I bet if you took ALL the red snapper that the recreational fisherman catches all summer in the Texas coast; would not add up to 10 days of commercial fishing and there load. I will not re new my CCA to they hit the people that are the biggest problem.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

shoalcat_james said:


> You know I go to a restruant and the menu says when in season on some items. Why take the snapper from the once to twice off shore fisherman. They need to put a leash on the commercial guys. Commercial fishing gets it the first 10 days each month and 10 of thousands of snapper. Why not pull commercial fishing back to a seasonal catch. I wouldn't mine only being able to eat snapper at a restaurant when in season. I bet if you took ALL the red snapper that the recreational fisherman catches all summer in the Texas coast; would not add up to 10 days of commercial fishing and there load. I will not re new my CCA to they hit the people that are the biggest problem.


Very good! I see the coalition is picking up steam!!


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

shoalcat_james said:


> You know I go to a restruant and the menu says when in season on some items. Why take the snapper from the once to twice off shore fisherman. They need to put a leash on the commercial guys. Commercial fishing gets it the first 10 days each month and 10 of thousands of snapper. Why not pull commercial fishing back to a seasonal catch. I wouldn't mine only being able to eat snapper at a restaurant when in season. I bet if you took ALL the red snapper that the recreational fisherman catches all summer in the Texas coast; would not add up to 10 days of commercial fishing and there load. I will not re new my CCA to they hit the people that are the biggest problem.


you information on the commercial side is very outdated. The comm. side fishes under IFQ's and can fish whenever they wish.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

shoalcat_james said:


> You know I go to a restruant and the menu says when in season on some items. Why take the snapper from the once to twice off shore fisherman. They need to put a leash on the commercial guys. Commercial fishing gets it the first 10 days each month and 10 of thousands of snapper. Why not pull commercial fishing back to a seasonal catch. I wouldn't mine only being able to eat snapper at a restaurant when in season. I bet if you took ALL the red snapper that the recreational fisherman catches all summer in the Texas coast; would not add up to 10 days of commercial fishing and there load. I will not re new my CCA to they hit the people that are the biggest problem.


Oh, by the way, tell your friends about this!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

*A Little Insight Please*



Mont said:


> you information on the commercial side is very outdated. The comm. side fishes under IFQ's and can fish whenever they wish.


Hey Mont, with all due respect, I would like to ask your opinion on all this. You seem to be very knowledgable and up to date on everything. What is your take on the CCA and federal Snapper regs?


----------



## shoalcat_james (Sep 18, 2007)

I didn't know they changed the when ever part. I heard about this about 3 months ago and got me very mad. i go out on galveston party boats about 7-8 times a yr. It doesn't bother me bring home less fish. I do alot of top water for kings. But I hate they take it away from the recreational fisherman and don't try to put a stance on the commercial fishing industries.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Can you come to the meeting?



shoalcat_james said:


> I didn't know they changed the when ever part. I heard about this about 3 months ago and got me very mad. i go out on galveston party boats about 7-8 times a yr. It doesn't bother me bring home less fish. I do alot of top water for kings. But I hate they take it away from the recreational fisherman and don't try to put a stance on the commercial fishing industries.


----------



## KG2 (Nov 15, 2006)

Im really happy to see the ball rolling and unity being formed. Where are these meetings taking place? As some know I fish partyboats, and work on one of them, but when Im old enough to have my boat who even knows if I will be able to go out and fish, hell by then they will outlaw the use of hooks to catch fish....any meetings in the Corpus- Pt A area?


----------



## shoalcat_james (Sep 18, 2007)

theres no way i can make it on a tuesday. I'm the real Hank Hill and winter is bad times to ask off. 
KG2 Its at University of Texas Marine Science Institute Auditorium, 750 Channel View Drive, Port Aransas, TX on Jan 9,2008 at 7pm. TPW will be having a public hearing to hear what the public has to say

But I have let my feeling be heard at CCA.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

shoalcat_james said:


> I didn't know they changed the when ever part. I heard about this about 3 months ago and got me very mad. i go out on galveston party boats about 7-8 times a yr. It doesn't bother me bring home less fish. I do alot of top water for kings. But I hate they take it away from the recreational fisherman and don't try to put a stance on the commercial fishing industries.


Hey man, please do not take this the wrong way. I started this thread and I am by no means in favor of the CCA or their selfish political agenda, but I believe the filed a lawsuit against those commercial scum bags a while back. I am just trying to keep it real. Regardless, they should have NEVER taken an allience with the feds on this issue. Especially when there is overwhelming opposition to them and proof that the stocks are not in trouble.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

KG2 said:


> Im really happy to see the ball rolling and unity being formed. Where are these meetings taking place? As some know I fish partyboats, and work on one of them, but when Im old enough to have my boat who even knows if I will be able to go out and fish, hell by then they will outlaw the use of hooks to catch fish....any meetings in the Corpus- Pt A area?


Hey young man first thing first. Boycott CCA and tell all your friends to tell their friends etc.


----------



## shoalcat_james (Sep 18, 2007)

I understand it's the TPW but with CCA taking there back with there powers doesn't make it right. It's the members of the CCA that gives it the power, BUT it's got to listen to the members and help where helps needed. They shouldn't hide behind and wait. I talk with Matt Bunn with CCA and he said to keep things at peace, they have to give time to the commercial end to fix there ways "problems" before they can crack down on them. They did file a lawsuite but this is what the best direction looks like? He said "like a 2 YR THING" but yet they can snatch it right from the recreational fisherman.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I agree brother. You are preaching to the choir on that one. Like I said I am just trying to keep it real. That does not sway my feelings toward CCA by no means. If you check out the entire contents of this thread you will see where I stand with them. One thing that can be said. I kept my promise to Pat Murray there. I told him he backed me into a corner and that I would do exactly what has been done here. He left me no choice because he was closed minded and has his own agenda as so many big organizations do. That is why I am no longer a member of DU. Same reason there. I kept my promise and I hope everyone else does as well.


----------



## KG2 (Nov 15, 2006)

shoalcat_james said:


> theres no way i can make it on a tuesday. I'm the real Hank Hill and winter is bad times to ask off.
> KG2 Its at University of Texas Marine Science Institute Auditorium, 750 Channel View Drive, Port Aransas, TX on Jan 9,2008 at 7pm. TPW will be having a public hearing to hear what the public has to say
> 
> But I have let my feeling be heard at CCA.


Thanks Ill be there to watch and support, and learn and stay active on these topics.

kevin


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

You know I am amazed at all this. About a year or two on this board all this was brought up and really nothing happened except some very outspoken folks got banned. You really got a bad look if you bad mouthed CCA. Now looK its happning again and I hope with more success. Just one thought for yall to think about. In Washington a few years back the enviros (CCA too) walked the halls holding hands with the commercial fisherman pushing for the latest changes. Now why would a commercial fisherman join forces with the enviros?? Result would be and it happened. Year round fishing on the honor system for the commercials. Enviros like to brag about the IFQ's and VMS and niether of them work...

Charlie


----------



## CaptRickD (Aug 12, 2005)

*CCA Sold Out*

I resigned as Secretary of the Northeast Chapter years ago when nobody at headquarters could give me a rational, logical or reasonable explanation of their position on the snapper fishery.

Nothing has changed. They are even opposed to the TGBR Project. Where do the shrimpers get all of this money?


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

CapnRikD

Re Great barrier reef program... Did you ever think that the CCA would push the State changes because the Texas Great Barrier Reef program mite suffer because now whats the use because we can only catch 2 fish now ? If CCA thought about or sponsored the TGBR program they would be against the 2 fish change. Politics suck.

Charlie


----------



## BlueBound (Aug 19, 2005)

CHARLIE said:


> You know I am amazed at all this. About a year or two on this board all this was brought up and really nothing happened except some very outspoken folks got banned. You really got a bad look if you bad mouthed CCA. Now looK its happning again and I hope with more success. Just one thought for yall to think about. In Washington a few years back the enviros (CCA too) walked the halls holding hands with the commercial fisherman pushing for the latest changes. Now why would a commercial fisherman join forces with the enviros?? Result would be and it happened. Year round fishing on the honor system for the commercials. Enviros like to brag about the IFQ's and VMS and niether of them work...
> 
> Charlie


Yes Charlie. Some of us a year or so ago still believed that despite stabbing us in the back once, perhaps CCA had some legitimate science and a true concern for the resource, and that the best solution would be to understand their position, agree to disagree, and get that very powerful organization back on the side of recreational offshore fishermen.

Some of us were wrong. And for wanting to believe that CCA is still interested in sport fishermen, we get them supporting the imposition of the two fish rule and reduced season in state waters.

THIS IS RETALIATION DIRECTED AT OFFSHORE FISHERMEN BY CCA FOR BUCKING THEIR POSITION AT THE HEARINGS LAST YEAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. THEY ARE SHOWING US THEY HAVE THE POWER AND IF WE DON"T LINE UP BEHIND THEIR EVERY POSITION THIS IS WHAT THEY WILL DO.

We have $300 for the stickers. That should get us a ways. Are any 2Coolers in the business?


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

BlueBound

Thanks my friend I appreciate your position.. Good fishing. Its kinda like that ole beer commercial "YOU GOTTA BELIEVE ME..".

Charlie


----------



## shoalcat_james (Sep 18, 2007)

Any time i talk to CCA broad members now day's. You ask them any question in general. There responce is " Were growing snook at the new thing in Port A". it's like they have got in a one track mine. What about the passes that are closing and the amount of flounder Declining in texas waters. BUT "were growing snook". Lets not get this topic of course. PLease speak out to the TPW and CCA and let your feelings be heard!!!!!!!!!


----------



## flymost (Nov 6, 2006)

I was just trying to remember how the Commercials got shut out of the Redfish. I think that they had to declare them a sportfish and a protected finfish. No matter what it was, I think there is some pretty good data to support the same legislation would work to protect the snapper as well.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Snap Draggin said:


> Hey Mont, with all due respect, I would like to ask your opinion on all this. You seem to be very knowledgable and up to date on everything. What is your take on the CCA and federal Snapper regs?


This is my personal opinion, period. It's worth exactly the same amount as anyone else's.

CCA is wrong this time. They don't understand the computer model that this is based upon.

Recreational limits are based upon a poundage number.

It's called TAC or Total Allowable Catch. Without splitting hairs, it's 3 million pounds. Now go look at www.gulfcouncil.org and check the recreational limit. There, you will find that it's based upon a length and number of fish limit. The problem is how NMFS converts the length and number of fish limit into pounds. Remember, pounds are all that are addressed by the TAC limit set by NMFS. One or two ounces difference in the weight of the "average' fish will affect the rec season by months, if not years.

Take a look at the commercial side of things.

Their limit is based upon pounds. 3 million, give or take a bit. They are forced to weigh their catch and report that. Their keepable snapper are about 3 inches shorter than the recs side. There isn't a numbers limit, only a length limit and the actual limit is really based on dockside landings, in pounds.

Now, let's look at the enviro end of things.

1. They hate recs, because we burn ungodly amounts of fuel and time catching the minority of fish.

2. They could care less about anyone on either side of things, but will go with the best organized side every time. Why? Because it's effective, dollars wise.

3. They will assure us that the most economically effective harvest of fish is done commercially. The comm. side is most effective in harvesting fish dollars wise, compared to the rec side.

All that being said, I am a sitting member on both the Ad hoc and regular RSA panel and am becoming increasingly frustrated with the process. I won't leave any of them until I am removed, but to say that either one is effective is simply being misinformed.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

I decided last year not to renew my CCA membership after a 15years of support. I was told at the time that CCA cared more about specs and redfish than offshore fisherman. They may receive a lot of credit for all the specs and reds in the bays, but aren't both those fish illegal to commercially harvest? If so, they should support commercial restraints on red snapper since it has worked so well for the bay.

So...I agree. Everyone should dump CCA unless you are a bay fisherman or they provide us a good reason explaining their red snapper view. They should focus on commercial harvest as they make themself out to be for recs. They are living a life of hypocracy.

*We should cut and paste our views on other forums, such as Florida forums, Louisianna forums, etc. Spread the word to ask them to explain themself or lose members.* I never liked it when the name was changed from Gulf Coastal Conservation Association (? I have forgotten exactly what it was called before CCA) to CCA.

My next fear is similar regulations on tuna, AJs, etc. We need to act to prevent future regulations with other species.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Wow!

Way to step up Mont.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Mont said:


> Now, let's look at the enviro end of things.
> 
> 1. They hate recs, because we burn ungodly amounts of fuel and time catching the minority of fish.
> 
> ...


Mont, thanks for posting that.

Everyone needs to read this a time or two and let this soak in. As mad as we get at NMFS and CCA, the people we should really be disgusted with is the enviros, and that includes Pew Trust, Gulf Restoration, Environmental Defense, ETC....These are the folks who are really after our rights. CCA's biggest sin is to align with the enviros on some points. We should be very worried because they are very organized and are well funded to the point of having a limitless amount of cash to back their cause. We are in their way.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

manintheboat said:


> Mont, thanks for posting that.
> 
> Everyone needs to read this a time or two and let this soak in. As mad as we get at NMFS and CCA, the people we should really be disgusted with is the enviros, and that includes Pew Trust, Gulf Restoration, Environmental Defense, ETC....These are the folks who are really after our rights. CCA's biggest sin is to align with the enviros on some points. We should be very worried because they are very organized and are well funded to the point of having a limitless amount of cash to back their cause. We are in their way.


I agree, but we join and pay CCA to be a organized society that organizes and presents our views for us. That is why their view is such a big deal. In fact, they represent the entire coast, not just Texas.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

I agree Scott. Don't get me wrong, I do not mean to let them off of the hook for their actions. They are a part of the problem for sure. 

You are wrong about why you pay CCA. Apparantly you pay them to tell you what is right for the fisheries because they are much smarter than you (sarcasm). ACtually, most people pay them, so if they catch a really big flounder, they get a free boat. Some people pay them because they would feel really silly if they caught a tagged redfish and they were not entered into the STAR. Like I said, no STAR, no CCA. They draw us in with a tourney, collect a bunch of cash, dole out a few prizes and scholarships, grow a few fish fingerlings, buy out a few broken down shrimp boats, publish a nice shiny magazine, then use the rest of the money to stab us in the back on fisheries issues. If that isn't ironic, I do not know what is. 

CCA says: Fisheries First. Now go out and kill a bunch of fish because you might win a boat. Yippee!! You cannot make this kind of stuff up.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

That all changes very fast when the money runs out. The effects of high fuel and an economic slow down will crush the boating industry before too long, especially with two fish. The marine manufacturing people will revolt, some are already anti CCA for their recent action with the enviros and commercials.
There will always be ways for them to get their spin out via mags like GCC but that will only go so far when things continue get worse and the enviros push for no-fishing zones.



Bellyup said:


> I agree, but we join and pay CCA to be a organized society that organizes and presents our views for us. That is why their view is such a big deal. In fact, they represent the entire coast, not just Texas.


----------



## Roostor (Jul 17, 2006)

*Boycott BlueWave, Ford, Mercury????*

It has been a long time since I fished offshore for Snapper, but I do fish in the Galveston Bay system...
The original GCCA was an orginization that did some very good things in regards to Redfish, and protecting them and increasing their numbers. In my opinion, the Commercial interests were the major culprits as they used gill nets and of course some of the same rants about doing away with peoples livlihood back then, are the same ones we hear now.
The current CCA is not supporting the recreational fisherman today on the snapper issues; for that I say I will no longer support them either. It has been said previously that as long as the STAR is on-going....the CCA will have members.....unfortunately that may be true. How about contacting BlueWave Boats and Ford Motor Co, and the other sponsors that donate products. I think if there is an outpouring of people letting them know that we feel that their support is in error and that it might influence our buying their products....how long do you think the CCA will exist with no boats or trucks to give away?


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Tell me!*

What does boycotting CCA accomplish? I'm not completely in the loop when it comes to Snapper fishing but is not true that CCA and the so called Enviro's reach some sort of agreement on the two fish limit (in CCA eyes to bide time) because the Feds wanted the season closed completely for Recs. Did I just dream that are does someone here that really knows what the true reason was. Gater


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Not true Gater. Biding time for what?


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Ceck out their *MISSION statement*!!! It mentions nothing about fishermen!!! That tells you a lot about them. Fishermen are not their main priority, but we are the ones paying and promoting them! Directly from their website http://www.joincca.org/Mission.html

_*Coastal Conservation Association*_ _*Mission Statement*_

_The stated purpose of CCA is to advise and educate the public on _
_conservation of marine resources. The objective of CCA is to _
_conserve, promote and enhance the present and future _
_availability of these coastal resources for the benefit and _
_enjoyment of the *general public*._
​
All their sportfishing pictures and stickers have lost a lot of meaning from my perspective.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Fishermen*

Don't you think you would fall under general public! Gater


----------



## gunsmoke (Nov 16, 2005)

I saw the light with GCCA years ago. They haven't received a stinking cent from me in 20 years. Anybody that enters that Star tournament is a sucker. Just go to Vegas and have some fun at the craps table.


----------



## Roostor (Jul 17, 2006)

gater said:


> Don't you think you would fall under general public! Gater


With all due respect....I don't think the "General Public" gives a hoot about Snapper Regs or for that matter CCA.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Roostor*

More than just fishermen use the marine resources of this State. Gater


_*The stated purpose of CCA is to advise and educate the public on 
conservation of marine resources.* The objective of CCA is to _
_conserve, promote and enhance the present and future _
_availability of these *coastal resources* for the benefit and _
_enjoyment of the *general public*_


----------



## Roostor (Jul 17, 2006)

*Gater*

I understand that more than just Fishermen use the resources .....but the point is that the CCA is not funded by all these "others" but rather they target the Fishermen with their Star tournament...and they used to (and still should in my opinion) represent the views of those people.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Thanks again Mont, guys it's not easy to start a board, run a business, and spend your off time following the Feds. I hope to see a 2cool showing of force at the rest of the meetings.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

CCA does nothing for offshore fishermen. Check out their list of "proud" accomplishments. I only see one item that concerns offshore fishing and that had to do with shrimp bycatch in 1997! This is directly off their website and their proud accomplishments. I guess they can add closed red snapper seasons and 2 per person red snapper limits to the list for 2008. Soon restrictions for tuna, AJs, Ling, Grouper, etc will be added.

http://www.ccatexas.org/CCATexas/Accomplishments.asp?SnID=559344881

_*I can't cut and paste the list, but the above link will take you to their unimpressive offshore accomplishments--like NONE.*_


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*Gater, Huh?*

Gater, what are you trying to say? That the non-fishing general public have equal access to red snapper as the fishing general public?


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

gater said:


> Don't you think you would fall under general public! Gater


So do commercial fishermen, PETA, Sierra Club, etc. They purposely avoided the using the word fishermen. Yet, they receive most of their individual funding from fishermen. Their website is loaded with people fishing, sportfishing decals, etc.

Forget the Star tournament. We need to find other organizations to help support recreational fishermen in an organized and vocal matter.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Effort*

Well at least they are making an effort. This battle has been going on for some time now. It is not the only issue they are working on and even though the issue is very important to many people it is not the most important task at hand IMHO. They are not sitting on the sidelines doing nothing, though you and many others may not agree with direction they are going at least they are doing something.

By the way, I don't disagree with the issue. I'm curious of the stance they are taking as well. I'll give Pat a call and see what he has to say about the issue. Gater


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Did he say what study they were going by I am wondering? I have a front row seat to this and no one can tell me why they sided with the feds. State water snapper are thriving acording to TPWD.


----------



## Koolero (Jul 12, 2006)

*reup CCA membership ?*

Guess Im gonna wait awhile, just got my renewal app. in th mail


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

gater said:


> Well at least they are making an effort. This battle has been going on for some time now. It is not the only issue they are working on and even though the issue is very important to many people it is not the most important task at hand IMHO. They are not sitting on the sidelines doing nothing, though you and many others may not agree with direction they are going at least they are doing something.
> 
> By the way, I don't disagree with the issue. I'm curious of the stance they are taking as well. I'll give Pat a call and see what he has to say about the issue. Gater


Ask them how much progress they are making on the salmon stuff...YeeHaawww!!


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Yall PLEASE SHOW at the meeting on the 8th see my thread, Mont gave dirrections, Thanks, this can be beat, I have some one that cant wait to here all the speakers coming


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Unbound said:


> Gater, what are you trying to say? That the non-fishing general public have equal access to red snapper as the fishing general public?


I couldn't agree more. If CCA is not going to support Recreational fishermen regarding red snapper, then they can care less about the "general public" that actually utilize the red snapper fishery (and the "general public" which this regulation directly affects). I guess that is true unless they want to make sure the "general public" can purchase snapper at restaurants and local grocery stores. This would include those far from the coast that can care less about the coast. That is the message they are sending and that totally stinks.

Perhaps they should just encourage the "general public" to avoid purchasing red snapper. This would be similar to all the commotion made in the past regarding swordfish. If their only creative solution is to prevent fishing for fish, then they can take a hike.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

BEER4BAIT said:


> Did he say what study they were going by I am wondering? I have a front row seat to this and no one can tell me why they sided with the feds. State water snapper are thriving acording to TPWD.


It is the study done by none other than the federal government. What other one could it have been? It is more than obvious to me that CCA is in bed with them.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Koolero said:


> Guess Im gonna wait awhile, just got my renewal app. in th mail


You can wait if you want to. I know EXACTLY what I am going to do with my renewal notice. It will get filed with all the other junk mail!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

BlueBound said:


> Yes Charlie. Some of us a year or so ago still believed that despite stabbing us in the back once, perhaps CCA had some legitimate science and a true concern for the resource, and that the best solution would be to understand their position, agree to disagree, and get that very powerful organization back on the side of recreational offshore fishermen.
> 
> Some of us were wrong. And for wanting to believe that CCA is still interested in sport fishermen, we get them supporting the imposition of the two fish rule and reduced season in state waters.
> 
> ...


Another well put post in my opinion. Like I have said all along CCA should have taken a general consensus of their members and the TP&WD before hastily jumping in the sack with the feds on this issue. I asked Pat Murray if the membership of CCA comprised mostly of commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen. He stated that it was ALL recreational fishermen. I then tried to plead with him on our behalf. I also mentioned that the recreational fishermen are responsible for his salary and all the staff of CCA. You do not bite the hand that feeds you my friends.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


> This is my personal opinion, period. It's worth exactly the same amount as anyone else's.
> 
> CCA is wrong this time. They don't understand the computer model that this is based upon.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your input. I know from what I have read that you have sat in a number of meetings all over the Gulf Coast pertaining to various issues and concerns. Thanks again.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Bellyup said:


> I decided last year not to renew my CCA membership after a 15years of support. I was told at the time that CCA cared more about specs and redfish than offshore fisherman. They may receive a lot of credit for all the specs and reds in the bays, but aren't both those fish illegal to commercially harvest? If so, they should support commercial restraints on red snapper since it has worked so well for the bay.
> 
> So...I agree. Everyone should dump CCA unless you are a bay fisherman or they provide us a good reason explaining their red snapper view. They should focus on commercial harvest as they make themself out to be for recs. They are living a life of hypocracy.
> 
> ...


I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one my friend. The part where you said everyone should dump CCA unless you are a bay fisherman. EVERYONE needs to dump CCA. They aligned with the enviors on the Snapper issue. Lakes and bays could be next. No recreational fisherman is safe from them. If anyone that fishes for fun keeps giving them money they could be next. I said it once I will say it again. You do not bite the hand that feeds you, period!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

gater said:


> What does boycotting CCA accomplish? I'm not completely in the loop when it comes to Snapper fishing but is not true that CCA and the so called Enviro's reach some sort of agreement on the two fish limit (in CCA eyes to bide time) because the Feds wanted the season closed completely for Recs. Did I just dream that are does someone here that really knows what the true reason was. Gater


Go read what Mont wrote. He is VERY well versed on the Snapper issue. CCA is dead wrong. They are not on our side any more. I agree they did great things for Reds and Specks; however that was when they were GCCA. It is all about rubbing shoulders with the political who's who in the environmental circle now.

Everyone has an opinion and if someone wants to support CCA I have no problem with that. I have stated my opoinions and why we should all boycott them. I can assure you if someone was well versed on an issue I was not said an organization was wrong I would take notice and try to learn as much as I could about the issue.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

gater said:


> Well at least they are making an effort. This battle has been going on for some time now. It is not the only issue they are working on and even though the issue is very important to many people it is not the most important task at hand IMHO. They are not sitting on the sidelines doing nothing, though you and many others may not agree with direction they are going at least they are doing something.
> 
> By the way, I don't disagree with the issue. I'm curious of the stance they are taking as well. I'll give Pat a call and see what he has to say about the issue. Gater


If you give Pat a call he will give you the federal opinion on this issue. He sounded EXACTLY like one of those bureaucrats up there when I called. That is what prompted me to start this thread. Why not call Texas Parks and Wildlife and see what their biologists have to say. After all it is state waters we are talking about isn't it.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Or call Dr. Bob Shipp in Alabama. He is one of the leading experts on Red Snapper in the gulf and he things that the feds are full of it.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

CaptRickD said:


> I resigned as Secretary of the Northeast Chapter years ago when nobody at headquarters could give me a rational, logical or reasonable explanation of their position on the snapper fishery.
> 
> Nothing has changed. They are even opposed to the TGBR Project. Where do the shrimpers get all of this money?


If you are in the northeast please tell all your friends to tell their friends etc. about this atrocity. The word needs to get out because they just might be next.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I know someone on here said this message should get out to other forums. I have posted the exact thread I posted here on a couple more fishing sites similar to this one. I am not sure if they will ban me from them, but I am not too concerned. I mainly go to this site anyhow, so it will not hurt my feelings if they do. I just think the word needs to get out and CCA needs to bear witness an exodus!


----------



## Team Ranger Bob (Jul 13, 2004)

*Question*

Have they resumed closing Tide magazine with the picture of all the fishermen standing behind the fence watching all the fish jump because they were not allowed to fish?

Ranger Bob


----------



## Supergas (Nov 30, 2004)

*No Cca .......*

I quit CCA when it went from Gulf Coast Conservation Association concentration to Florida & renamed itself CCA..

I never buy a STAR entry either....

I do not fish for one species, with my new to me old boat, I am fishing for Tarpon, Triple Tail, near offshore for Dorado & maybe a couple of Snaps... then in the deeper bays for trout... just a lazy old man having fun....

BUT, I will never contribute to an organization who sides with commercial interests over recreational while being supported by the recreational fisherman.

I will contribute to the bumper sticker...

BTW Where the he!! is my Barrier Reef????????????? Talk about helping to conserve resources, this is the answer... to start with less fuel for a good day fishing... not to mention the huge stock & variety of fish it will attract.. Look at Alabama's success.. they are now doing an inshore reef program it was so successful....

Supergas


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

I wasn't going to touch this because, like gator, I too am not versed in the Snapper issue because it's just not my genre of fishing, as I am one of those bay fisher folk. First let me apologize to those of you who will bash me for taking this stance but I too have the right to my opinion. 

I volunteer - no pay - my time as the Treasurer of the Brazoria County Chapter of the CCA because it's an organization that I believe in due to their stance on conservation. I'm also attending school with a Major in Environmental Science, so I may be one of the "enviros" you speak of. hwell: 

I'm NOT saying the Snapper issue is not important, I cannot make a statement about it one way or the other due to my lack of education in the matter. I'm embarrassed by that fact and fully intend to educate myself on the matter, and to also be present at the meeting on Tuesday. My reason for posting is to remind you of the good that CCA accomplishes. With that said&#8230; 

A mass exodus has been called for from the CCA&#8230; for what purpose? Because they've gone against one group on one fishing issue your conclusion is that every "fisherman" should just walk away from the organization they believe in because of the esthetics of their mission statement? The way I read it means their goal is to educate EVERYONE on conservation issues. Lest we forget&#8230; it's never changed that "conservation" has always been their goal&#8230; but not to the exclusion of "fishermen", as most of the people who serve on the boards ARE recreational fishermen. Would you have it stated "this applies ONLY to fishermen" in the mission statement?

Four years ago *I* was the "general public"&#8230; then I had someone Bless me with the love of fishing&#8230; an addiction I will never seek a 12-step program for! Don't you feel the resources they speak of may be in danger from the "general public" who don't have the great regard that the heart of a "fisherman" has for the quarry we're after? Wouldn't you agree that the "general public", in their ignorance of the resource, cause MORE damage than we as fishermen do? So, couldn't you agree that we should include the education of the "general public" in our plight for that purpose alone? Just in case?

Have we forgotten just exactly the good CCA _DOES_ accomplish? Because it seems that only bits and pieces of what CCA does is being posted to advance the stance being discussed in this post&#8230; so _EVERYTHING_ they work to improve is forgotten because they've made what is viewed by a handful as a "fatal" decision on one fishing issue? It's been insinuated that if they side with the feds on this issue they'll turn on everything else they stand for? That's ludicrous to think that way! They've made themselves very clear on their stance for conservation and have been heralded, *until now*, for their efforts!

Let's take a "reminder" look at the good they _DO_ accomplish, I've attached these straight from their website. A site where they're disclosing to the "general public" what they do and why&#8230;

*Hatcheries - *produce tens of *millions* of fingerling redfish and speckled trout for stocking Texas bays
*Education - *CCA Texas has awarded more than $2 million in college scholarships to Texas youth through the STAR Tournament
*Marine Fisheries Conservation *- too many to list - READ the entire site!
*Freshwater Inflows* - again READ the entire site! 
*Statewide Conservation Projects* - too many to list here - click "here" on the site&#8230; you may be astounded.
*Coastal Enforcement - *CCA Texas has funded more than $500,000 to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for coastal enforcement and research needs in the past five years
*More locally... Sea Center Texas* - where thousands of children tour each year where they're "teaching about how fish are adapted to aquatic environments, the importance of coastal wetlands and food chains and about maintaining good water quality in fish hatchery systems". _{hhhmmm wonder if any of those kiddos could be considered "general public"???} _

I don't know about you&#8230; but the Hatcheries and the Education scholarships alone are what sold me on CCA! These things suddenly account for naught because of the Snapper issue?!? Are you _KIDDING_ me?? If you want to know where the money is going that they raise each year&#8230; READ the entire site! Better yet, attend your county chapter meetings! Or heck... be bold and jump out there and VOLUNTEER! Then if you can honestly say you still don't believe in what they're doing, by all means bash them on a public fishing board. But first, educate yourself&#8230; as I intend to do!

Yes they have paid staff at the State level, but most who work with CCA are volunteers with full time jobs and lives! Yes they produce a magazine with some of he money raised... this is a PERK you get back for the money you spend!! Have you _READ _the magazine? It's full of interesting stories from some of the best fishermen in the sport and scientific articles on the hatcheries and conservation issues! But it's mostly produced to disclose to all of us who are giving to the CCA just exactly where your money is going and what they've accomplished with your help!

As for me&#8230; I'll stick with the CCA! Yes, they may have goofed on the Snapper issue&#8230; but for everything else they stand for&#8230; I'm still a *PROUD* member.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

baylvr said:


> I wasn't going to touch this because, like gator, I too am not versed in the Snapper issue because it's just not my genre of fishing, as I am one of those bay fisher folk. First let me apologize to those of you who will bash me for taking this stance but I too have the right to my opinion.
> 
> I volunteer - no pay - my time as the Treasurer of the Brazoria County Chapter of the CCA because it's an organization that I believe in due to their stance on conservation. I'm also attending school with a Major in Environmental Science, so I may be one of the "enviros" you speak of. hwell:
> 
> ...


The last paragraph put it lightly. They more than "goofed on the Snapper issue." With that said, you and the way you like to fish might be next. I hope not, but if it is will you take the same stance in supporting them then?


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

If they were to make a total about face on all of the reasons I've stated... and go against everything I believe in... like you, I probably would have to walk away.

Am I understanding you correctly... utilizing the same question posed to me... you only took up with CCA or GCCA back when you were a member because of Snapper issues? Or was your original reason because of what they stood for then AND now... and that's conservation??

More plainly stated... what was the reason you joined back when you were a member?


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Now CCA is running around Washington and Oregan trying to muck up their Salmon fishery and ticking people off. 
I am so sick of the Academy/CCA STAR shirt wearing cool guys who are more interested in pretending to be fishermen than getting their hands dirty in a fight. HAS ANYONE ever gotten a reasonable answer on the Snapper deal from a CCA member WITHOUT them bumbling along with some shallow bull and then "well I can call and see what our stance is". Pat Murray is a talking sheep leading an ill informed and clueless pack to slaughter. Call Academy and tell them to stop selling their ****, call the boat donors, call to end the STAR via boycott. STAR is more of a fish kill Lottery than anything. "Hey lets go kill some fish to raise money to save the fish."


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I took up with them because they did a great job with Redfish and Specks. That was when they were GCCA. CCA is a completely different organization now than it was then. They are biting the hand that feeds them. I for one hope they go belly up, and hope even more that I have a hand in that. If you look around on this thread you and those that think like you are the minority. You have your opinion nonetheless and I respect you for standing up and posting it. That does not mean I have to agree with it or you in any way.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Ok how about their support of 5 fish in LLM yet a flat out refusal to remove Trout in LLM from STAR.
I asked Joey Park about it once as he stood there with the dethroned Todd Baxter (took dirty Tom Delay money and forced to resign) and he could not string 3 words together for an answer.
So if I go commit a crime do I get off because I gave money to an orphanage. They are not immune, and many are being duped.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

baylvr said:


> If they were to make a total about face on all of the reasons I've stated... and go against everything I believe in... like you, I probably would have to walk away.
> 
> Am I understanding you correctly... utilizing the same question posed to me... you only took up with CCA or GCCA back when you were a member because of Snapper issues? Or was your original reason because of what they stood for then AND now... and that's conservation??
> 
> More plainly stated... what was the reason you joined back when you were a member?


Let's clarify here. I wrote this in reference to the quote above, but Hugoo posted before I finished.

I took up with them because they did a great job with Redfish and Specks. That was when they were GCCA. CCA is a completely different organization now than it was then. They are biting the hand that feeds them. I for one hope they go belly up, and hope even more that I have a hand in that. If you look around on this thread you and those that think like you are the minority. You have your opinion nonetheless and I respect you for standing up and posting it. That does not mean I have to agree with it or you in any way.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Hughoo222 said:


> Now CCA is running around Washington and Oregan trying to muck up their Salmon fishery and ticking people off.
> I am so sick of the Academy/CCA STAR shirt wearing cool guys who are more interested in pretending to be fishermen than getting their hands dirty in a fight. HAS ANYONE ever gotten a reasonable answer on the Snapper deal from a CCA member WITHOUT them bumbling along with some shallow bull and then "well I can call and see what our stance is". Pat Murray is a talking sheep leading an ill informed and clueless pack to slaughter. Call Academy and tell them to stop selling their ****, call the boat donors, call to end the STAR via boycott. STAR is more of a fish kill Lottery than anything. "Hey lets go kill some fish to raise money to save the fish."


You're absolutely right the STAR tournament is held each year to increase CCA participation and to raise funds for educational scholarships, a fact that is plainly stated in the mission statement for the STAR tournment. The CCA makes no excuses about that fact. The folks who graciously donate trucks and boats to it every year believe in the CCA's efforts and the education of our youth about ecological and conservation issues. The scholarships are specifically for the advancement of their conservation issues, "CCA Texas has established four fully endowed marine science scholarships at the state's leading universities for marine science and fisheries management - Texas A&M College Station, Galveston and Corpus Christi and the University of Texas Marine Science Institute."

As with most tournaments... fish kill is inevitable. Are you saying that ALL fishing tournaments should be abolished due to fish kill irregardless of their purpose? Or are we just joining in with that point for the purpose of bashing the CCA?

Let me state that I respect each and every one of you and this is NOT a personal attack against YOU... it's just a show of support for what I believe in too. I applaud you for your opinions!


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Yes I think most of the "true" gamefishing folks have figured it out, they are catch and release, circle hook only, for billfish especially. In the big time tourney circles fish kill tourneys are frowned upon and draconian. I have fished tourneys all over the world and even the little villages in Mexico got catch and release down. Why not raise money based on a mission rather than kill tourneys and stag parties with the hooters girls running around pimping raffle tickets.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Thanks Baylvr, I don't want to split the fishermen/women up but that is what is going on. A bad stance on Redfish may have other up in anger but by then there won't be any offshore guys left to help out. Most of us fish inshore and off and most of us left the CCA years ago. Others are just now seeing it. There is no hands on scientific results that state the state water snapper is in danger so why would they want to allow the feds to control our fisheries. I like others here think the TPWD can manage our fisheries better than the CCA or the Feds. You are right Baylvr they do good things but when the CRAAAP on members expect an exodus. Baylvr I would like to welcome you to the Gal Co meeting. Please come


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Ha, ha, y'all are funny. You simply discount all the good CCA has done because of one issue. BTW the brain surgeon that said that CCA is in the Northwest "mucking up" their fishery doesn't know his you know what from his you know what. They contacted CCA because they saw all the positive things that had been accomplished and wanted to find out how to handle the problems they were having. Get a clue guys, just because you weren't elected treasurer of you chapter was no reason to defect and now badmouth them. Oh well, I know that no matter what any of you do it will not affect in any way the membership levels and I go to sleep easier each night knowing that CCA is doing their job. Tom


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Hughoo222 said:


> Yes I think most of the "true" gamefishing folks have figured it out, they are catch and release, circle hook only, for billfish especially. In the big time tourney circles fish kill tourneys are frowned upon and draconian. I have fished tourneys all over the world and even the little villages in Mexico got catch and release down. Why not raise money based on a mission rather than kill tourneys and stag parties with the hooters girls running around pimping raffle tickets.


I have to admit I completely agree with most of this comment! I feel all fishing tournaments should be catch and release! You're right about the big time tournament circles as most have gone to oxygen impregnated live wells and fish release and with my views on conservation I feel this is a bold move on their part and I applaud them for stepping up to that plate and setting the standard!

Being a female and a single mother who believes in encouraging our youth to fish in order to stay out of trouble... with more women anglers joining the sport, I feel the banquets should be more "family oriented" getting away from the "stag party" mentality. I'll admit I tend to be offended while working our banquet, as you termed it, at "the hooters girls pimping raffle tickets"... I feel this takes away from the purpose of the banquet and insults women anglers. I don't think the guys would appreciate the Chippendale dancers selling them raffle tickets!

However... I do not view the STAR tournament as a "kill tourney"... I see it as the CCA encouraging recreational fishing. Granted, I will agree there is room for great improvement and a "catch and release" tournament would better serve their conservation concerns!

Again I'll say... with great respect to you for your points... go to your county meetings and have your voice heard in this area! I intend to bring that point to life at our next board meeting as you are absolutely right!!


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

Pocboy said:


> Ha, ha, y'all are funny. You simply discount all the good CCA has done because of one issue. BTW the brain surgeon that said that CCA is in the Northwest "mucking up" their fishery doesn't know his you know what from his you know what. They contacted CCA because they saw all the positive things that had been accomplished and wanted to find out how to handle the problems they were having. Get a clue guys, just because you weren't elected treasurer of you chapter was no reason to defect and now badmouth them. Oh well, I know that no matter what any of you do it will not affect in any way the membership levels and I go to sleep easier each night knowing that CCA is doing their job. Tom


Its more than one issue Tom. The CCA has been making a habit of being on the wrong side when it comes to the offshore fishery. Yes they have done amazing things with the inshore fishery but that effects me a lot less than the damage that they have done and are trying to do to the fisheries that Im concerned with. They quit getting my money a long time ago.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Ha, ha, y'all are funny. You simply discount all the good CCA has done because of one issue. BTW the brain surgeon that said that CCA is in the Northwest "mucking up" their fishery doesn't know his you know what from his you know what. They contacted CCA because they saw all the positive things that had been accomplished and wanted to find out how to handle the problems they were having. Get a clue guys, just because you weren't elected treasurer of you chapter was no reason to defect and now badmouth them. Oh well, I know that no matter what any of you do it will not affect in any way the membership levels and I go to sleep easier each night knowing that CCA is doing their job. Tom


I have never even ran for treasurer, or any other office in my local chapter for that matter. You have your opinion, but you are DEFINITELY the minority here. I am quite sure that this and any other thread on any forum will most likely not have a major impact on membership in CCA; however one can always have hope. Even if it just opens thier eyes on this issue. That would suit me just fine. Regardless, they need to be held accountable for their actions here. That is the bottom line.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

BEER4BAIT said:


> Thanks Tina, I don't want to split the fishermen/women up but that is what is going on. A bad stance on Redfish may have other up in anger but by then there won't be any offshore guys left to help out. Most of us fish inshore and off and most of us left the CCA years ago. Others are just now seeing it. There is no hands on scientific results that state the state water snapper is in danger so why would they want to allow the feds to control our fisheries. I like others here think the TPWD can manage our fisheries better than the CCA or the Feds. You are right Tina they do good things but when the CRAAAP on members expect an exodus. Tina I would like to welcome you to the Gal Co meeting. Please come


You may have me confused with MsChasintail... hehe... but I take no issue with that! But she might if our opinions differ! I'm D'Cai... and as I stated earlier I fully intend to educate myself specifically on the Snapper question as I want to be fully informed.

I fully intend to be present and accounted for at the meeting Tuesday! Ya'll don't beat me with a fishin rod in the parking lot ok?! I'm attending the meeting to LEARN!! :wink:


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

baylvr said:


> You may have me confused with MsChasintail... hehe... but I take no issue with that! But she might if our opinions differ! I'm D'Cai... and as I stated earlier I fully intend to educate myself specifically on the Snapper question as I want to be fully informed.
> 
> I fully intend to be present and accounted for at the meeting Tuesday! Ya'll don't beat me with a fishin rod in the parking lot ok?! I'm attending the meeting to LEARN!! :wink:


Maybe y'all could just whip her a little with a Snoopy Rod or somehting he he he. :tongue:


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> I have never even ran for treasurer, or any other office in my local chapter for that matter. You have your opinion, but you are DEFINITELY the minority here. I am quite sure that this and any other thread on any forum will most likely not have a major impact on membership in CCA; however one can always have hope. Even if it just opens thier eyes on this issue. That would suit me just fine. Regardless, they need to be held accountable for their actions here. That is the bottom line.


You may be right... the need may be there for them to be held accountable. So go to their meetings and voice your opinion the same way you will at the Tuesday night meeting! Write to the State level and voice your opinion. It will carry alot more weight than posting your opposition on a fishing board and has more of a chance of reaching the ones that NEED to hear this type of opposition! That being the ones who can make the changes within the CCA! Force them to be the organization you want them to be! It's your money... make it count!

A mass exodus will only have them coming up with a bigger campaign to regain members... with no knowledge of why the exodus happened! This kind of falls under the idea of "I don't vote... so only I have the right to complain!" No, be a PART of the CCA and make a difference! Run for the offices of the people you feel need to be ousted and make the difference yourself!

Make your voices heard... write to your local and state level CCA. There are links on the website for you to do just that! Take a stance and change their minds! Isn't that what the Tuesday night meeting is for?


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> Maybe y'all could just whip her a little with a Snoopy Rod or somehting he he he. :tongue:


OH... OK... but just a FEW lashes!! :tongue:


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

My bad LOL Slipping, No won't beat you and won't let anyone do it either I will be the heavy bald guy with a funny looking beard. 



baylvr said:


> You may have me confused with MsChasintail... hehe... but I take no issue with that! But she might if our opinions differ! I'm D'Cai... and as I stated earlier I fully intend to educate myself specifically on the Snapper question as I want to be fully informed.
> 
> I fully intend to be present and accounted for at the meeting Tuesday! Ya'll don't beat me with a fishin rod in the parking lot ok?! I'm attending the meeting to LEARN!! :wink:


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

BEER4BAIT said:


> My bad LOL Slipping, No won't beat you and won't let anyone do it either I will be the heavy bald guy with a funny looking beard.


Coolness! I'll be the lil faaat gurl hanging on yer shirt tail constantly watchin behind me!! :spineyes:


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

I may have a body guard with us


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Right on!! Even better!!


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

A big problem with CCA's view on snapper, and a major concern for me, is the drastic different view they anow take vs. saving the redfish programs. To save redfish, they restricted commercial harvesting and essentially removed a significant amount of redfish offerings at the local restaraunt. They were all for the recreational fisherman at that time. That is the type of behavior that bred their success and growth. Now that they are bigger and more powerful, they have turned the table and flopped 180 degrees, siding with the commercial industry! That my friend, makes CCA a very dangerous organization to support.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Ok, I can't edit my previous post anymore or I would remove some of the silliness. However, that doesn't change my mind on the big picture of what CCA has done and what they are currently trying to accomplish. I sometimes wonder why some people come after them with such vigor. I would venture to guess that most do not know the scale in which CCA uses its resources to help in conservation. Tom


----------



## OffShore Man (Jan 10, 2005)

Wow I havent seen this much interest in the snapper issues in a while. Go to the meetings, dont just talk smack on here!! I will see some of you hopefully at the Port A Meeting.
Way to go Mont those were great Posts to see!!!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> I would venture to guess that most do not know *the scale in which CCA uses its resources* to help in conservation. Tom


This is the problem I have with them. They are using their clout to align with left-wing eco fear mongering groups and big business on this issue. They are offering no solutions that would benefit recreational anglers.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

baylvr said:


> You may be right... the need may be there for them to be held accountable. So go to their meetings and voice your opinion the same way you will at the Tuesday night meeting! Write to the State level and voice your opinion. It will carry alot more weight than posting your opposition on a fishing board and has more of a chance of reaching the ones that NEED to hear this type of opposition! That being the ones who can make the changes within the CCA! Force them to be the organization you want them to be! It's your money... make it count!
> 
> A mass exodus will only have them coming up with a bigger campaign to regain members... with no knowledge of why the exodus happened! This kind of falls under the idea of "I don't vote... so only I have the right to complain!" No, be a PART of the CCA and make a difference! Run for the offices of the people you feel need to be ousted and make the difference yourself!
> 
> Make your voices heard... write to your local and state level CCA. There are links on the website for you to do just that! Take a stance and change their minds! Isn't that what the Tuesday night meeting is for?


I did go to the meeting in Port Arthur over this issue. There was a VERY dismal turnout. I posted a thread pertaining to that as well. In fact there was a Representative from CCA there spouting off about how CCA is in agreement with adopting federal regulations on Snapper. That was what prompted my call to them and ultimately this thread.

I wrote a letter to TP&WD as well. I was the most outsopken at the meeting as well. They ALL know where I stand on this issue.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

There was a post somewhere by capt Mike that stated that _"if you're a CCA member and you don't agree with what they're posing... be sure to offer that opinion at the meeting"._ {Not a direct quote, but it was something to that effect}

I've said over and over again that I'm not educated in this particular movement... however I am reading! Rest assured, that even though CCA has my support for _those things in which I believe in_... they do not own my mind or my conscience... of which I have NO PROBLEM speaking! Once I feel confident that I've covered the issue and have come to a conclusion I can live with... I WILL speak up... with absolute conviction... for or against... NOT because I'm a member of CCA... but because it's what I feel is the RIGHT thing to do! And I WILL voice it TO the CCA directly.

Again I'll say... the higher ups in the organization do not specifically speak for EVERYONE who is a member of CCA. That would be impossible for that many members to wholly agree on every aspect of every issue. That's why you're given a voice... that's why you should speak directly TO the CCA and let them know your grievances... so they'll know there's opposition WITHIN the ranks. Not become a part of a mass exodus!! Stand firm... accept nothing less than what the MAJORITY wants... not just a handful at the top.

I'm looking into THAT as well... to take just a personal poll to see who within CCA stands for this decision that is being viewed as coming from the CCA as a whole.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Bellyup said:


> A big problem with CCA's view on snapper, and a major concern for me, is the drastic different view they anow take vs. saving the redfish programs. To save redfish, they restricted commercial harvesting and essentially removed a significant amount of redfish offerings at the local restaraunt. They were all for the recreational fisherman at that time. That is the type of behavior that bred their success and growth. Now that they are bigger and more powerful, they have turned the table and flopped 180 degrees, siding with the commercial industry! That my friend, makes CCA a very dangerous organization to support.


Here here! I cannot agree totally with any of this statement as I am not 100% sure of their alliance with the commercial industry, but if there is proof of this, then all the more reason to insure they are no longer in business. The commercial vermin is why there are shortages in stocks on every species, not us recreational fishermen. Let them change their name from Coastal Conservation Association to Commercial Conservation Association if this is accurate!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I agree with everything you say baylvr but we don't have the time right now to get CCA to listen. I have sent several letters and emails over the last 2 years on this issue and they have all fallen on deaf ears. They have support in other places that would agree to limit our state fishery but this is a Texas issue, plain and simple.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

OffShore Man said:


> Wow I havent seen this much interest in the snapper issues in a while. Go to the meetings, dont just talk smack on here!! I will see some of you hopefully at the Port A Meeting.
> Way to go Mont those were great Posts to see!!!


I was at the Port Arthur meeting. I was the most outspoken out of SEVEN of us that showed up. Well, actually there were eight, but I am not going to count the CCA rep that proposed TP&WD adopt the federal regs.


----------



## Wakerider1424 (Nov 25, 2007)

i have not been on in a while. too busy fishing . Will someone fill me in on what is going on? thanks ya'll


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Wakerider1424 said:


> i have not been on in a while. too busy fishing . Will someone fill me in on what is going on? thanks ya'll


Please go to the first page of this thread and read what I posted. If you have any more questions PM me and we can talk.


----------



## OffShore Man (Jan 10, 2005)

Thanks Snap dragon for your outspokenness from another offshore fisherman. I will be at the Port A meeting. I may not be the most eloquent but I will make my opposition heard.
This is a Texas Issue not just a NMFS issue so letting yourself be heard may actually make a deference. If TP&W listens to there constituants this could have a positive ripple effect against NMFS. At least one battle won for rec fishermen.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

OffShore Man said:


> Thanks Snap dragon for your outspokenness from another offshore fisherman. I will be at the Port A meeting. I may not be the most eloquent but I will make my opposition heard.
> This is a Texas Issue not just a NMFS issue so letting yourself be heard may actually make a deference. If TP&W listens to there constituants this could have a positive ripple effect against NMFS. At least one battle won for rec fishermen.


You are more than welcome and good luck at the Port A meeting. I hope y'all can rally more troops there than were at Port Arthur. I was EXTREMELY disappointed at the turnout, or lack thereof.

One of the things I mentioned at the meeting was the fact that TP&WD has enough competent biologists to set their own limits. I do not feel the NMFS should have a hand in what we do in state waters. They are just that STATE WATERS.


----------



## OffShore Man (Jan 10, 2005)

State waters may be the only thing we will have any say about in the near future. Giving it to the feds would be a monumental mistake. Your right our state has it own biologists and we should listen to them not the failed NMFS system. Like I said since last fall this is the best set of threads about the issues I have seen. But people have to take the next step and leave the cyber world and Man up and go speak for themselves.


----------



## Wakerider1424 (Nov 25, 2007)

OffShore Man said:


> State waters may be the only thing we will have any say about in the near future. Giving it to the feds would be a monumental mistake. Your right our state has it own biologists and we should listen to them not the failed NMFS system. Like I said since last fall this is the best set of threads about the issues I have seen. But people have to take the next step and leave the cyber world and Man up and go speak for themselves.


i agree. we need to actually do something for this issue. Where are the meetings being held?


----------



## OffShore Man (Jan 10, 2005)

Wakerider1424 said:


> i agree. we need to actually do something for this issue. Where are the meetings being held?


Jan 3 Port Arthhur Public Library
Jan 8 Galveston Co. Extension Service Office Dickinson Tx
Jan 9 University of Texas Marine Science Institute Auditorium Port Aransas
Jan 10 Port Isabel Community Center Port Isabel

7:00 to 9:00pm

Copyed from Capt Mike thread.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Wakerider1424 said:


> i agree. we need to actually do something for this issue. Where are the meetings being held?


Another thing we need to do is educate EVERYONE on the agenda of CCA. Make sure they all know to resign their membership or never join. They need to be reeled in (pun intended).


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> Here here! I cannot agree totally with any of this statement as I am not 100% sure of their alliance with the commercial industry, but if there is proof of this, then all the more reason to insure they are no longer in business. The commercial vermin is why there are shortages in stocks on every species, not us recreational fishermen. Let them change their name from Coastal Conservation Association to Commercial Conservation Association if this is accurate!


Snap Draggin, I don't know how alligned they are. But there are many ways to protect a species besides restricting recreational harvest to an extreme extent. By closing recreational seasons, they aren't doing recreational fisherman any favors. I enjoy fishing for yellowfin tuna too. If some party boat shops have to close, then it will be hard for anyone but the most wealthy to target yellowfin tuna. Just look at Captain Elliots and the Big E. Fortunately, someone bought them who is rich enough to not have to rely on the fishing business to pay his bills.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Bellyup said:


> Snap Draggin, I don't know how alligned they are. But there are many ways to protect a species besides restricting recreational harvest to an extreme extent. By closing recreational seasons, they aren't doing recreational fisherman any favors. I enjoy fishing for yellowfin tuna too. If some party boat shops have to close, then it will be hard for anyone but the most wealthy to target yellowfin tuna. Just look at Captain Elliots and the Big E. Fortunately, someone bought them who is rich enough to not have to rely on the fishing business to pay his bills.


I totally agree with you, and it would not surprise me at all if CCA were allies with the commercial vermin. I am also VERY happy to see that Big E will still be in business, and equally as sorry to know the owner had to sell because of the BS from the feds already. How many recreational type of closures like the Big E almost had to do, marine dealers closing their doors and people selling their boats have to happen before EVERYONE gets involved?


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Once again you would have an organization that has done countless good for fishing and conservation and you want to run them out of business because you do not agree with something they are doing. Yeah, those Boy Scouts of America did something I did not agree with so I say they must go. The Little League my daughters play softball in did not get the trophies out in time last year so they must be disbanded. Let's not forget that horrible United Way organization, since they give money to a couple of groups I dislike I think they should be shut down. Come on guys, if you don't like their stance on this then let it be known but why bash the entire organization for one or two misgivings? It leads me to believe there are other issues you don't want to bring up.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Once again you would have an organization that has done countless good for fishing and conservation and you want to run them out of business because you do not agree with something they are doing. Yeah, those Boy Scouts of America did something I did not agree with so I say they must go. The Little League my daughters play softball in did not get the trophies out in time last year so they must be disbanded. Let's not forget that horrible United Way organization, since they give money to a couple of groups I dislike I think they should be shut down. Come on guys, if you don't like their stance on this then let it be known but why bash the entire organization for one or two misgivings? It leads me to believe there are other issues you don't want to bring up.


Once again you have your opinion and are entitled to it; however I specifically told Pat Murray that I was going to spear head a coalition to put them out of business because of this issue, and I aim to keep my promise. If it does not happen, well at least I can say I am a man of my word, and that I gave it my very best shot.

Again, I respect you for standing up and speaking for what you believe in. All I ask is that you return the favor.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

You should be proud to be spearheading the drive to "put them out of business" because of this one issue. Oh well, I'll sleep well tonight knowing that your "drive" will only sputter and will in know way affect this organization. In the meanwhile I've got to start a drive to shut down my kid's school because they don't serve pizza on Friday.

I also respect you for standing up for what you believe in. I just feel that I have a duty to point out something that doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I can applaud most things they have done. I don't agree or like what they are doing now. Glad your confident in their continued wave of support.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

I think Pocboy cleared it up at least for me.. "something that doesent make sense to me"

Charlie


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Snapdraggin

Well if your not shure then this mite help. As I said earlier in a post on this issue the enviros along with the commercial group were in Washington holding hands and knocking on doors. The issue was to reduce the recreational catch and allow commercials to fish year round on the honor system VMS etc. Now the CCA and enviros were hand and hand in the lawsuit that caused all this stuff to happen to us recreational guys. Again the Feds have stated to the TPW play our way or we will withold this and that. I hope our guys (TPW) will hold the line and I believe they will do what is best for Texas as they have done in the past.. our guys need to know we appreciate them and what they do.

Charlie

Charlie


----------



## jtburf (May 26, 2004)

Until the rec's are will to spend 100's of thousands of dollars like the commericals do on lobbiest,....don't expect anything to change...accept your 2 fish and move on...


john


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

jtburf said:


> Until the rec's are will to spend 100's of thousands of dollars like the commericals do on lobbiest,....don't expect anything to change...accept your 2 fish and move on...
> 
> john


This is about 4 fish and our statutory jurisdiction. Don't be surprised if the status quo holds up. :cheers:


----------



## jtburf (May 26, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> This is about 4 fish and our statutory jurisdiction. Don't be surprised if the status quo holds up. :cheers:


I know what this issue is about... And I expect the state to stand firm right now..

BUT in the big picture... people need to stop crying that the CCA is not doing enough when most don't even attend the monthly meet for their chapter!

That is my point.....

John


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Some of us have sent numerous letters and emails to CCA regarding this issue over the past few years and they have fallen on deaf ears. What do you make of that? I believe their decision has been made at National and they want to sweep us under the rug. Why attend a meeting when you have no voice...


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

CHARLIE said:


> Snapdraggin
> 
> Well if your not shure then this mite help. As I said earlier in a post on this issue the enviros along with the commercial group were in Washington holding hands and knocking on doors. The issue was to reduce the recreational catch and allow commercials to fish year round on the honor system VMS etc. Now the CCA and enviros were hand and hand in the lawsuit that caused all this stuff to happen to us recreational guys. Again the Feds have stated to the TPW play our way or we will withold this and that. I hope our guys (TPW) will hold the line and I believe they will do what is best for Texas as they have done in the past.. our guys need to know we appreciate them and what they do.
> 
> ...


what Charlie says is FACT. Any body want to keep you head in the sand and dispute it, go ahead. If you want to argue about it. show up Tuesday night. CCA has done some good things, but they have done some horrible things and they need to be held accountable.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

jtburf said:


> I know what this issue is about... And I expect the state to stand firm right now..
> 
> BUT in the big picture... people need to stop crying that the CCA is not doing enough when most don't even attend the monthly meet for their chapter!
> 
> ...


John, that is a very good point, and I agree with you that it is the way it should be, but in reality, they have their own agenda and they are not going to listen to their membership. They are way smarter than any of us and they will tell us how it will go down, at least according to them. Hubris.


----------



## jtburf (May 26, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> Some of us have sent numerous letters and emails to CCA regarding this issue over the past few years and they have fallen on deaf ears. What do you make of that? I believe their decision has been made at National and they want to sweep us under the rug. Why attend a meeting when you have no voice...


Blake if every chapter in Texas knewabout the issue, and placed Red Snapper on the front burner then and only then will anything change...

Currently the biggest topic of discussion at local meeting revolves around everything but Snapper (star tourny, chapter fundraising, Raffel items, and hug fest)... when you exclude the Star Entries the majority of CCA members are bay fisherpeople....

john


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

jtburf said:


> Blake if every chapter in Texas knewabout the issue, and placed Red Snapper on the front burner then and only then will anything change...
> 
> Currently the biggest topic of discussion at local meeting revolves around everything but Snapper (star tourny, chapter fundraising, Raffel items, and hug fest)... when you exclude the Star Entries the majority of CCA members are bay fisherpeople....
> 
> john


That is why it burns me up that they are involved with joining with the NMFS on this issue. They are pushing their weight around on an issue they should not even be involved in. I don't have a problem with anything alse they do but they are riding with the wrong teams on this one. I hate to see what was a great grassroot organization get baited and lured in by the Ocean Conservancy et al...

Their other partner in this manuever has been "working" on saving the Red Snapper fishery since the 80's. Hell of a track record they have...

I have no animosity at all to our local and state volunteers but the nationals are going to have to be held accountable for their deeds and misdeeds. This is just my opinion.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

You may want to study up on this http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h4087/show introduced in November 2007 to undo the lawsuit and disaster brought on by CCA and their enviro friends. The system is broken and the "shepherds" are acting more like wolves where the flock is concerned. :wink:



Pocboy said:


> You should be proud to be spearheading the drive to "put them out of business" because of this one issue. Oh well, I'll sleep well tonight knowing that your "drive" will only sputter and will in know way affect this organization. In the meanwhile I've got to start a drive to shut down my kid's school because they don't serve pizza on Friday.
> 
> I also respect you for standing up for what you believe in. I just feel that I have a duty to point out something that doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

*Commercial vs. Recreational*

Here's my take on the red snapper problem....let's get graphical about this. I would like any organization to try to prove me wrong....mainly because my guess is that the yellow slice is way bigger than the real harvest percent....the true numbers.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

I'm not bashing CCA. I'm bashing their loss of focus on thier original mission to protect recreational fishing.

Produce facts...and then lets make a decision on the facts.
Managing a fishery like the Laguna Madre is nothing in comparison to managing a fishery located in the Gulf of Mexico.
__________________


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

I just e-mailed KIII TV giving them the link to this thread and I gave them my views. I hope they are at the Port A meeting. I encouraged them to go. Next to contact is the Caller Times. Please e-mail KIII at [email protected] to show interest in this story and make sure they represent the recreational fisherman in their story if they actually decide to cover it in the news.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

I agree with a lot of what is being said about the CCA,they've done and continue to do some goods things for inshore fishing but offshore is a complete different story. The CCA only repeats the old shrimp tawl mantra of theirs over and over without ever adressing the commercial over fishing problem. Too many people just join for the STAR tournament and never see what use their money is put too, myself included. Now it's comming around to bite us on the rear end as we've pledged money to on organization thats not aligned with we feel is right. In particular them supporting the 2 snapper limit in state water. Let Texas manage Texas waters.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Kenner21 said:


> I agree with a lot of what is being said about the CCA,they've done and continue to do some goods things for inshore fishing but offshore is a complete different story. The CCA only repeats the old shrimp tawl mantra of theirs over and over without ever adressing the commercial over fishing problem. Too many people just join for the STAR tournament and never see what use their money is put too, myself included. Now it's comming around to bite us on the rear end as we've pledged money to on organization thats not aligned with we feel is right. In particular them supporting the 2 snapper limit in state water. Let Texas manage Texas waters.


Thanks and come to the meeting if you can bro.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Kenner21 said:


> I agree with a lot of what is being said about the CCA,they've done and continue to do some goods things for inshore fishing but offshore is a complete different story. The CCA only repeats the old shrimp tawl mantra of theirs over and over without ever adressing the commercial over fishing problem. Too many people just join for the STAR tournament and never see what use their money is put too, myself included. Now it's comming around to bite us on the rear end as we've pledged money to on organization thats not aligned with we feel is right. In particular them supporting the 2 snapper limit in state water. Let Texas manage Texas waters.


Read the website... read the TIDE magazine... do the research... it's all there... fully disclosed.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

bump.....


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

jtburf

John

"if every chapter (CCA) knew about this then the Snapper issue would be on the front burner"
Seems that in the old days every chapter (what few they were) new about the redfish issue. Dont you ever wonder why all the chapters are not aware of whats going on with the snapper ?? Do you really think that CCA wants all their members to know what they have done? Heck no, then someone would began to ask questions. Some of us have been asking questions of them for a few years now regarding the Snapper issue and always get the "ivory tower response" CCA has done good on some issues but on this one they are way off base and need to be held accountable by the folks they are supposed to represent. That would be us recreational fisherman..Another thing, I have not been a member of CCA for a few years. I switched to a group that has looks for our recreationals needs.

Charlie


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

baylvr said:


> Read the website... read the TIDE magazine... do the research... it's all there... fully disclosed.


 Thats the thing, I'd guess a large percentage of members join for only 1 reason. The fishermans lotto known as the STAR tournament. I fish SKA tournaments in the summer and it just makes sense to join in case you weigh a nice King then you double up. Apparantly while doing so I've been supporting a organization that doesn't have my interest as a recreational fisherman in mind. I'd love to see a boycott of the STAR tournament this year but honestly I don't see it happening.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

[email protected]

This email isn't working for me anyone else having the problem?


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Send em here [email protected] and just keep on sending them!!


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

One thing I would like to see is the S.T.A.R. weigh stations (bait camps) refuse to be an official weigh station for 2008. That would be a lot easier to pull off then try and get CCA members not to sigh up. no place to weigh the fish, no tournement. I already know of two bait camps that would join right in. Here is a list of weigh stations, not very many. How many people would it take to educate the weigh stations that they may be losing more business because of the closure of STATE WATER SNAPPERY. Think about it. Most places that weigh the fish it is a burden for them anyways.

*1. BRIDGE CITY SEAFOOD*​2682 E. Roundbunch
Orange, TX 77630
(409) 886-1115

*2. STINGAREE MARINA*​1296 Stingaree Road
Crystal Beach, TX 77650
(409) 684-9530

*3. **MARBURGER'S SPORTING GOODS*​1400 Bayport Blvd. (Hwy. 146)
Seabrook, TX 77586
(281) 474-3229

*4. ANITA'S BAIT, TACKLE & SEAFOOD*​600 Dike Road
Texas City, TX 77590
(409) 945-5727

*5. TEAKWOOD MARINA*​*scheduled to open 6/8/07*
615 Tiki Drive
Galveston, TX 77554
(409) 933-1902

*6. GYB MARINA BAIT & TACKLE*​715 Holiday Drive
Galveston, TX 77550
(409) 762-3168

*7. SCOTTY'S SEAFOOD & BAIT*​1727 61st St. @ Offats Bay
Galveston, TX 77551
(409) 741-1360

*8. BAYVIEW MARINA*​6019 Seaisle
Galveston, TX 77554
(409) 737-3636

*9. GULF COAST MARINA*​135 Shark Lane
Surfside Beach, TX 77541
(979) 239-1502

*10. SARGENT BAIT & TACKLE*​27334 FM457
Bay City, TX 77414
(979) 323-0000

*11. RUSSELL'S BAIT & TACKLE*​Harbor Road #1
Matagorda, TX 77457
(979) 863-7620

*12. FUZZY'S 1 STOP*​4717 Hwy 35 S.
Palacios, TX 77465
(361) 972-6308

*13. INDIANOLA FISHING MARINA*​8 Bell Street
Indianola, TX 77979
(361) 552-5350

​
_*CCA is not responsible for typographical errors due to website design.*_​
*​**14. THE FISHING CENTER*

13th @ Intercoastal Waterway
Port O'Connor, TX 77982-0447
(361) 983-4440
​
*15. SEAWORTHY MARINE SUPPLY*​*(hrs 8a - 6p M-F; 8a - 4p Sat and 9a - 4p Sun)*
102 S. Fulton Beach Road
Fulton, TX 78358-0878
(361) 727-9100

*16. HAMPTON'S LANDING*​430 Ransom Road
Aransas Pass, TX 78336
(361) 758-1562

*17. WOODY'S SPORTS CENTER*​136 W. Cotter
Port Aransas, TX 78373
(361) 749-5252

*18. ROY'S BAIT & TACKLE*​7613 S. Padre Island Dr.
Corpus Christi, TX 78412
(361) 992-2960

*19. HARBOR BAIT & TACKLE*​123 W. Harbor
Port Mansfield, TX 78598
(956) 944-2367

*20. JIM'S PIER*​209 West Whiting
South Padre Island, TX 78597
(956) 761-2865

​
​


----------



## Koolero (Jul 12, 2006)

Angler 1 said:


> One thing I would like to see is the S.T.A.R. weigh stations (bait camps) refuse to be an official weigh station for 2008. That would be a lot easier to pull off then try and get CCA members not to sigh up. no place to weigh the fish, no tournement. I already know of two bait camps that would join right in. Here is a list of weigh stations, not very many. How many people would it take to educate the weigh stations that they may be losing more business because of the closure of STATE WATER SNAPPERY. Think about it.
> 
> *1. BRIDGE CITY SEAFOOD*​2682 E. Roundbunch
> Orange, TX 77630
> ...


I like it !!!!


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

*Great idea Angler 1*

GREAT idae!! I bet I can work convincing a few from Corpus. Heck, why do they even want to spend the time signing people up for the tournament!!!??? It really does them no good. Surely CCA does not throw them a dime. They would rather be ringing up sales and answering questions on products they sell. Have them make people register online for the STAR tournament.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

And what of the scholarships this tournament funds? What about that Dad that has signed his son up for the tournament to encourage him to fish and learn about fair play and stewardship. Then he goes to a local weigh station to weigh in his prize winning gafftop and can't weigh it in?

Do you truly believe that encouraging weigh stations to close will solve the entire problem? They'll just change the plan... have you take pictures of a digital scale weight and email it?

Make your voice heard directly to CCA... bombard the state office with your opposition. Write letters... approach your state reps. TALK to these people!


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Bombard the weigh stations. No place weigh Fish...No tournament to have. No reason to join CCA. 

Like the Rodeo, If they did not have any singers there would be no Rodeo.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

I'm not saying you're wrong... I'm just saying, "there's more 'n one way ta skin a cat!" I'm a cat skinner from way back!  

They'll find a way to make the tournament continue. Mostly because there are many others like me, who still believe in the greater good here.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

baylvr said:


> And what of the scholarships this tournament funds? What about that Dad that has signed his son up for the tournament to encourage him to fish and learn about fair play and stewardship. Then he goes to a local weigh station to weigh in his prize winning gafftop and can't weigh it in?


The CCA's original mission was to protect the interests of the recreational fisherman.

Whether or not CCA provides scholarships, feeds poor kids, provides grandma with a new grandpa, (may the old grandpa rest in peace), is not at issue here.

The point is....CCA should protect the interests of the recreational fisherman. This was the original mission of CCA and what the members of CCA have put their hard earned money out to do.

If CCA is fortunate enough to have funds to help kids with cancer to go fishing, provide scholarships for students that like to fish, (not those that are closely connected to high ranking CCA members), then great!

I just feel that those people that have supported CCA over the years, (based upon the original mission statement of being an organization for recreational fishermen), is being ingnored.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

STxFisherman said:


> The CCA's original mission was to protect the interests of the recreational fisherman.
> 
> Whether or not CCA provides scholarships, feeds poor kids, provides grandma with a new grandpa, (may the old grandpa rest in peace), is not at issue here.
> 
> ...


Great point STx! I could think of a lot of things I would like CCA to pay for. Many things that I can't even write about! But that is not why people (including me) joined CCA. It was not set up as a FEEL GOOD, fluffy, peachy organization to win rewards for catching big piggy perch. Or to pay kids to go to school. I already gladly do that with thousands of dollars in property taxes, just like everyone else on this board.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Angler1*

The STAR will go on, for your info there use to be a waiting list for places that wanted to be a weigh station and I don't think that has changed. It amazes me the way some people think.

The biggest problem here is that know one has a clue of what's right and what's wrong.. you, CCA, the Feds....Are all of you sure the Feds did not want to close the season all together for Recs, not 2 fish but zero fish, maybe that was a dream. Gater


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

gater said:


> The STAR will go on, for your info there use to be a waiting list for places that wanted to be a weigh station and I don't think that has changed. It amazes me the way some people think.
> 
> The biggest problem here is that know one has a clue of what's right and what's wrong.. you, CCA, the Feds....Are all of you sure the Feds did not want to close the season all together for Recs, not 2 fish but zero fish, maybe that was a dream. Gater


I would not be so sure of that. You are underestimating a whole lot of fishermen.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

That would be absolutely incorrect.
The feds had agreed on a 30 month plan (which sucked), the CCA/Enviro lawsuit forced the immediate implementation of the 2 fish rule and a shorter plan (which sucked worse).

As I mentioned earlier there is work being done in Washington as of 11/2007 to change the Magnuson-Stevens rules re rebuilding timelines and add more flexibility.

CCA with their alliance of the Pew, TRCP, and ASA camps and their arbitrary "one year rebuilding plan" were blocked in Washington, so they got lawyered up with the enviros and got their way, tossing us under the bus. 
This is the absolute truth.



gater said:


> The STAR will go on, for your info there use to be a waiting list for places that wanted to be a weigh station and I don't think that has changed. It amazes me the way some people think.
> 
> The biggest problem here is that know one has a clue of what's right and what's wrong.. you, CCA, the Feds....Are all of you sure the Feds did not want to close the season all together for Recs, not 2 fish but zero fish, maybe that was a dream. Gater


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

The current proposal for adding more flexibility in the rebuilding process.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h4087/show


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

gater said:


> The biggest problem here is that know one has a clue of what's right and what's wrong.. you, CCA, the Feds....Are all of you sure the Feds did not want to close the season all together for Recs, not 2 fish but zero fish, maybe that was a dream. Gater


No. Actually quite a few of us have a grasp on this situation quite clearly. I am guessing that you are including yourself in that statement because you seen to have missed the boat on that one. The story that CCA saved us from a closed season is a fairy tale. They did have a lot to do with the 2 fish limit. In fact they sued the gov. in order to get it. 0 fish was never a serious possibility. In fact the Gulf Council suggested that we keep the limits the same but were overruled thanks to the lawsuit. Go back to sleep Gater, ignorance is bliss.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

By REP. BARNEY FRANK
Congressman Frank represents the fourth Massachusetts district in the U.S. House of Representatives.
December 01, 2007 6:00 AM
When someone misrepresents your policy position in order to make his case, it's usually a sign that his own argument isn't very strong. This is what is happening when Lee Crockett of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environmental Group, in the Nov. 23 Standard-Times, criticizes the bill I am co-sponsoring to promote fishery rebuilding flexibility by saying: "If there was no time limit [for rebuilding weakened fisheries] it would drag out the rebuilding and drag out the pain of economic consequences for longer periods of time." Readers of this statement might conclude that I favor some sort of open-ended extension of the standard 10-year rebuilding period for weakened stocks, but that is simply not true.

Current law allows three exceptions to the 10-year rebuilding period: when the biology of the relevant fish, environmental conditions, or an international agreement in which the U.S. participates, dictate a longer timeframe. The bill I am co-sponsoring adds four more exceptions: 1. when the cause of the fishery decline is unrelated to fishing or limiting fishing activity alone is not an effective way of rebuilding; 2. to minimize the economic impacts of rebuilding programs on fishing communities; 3. for one or more fish stocks in a multi-species fishery (like the New England groundfish fishery); or 4. when the rebuilding targets are substantially increased after the rebuilding period has begun.

The bill also specifically requires that, for exceptions 2-4, the number of years beyond the standard 10-year period would be limited, based on a formula taking into account the biology of the specific fish involved. Furthermore, exceptions 2 and 3 can only be applied if there is evidence that the relevant stock of fish is already on a positive rebuilding trajectory.

This is a responsible way of injecting a little flexibility into an unduly strict process. If the same rebuilding targets can be met in, say, 13 years instead of 10, without compromising the ultimate rebuilding goal, who is hurt? The fish won't know the difference, and because the targets will be reached by a more gradual glide path instead of a sharp cut in fishing, communities like the Greater New Bedford area that are dependent on the industry might get a break and keep some more jobs (for fishermen, yes, but also for the hard-working men and women employed in the other businesses that support the industry).

Finally, Mr. Crockett greatly oversimplifies the issue when he says: "The sooner the stocks are rebuilt, the sooner fishing communities can enjoy the economic rewards of a robust fishery." Most fishermen I talk to would rather keep the industry economically strong while rebuilding is taking place, rather than follow Mr. Crockett's argument to its logical conclusion of stopping all fishing and letting those who can survive financially pick up the pieces later. We can promote healthy fish stocks and healthy fishing communities at the same time, and responsible rebuilding flexibility will help get us there. I will continue doing all I can to push for that goal.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*CCA needs to get on the ball!*

CCA's request is generated from a firm view that the present plan has failed and only immediate action will prevent the complete closure of the fishery to all parties.​​*CCA's Role In The Management Of Red Snapper*

The Coastal Conservation Association has long represented the interests of inshore and offshore recreational anglers. In more than twenty years of participation in the management of our state and federal fisheries, we have never lost our focus on the tenet of good stewardship of our marine resources. Balancing the interests of recreational anglers and the sacrifices needed for the longevity of the resource is not always easy. Clearly there are times when the two goals oppose each other. But, in being good stewards, we must not become myopic in our goals for management. Through a directed focus on the future health and longevity of our fisheries and the role of recreational fishermen in them, CCA will continue to pioneer a visionary approach to the conservation of our marine resources.

The management of the Gulf red snapper fishery has tested all limits of patience and sensibility. With input from recreational fishermen, the for-hire industry, commercial fishermen, environmental groups, and countless other special interests, no conclusion brings accord. There is dissention among user groups and, sadly, within user groups. But, through a careful examination of CCA's historic participation in the management of this fishery, it is evident that the needs of the recreational angler are being well represented.

The problems in this complex fishery are not recent developments. From the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's red snapper assessments in the late 1970s to the current battles over total allowable catch (TAC) and bycatch reduction devices (BRDs), CCA continues to strive for a long-term solution that combines proper utilization of the resource with long-term stock stability. Without a healthy resource, no user group is happy.

With shorter seasons and reduced bag limits, TAC has become the catchword for red snapper in the new millennium. CCA has always supported the largest TAC and, subsequently, the longest season possible within the tight framework necessary for the proper recovery of the fishery. Without following the management methods necessary for rebuilding the fishery, there will be no recovery. In that scenario, we would face even more draconian regulations and the specter of moratoriums and closures. This would be unacceptable.

The true task at hand is to ensure a place for the recreational user group in this recovering fishery. We cannot have myopic solutions with short-term increases in the TAC or season if they lead to long-term problem in the total health of the fishery. This would only lead to further and more stringent regulation and an eventual dissipation in user group interest.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is mandated by law to manage this fishery. The Magnuson -Stevens Act dictates rigorous parameters for the recovery of a fishery that has been deemed overfished. The state of the red snapper fishery has been a subject of countless debates. But, with the existing peer reviewed data that NMFS is using, we have the largest possible TAC and season allowed within the boundaries of the existing management plan. This does not implicitly make the management system right or easy, but it does qualify as the best possible plan we currently have in place. To enact a fundamental change, we will have to continue the unending pursuit of enhanced data and explore alternative management plans with a more obtainable biomass.

CCA has attracted a lot of attention by supporting NMFS' current management plan. In trying to provide a stable set of red snapper regulations, CCA, through its general counsel Bob Hayes, intervened in a lawsuit in support of the current TAC and season.

"We would gladly support a twelve month season and larger TAC if the fishery could accommodate it without jeopardizing the recovery of the biomass," said Will Ohmstede, Chairman of CCA Texas' government affairs committee. "To think that CCA arbitrarily supports a shorter season and less recreational access is laughable." But, at the current 9.12 million pound TAC, a twelve-month season would result in a reduced bag limit and increased size limit. As we saw last summer, this plan would do no good for any participant in the fishery or the red snapper stock.

We are very sympathetic to the south Texas charter industry's desire for an early seasonal opening. But, an early season opener will only result in a more rapid closure. Due to the weather constraints of late winter and early spring, the amount of recreational access would likely be reduced and fewer fishermen would be able to utilize this public marine resource. This would clearly serve no one.

"If the science would show that the fishery can sustain a twelve or fifteen million pound TAC and still recover, then a twelve month season with a decent bag and size would be a reality," said Pat Murray, Communications Director for CCA. "But, as it stands, there is not a single peer reviewed study that supports an increase of that magnitude."

It is CCA's tenacious support of BRDs in the Gulf shrimp trawling industry that has allowed the TAC to not sink to 6 million pounds. Through work with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and seemingly unending legal battles with the Texas Shrimp Association, CCA has managed to maintain BRDs for the protection of juvenile Gulf red snapper. Without BRDs, an estimated 60 to 80 percent of the juvenile red snapper population is in jeopardy. We must remember that growing involvement by environmental interests in fisheries management will increase the push for reductions in the TAC.

"The battle for access to this fishery by recreational fishermen will be to maintain the existing TAC," said Hayes. "By continuing to improve data and maintain BRDs, we can work for an improved future for the management of our red snapper stock."

No one has won in the management of the red snapper fishery. The questions still outnumber the solutions. "Clearly, no single lawsuit, press release, or march on the capitol will solve the red snapper problem," said Murray. "But, somewhere between a moratorium and unlimited access dwells the middle ground that will allow for recovery of this fishery." By working on all levels of management (local, state, and national), CCA continues to balance the fight for access for recreational fishermen and the goal of longevity for this prized species.

Does the Gulf Council manage this fishery!


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Gator, go get the current and "correct" non-enviro based bycatch numbers and try again, even Roy Crabtree of NMFS agreed those numbers were incorrect.
The flawed bycatch numbers are old hat, the shrimp fleet is at an all time low and diesel is 3.50 a gallon, the Asians are flooding our market with overseas frozen farm raised shrimp for lower prices.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

yeah, in the meantime, lets try to shut down red snapper in state waters, huh CCA?

nice cut and paste though.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

No matter where you send your money, call, write, fax, email all your members of Congress and ask them to support the HR4087 bill so there is a legal nationwide solution or at least a good start. Otherwise keep your head buried for whatever reason and watch what happens. Lots of people gripe but few really ever ever take action, that is the reason the enviros are kicking our butts. Imagine some hummus eating chick with hairy legs and armpits, maybe dreadlocks and wearing the requisite Birkenstock sandals with socks, she is kicking our butts cause she thinks the fishies feel pain, and of course she fits in with the vegans around the office and they all get a kick out of watching us slowly fade out. The politicians have made it possible to at least start repairing things in a reasonable and responsible manner, do your part and utilize your constitutional right to get in touch with your elected officials and demand they act. This is how it works, the bill is there, lets get it passed.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

And of course let TPW know we do not want the feds running our state waters fishing regulations.


----------



## KennyG (Mar 4, 2006)

*Red Snapper Issues*

Interesting thread! Summary of my thoughts & suggestions based on years of fishing the Gulf from FL to TX, research, discussion with party boat owners, etc. Snapper have been overfished, primarily by commerical interests. The monitoring of the commercial snapper TAC has been a joke. The commercial "bandit" operators out of Galveston caught thousands of pounds of fish for years that went unreported. Efforts are being made to prevent this abuse, but I'm not sure we are there yet. The shrimp bycatch has a significant impact on the juvenile snapper population, which prevents recovery efforts. The Western Gulf is in much better shape than the Eastern Gulf. The Feds have failed miserably in managing the fishery. Granted, solid data has not been easily obtainable. The recreational fishermen tradionally have faced the brunt of the "recovery initatives" because the commercial lobbyists have more influence on regulators, particularly the shrimping industry. Personally, I would hate to see any additional set backs for the recreational fishermen. Unfortunately, additional sacrifices may be required for the long term best interests of the fishery. I do believe some consideration should be given to developing a "Regional Gulf Zone Plan" for managing the fishery. And maybe our next inititative may need to be starting a snapper hatchery!

Capt. Kenny Garza
Coastal Fishing Adventures
President, CCA Galveston


----------



## snapcon (Oct 11, 2005)

KennyG said:


> Unfortunately, additional sacrifices may be required for the long term best interests of the fishery.
> 
> Capt. Kenny Garza
> Coastal Fishing Adventures
> President, CCA Galveston


Respectfully Capt Garza, are you aware of the number of times this has been said to the recreational fishermen? When in doubt take more from the recs, cuz then have never gotten together and stood up for their fishing rights. I sure hope all of you guys are starting to get it. I persoanlly dropped my CCA membership three years ago. I had been a huge supporter of CCA and proclaimed it by PROUDLY displaying CCA plates on my car, attended banquets, promoted STAR to everyone in knew fished. When i recieved a response from Pat Murray (yes, he did write me back), it was the same tierd junk we have read on this and other current threads. CCA needs to follow thier constituancy, and not bow to the threats from the envoris and nmfs. so, when in doubt send you money to where it might do some good for the things you hold dear and believe in. Screwing the recs ONE MORE TIME aint it!


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Capn Garzas attitude is just one of the reasons we are in this fix now. With all his experience and knowlege he should really speaking out to CCA about the direction they are heading(wrong way). About all the dismal "science" that has been used to set rules and regulations. 

Charlie


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Gater

Heck man dont forget this one.. years ago when snapper were plentiful there were more shrimpers with no BRd's hundreds more. The shrimp fleet has diminished to almost nothing and supposedly the Snapper are fewer. doesent add up. Crabtree told me personally that the numbers CCA were using I think 80% were totally wrong... There is so much "faulty" info flying around it would scare you. Snapper are at 3% of levels they used to be. Now thats totally false.. Oh well maybe someday folks will wake up and see what has happened to us (recreational fisherman)..

Been sounding off about these issues for years and no one listened, maybe that is beginning to change. I hope so.. Good fishing and thanks again for pulling me away from the rocks..

Charlie


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

STxFisherman said:


> The CCA's original mission was to protect the interests of the recreational fisherman.
> 
> Whether or not CCA provides scholarships, feeds poor kids, provides grandma with a new grandpa, (may the old grandpa rest in peace), is not at issue here.
> 
> ...


The comment you made this statement to was aimed solely at the recommendation of closing weigh station... not the mission statement of the CCA... so my response about the scholarships and the kids fishing was to prove a point about the STAR alone... not what CCA should be fighting for. I've maintained all along that I feel CCA should be sticking to what the founders originally had planned.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

KennyG said:


> I do believe some consideration should be given to developing a "Regional Gulf Zone Plan" for managing the fishery. And maybe our next inititative may need to be starting a snapper hatchery!
> 
> Capt. Kenny Garza
> Coastal Fishing Adventures
> President, CCA Galveston


I agree! This would realign the organization with the goals that those who started it were working toward! Those of us who choose to remain with the CCA should stress these points in our county and board meetings!


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Like Charlie says, the shrimpers are not the problem, even the feds admitted this flawed uneducated guess. So lets take that off the table.

Next where are you guys getting that the state snapper population is in trouble? TPWD knows it is thriving.



KennyG said:


> Interesting thread! Summary of my thoughts & suggestions based on years of fishing the Gulf from FL to TX, research, discussion with party boat owners, etc. Snapper have been overfished, primarily by commerical interests. The monitoring of the commercial snapper TAC has been a joke. The commercial "bandit" operators out of Galveston caught thousands of pounds of fish for years that went unreported. Efforts are being made to prevent this abuse, but I'm not sure we are there yet. The shrimp bycatch has a significant impact on the juvenile snapper population, which prevents recovery efforts. The Western Gulf is in much better shape than the Eastern Gulf. The Feds have failed miserably in managing the fishery. Granted, solid data has not been easily obtainable. The recreational fishermen tradionally have faced the brunt of the "recovery initatives" because the commercial lobbyists have more influence on regulators, particularly the shrimping industry. Personally, I would hate to see any additional set backs for the recreational fishermen. Unfortunately, additional sacrifices may be required for the long term best interests of the fishery. I do believe some consideration should be given to developing a "Regional Gulf Zone Plan" for managing the fishery. And maybe our next inititative may need to be starting a snapper hatchery!
> 
> Capt. Kenny Garza
> Coastal Fishing Adventures
> President, CCA Galveston


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Question for the CCA people,,,,,,, Do you believe that the CCA is right by wanting the state to change Red Snapper regs to match the feds and why????????Also Please state where you do 90% of your fishing Bay or Blue???????? Do you own a boat, bay or offshore.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Quote- Kenny G. "The recreational fishermen tradionally have faced the brunt of the "recovery initatives" because the commercial lobbyists have more influence on regulators, particularly the shrimping industry."

With all due respect.

WE are facing them NOW thanks to cca and the enviros little lawsuit. Answers such as this by a chapter president, located in a port city, are indicative of just how clueless CCA really is when it comes to Snapper.

There is also mention of "commercial lobbyists", now that is rich. CCA has chosen some interesting bedfellows, running around Washington with our worst enemy's the Commercial guys, and Enviros in a "lobby" effort using flawed data that in no way serves the recreational sector.

The real reason we have been screwed is the largest group supposedly supporting the Rec angler sold us out and sided with the enemy.

CCA has a weakness in it's design and designation that legally prevents them from lobby efforts of the standard fare, they try to ride on coat tails of some of the other groups like the Ocean Conservancy to use their legal resources and efforts as well as create some cover in case of a blunder such as this.

Rhetoric and apathy have gotten us here, please spare those of us who know the real story the patronizing "flash card" statements and same old song and dance.


----------



## CurlyQz (Jun 10, 2007)

*Has CCA ever asked your opinion?*

I have been a member of CCA for years. My husband and I both admittedly join because of the STAR tournament. My 2008 membership sits on my desk incomplete because of this single issue. I don't recall ever receiving a questionnaire, survey, comment card or any other sort of data gathering form from CCA about how I, as a member, feel about any particular issue, let alone the snapper issue. (I've been surveyed by TPWD at the boat launch in Sabine, but that survey didn't ask for my opinion about any issue.)

Given this, maybe the message that should be communicated to TPWD (from CCA members) is simply that CCA can't represent the recreational fisherman if it doesn't know what our interests are. They can't possibly demonstrate that our interests are in line with their position without *proof* from member surveys. Membership alone doesn't reflect across the board support on all issues. Membership in CCA is basically funding a political action group through the guise of a very popular fishing tournament, especially in this instance when there are probably tens of thousands of people that join CCA simply for the STAR tournament. There's *proof* of that in the stats that CCA releases in regards to how much money the STAR tournament raises.

...just my $.02.

Missy


----------



## CurlyQz (Jun 10, 2007)

*response to beerforbait*

I do not agree with CCA's position about the snapper limits.

I own a boat. We upgraded from an 18' Kenner to a 23' Sea Hunt this past May.

We've recently (over the past two years) become addicted to offshore fishing, though we still fish the bays (Sabine Pass) when the weather has kept us inshore. It is very frustrating to me that it took about a year to figure out how to snapper fish and where to find them (thanks to Rik's book), only to see that I won't be able to keep as many now in TX waters year-round.

Missy


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

More proof that we are not all as blind as CCA seems to think. Very good point! The good-ole boy party scene and tournament to pay some guy $200k plus a year needs to make some big changes. They work for the fishermen, they should not dictate what we want. Listening to the public goes a long way. Maybe they should examine their circle of newfound wealthy friends the Enviros, Pew and their true agenda.



CurlyQz said:


> I have been a member of CCA for years. My husband and I both admittedly join because of the STAR tournament. My 2008 membership sits on my desk incomplete because of this single issue. I don't recall ever receiving a questionnaire, survey, comment card or any other sort of data gathering form from CCA about how I, as a member, feel about any particular issue, let alone the snapper issue. (I've been surveyed by TPWD at the boat launch in Sabine, but that survey didn't ask for my opinion about any issue.)
> 
> Given this, maybe the message that should be communicated to TPWD (from CCA members) is simply that CCA can't represent the recreational fisherman if it doesn't know what our interests are. They can't possibly demonstrate that our interests are in line with their position without *proof* from member surveys. Membership alone doesn't reflect across the board support on all issues. Membership in CCA is basically funding a political action group through the guise of a very popular fishing tournament, especially in this instance when there are probably tens of thousands of people that join CCA simply for the STAR tournament. There's *proof* of that in the stats that CCA releases in regards to how much money the STAR tournament raises.
> 
> ...


----------



## Team Ranger Bob (Jul 13, 2004)

*Guys CCA is irrelevant.*

Line the people up to make their desires known at these meetings and then in Austin in front of the TP&W commission.

Bashing CCA at this point will not help, we went all through this on the inshore side, dropped memberships, wrote letters fought amongst our selves and failed to address the commission.
What happened, we lost because we lost sight of what the immediate threat was.

Turn away federal rules in state waters first, then go and lobby for change at CCA, they do not and will not listen to chapter presidents, that has been proven over and over.

Fighting CCA directly now just divides the battle you guys have in front of you.
Organize to show the commission how you feel first, in the end they will be the ones that make the decisions.

Ranger Bob


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Team Ranger Bob said:


> Line the people up to make their desires known at these meetings and then in Austin in front of the TP&W commission.
> 
> Bashing CCA at this point will not help, we went all through this on the inshore side, dropped memberships, wrote letters fought amongst our selves and failed to address the commission.
> What happened, we lost because we lost sight of what the immediate threat was.
> ...


We can actually do both with our comments to TPWD. Then they will know that we have not sold our souls to the CCA NMFS bad marriage. They need to know.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Gator, 
Wrong again, 
There is no waiting list for weigh stations, In fact they are short and had some weigh station drop out over the years, At any rate everybody has there own opinions, it sad that just a few select people make the final decisions.

Another "FACT" is if they keep closing and changing the fishing regulations bait camps and other fishing buisnesses will fall short and will slowly start close there doors.



gater said:


> The STAR will go on, for your info there use to be a waiting list for places that wanted to be a weigh station and I don't think that has changed. It amazes me the way some people think.
> 
> The biggest problem here is that know one has a clue of what's right and what's wrong.. you, CCA, the Feds....Are all of you sure the Feds did not want to close the season all together for Recs, not 2 fish but zero fish, maybe that was a dream. Gater


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

KennyG said:


> Interesting thread! Summary of my thoughts & suggestions based on years of fishing the Gulf from FL to TX, research, discussion with party boat owners, etc. Snapper have been overfished, primarily by commerical interests. The monitoring of the commercial snapper TAC has been a joke. The commercial "bandit" operators out of Galveston caught thousands of pounds of fish for years that went unreported. Efforts are being made to prevent this abuse, but I'm not sure we are there yet. *The shrimp bycatch has a significant impact on the juvenile snapper population, which prevents recovery efforts. The Western Gulf is in much better shape than the Eastern Gulf.* The Feds have failed miserably in managing the fishery. Granted, solid data has not been easily obtainable. The recreational fishermen tradionally have faced the brunt of the "recovery initatives" because the commercial lobbyists have more influence on regulators, particularly the shrimping industry. Personally, I would hate to see any additional set backs for the recreational fishermen. Unfortunately, additional sacrifices may be required for the long term best interests of the fishery. I do believe some consideration should be given to developing a "Regional Gulf Zone Plan" for managing the fishery. And maybe our next inititative may need to be starting a snapper hatchery!
> 
> Capt. Kenny Garza
> Coastal Fishing Adventures
> President, CCA Galveston


These two do not add up all that well when you consider that 85% of all shrimping effort is in the western gulf, based on landings. 

How can the eastern gulf be that much worse off, when you have all the snapper landings off of Alabama and The Florida Panhandle, eastern gulf by the way.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

BEER4BAIT said:


> Question for the CCA people,,,,,,, Do you believe that the CCA is right by wanting the state to change Red Snapper regs to match the feds and why????????Also Please state where you do 90% of your fishing Bay or Blue???????? Do you own a boat, bay or offshore.


I have admitted from the start that I came into this conversation uneducated on this plight. My goal in even responding to all of these posts was to take a stance against a mass exodus of CCA... for I believe that's not the answer to this particular problem.

However, several folks, including yourself, have given me information on the issue and I've read everything that has been sent. I've gone to the web sites recommended.

To answer the question do I think CCA is right? First I have to say... I still do not consider myself as versed in this quagmire as I should be to make an educated comment... and I'm sure there are those who are more than willing to remind me of just how "clueless" they feel I am... so I'm admitting that up front _about THIS particular issue_.

But here's where I stand... I haven't seen one real scientific report concerning "State waters" in this entire endeavour? No pie charts... so "hands on" information you could "take to the bank" so to speak. I come from a Paramedic/Firefighter mentality where "if it ain't in writing... it ain't in effect". From what I've read... this proposal to side with the Feds with the stamp of "CCA Approval" on it is based on old outdated Federal water tests... that seems, at best, inconclusive? I have to agree with statements made about the fact that there are less shrimpers, yet they still claim there's a falling number of Snapper? So to answer the question based on what I've seen in posts and what I've read online... a resounding NO I do not think they're right... and will be there Tuesday... with my Brazoria County CCA shirt on... to say I don't feel this is right. You'll have to excuse my ignorance on the matter and accept that I plan to write down just what Capt Jennings has suggested that we speak about on a piece of paper to align myself with the group conscience. So if I seem hypocritical... that's just how I'll have to appear and just eat the ole crow on this one! But I sincerely feel the big dogz should have gotten a vote from at least a quorum of the membership before presuming to speak for the entire group on an issue that it appears they've gone against the original principles set up for the organization by its founders to support!

Where do I fish 90%? I'm a bay gal... don't have the stomach for the big blue... I get sea sick standing on the jetties or in a heavy bay chop!

Do I own a boat... well... yea... does it run? hehe NO! But I have friends and family I fish with. Plus I "park and wade" in some favorite spots... so I consider myself active in the sport.

With that said... will I quit CCA? No I won't... because the reasons I joined in the first place are still in play. Is there room for improvement... you bet! Starting with a suggestion that the STAR tournament go to a "catch and release" to promote what CCA stands for. There's much to be done... but I still feel with enough folks reminding the folks who are now in charge what CCA stands for... it can return to it's former glory.

Fair nuff?


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

CurlyQz said:


> I have been a member of CCA for years. My husband and I both admittedly join because of the STAR tournament. My 2008 membership sits on my desk incomplete because of this single issue. I don't recall ever receiving a questionnaire, survey, comment card or any other sort of data gathering form from CCA about how I, as a member, feel about any particular issue, let alone the snapper issue. (I've been surveyed by TPWD at the boat launch in Sabine, but that survey didn't ask for my opinion about any issue.)
> 
> Given this, maybe the message that should be communicated to TPWD (from CCA members) is simply that CCA can't represent the recreational fisherman if it doesn't know what our interests are. They can't possibly demonstrate that our interests are in line with their position without *proof* from member surveys. Membership alone doesn't reflect across the board support on all issues. Membership in CCA is basically funding a political action group through the guise of a very popular fishing tournament, especially in this instance when there are probably tens of thousands of people that join CCA simply for the STAR tournament. There's *proof* of that in the stats that CCA releases in regards to how much money the STAR tournament raises.
> 
> ...


Beautifully written... and my point exactly! There has been NO mention of this in any meeting I've attended!

Missy... copy and paste and send this over and over and over to the CCA state guys!!


----------



## jtburf (May 26, 2004)

BEER4BAIT said:


> Question for the CCA people,,,,,,, Do you believe that the CCA is right by wanting the state to change Red Snapper regs to match the feds and why????????Also Please state where you do 90% of your fishing Bay or Blue???????? Do you own a boat, bay or offshore.


Do I want a reduction in limits...*NO* ...

Do I see the big picture on why they are considering the change, *YES* to reduce the number of "State Snapper caught past 9 Miles". this is just my guess... but we have all seen " state snapper caught in the off season with blue water in the back ground"...

Do I own a boat yes and I split my fishing between bay and blue depending on fishing conditions and who is fishing with me....cannot say 50/50 cannot say 30/70.....

John


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

baylvr said:


> I have admitted from the start that I came into this conversation uneducated on this plight. My goal in even responding to all of these posts was to take a stance against a mass exodus of CCA... for I believe that's not the answer to this particular problem.
> 
> However, several folks, including yourself, have given me information on the issue and I've read everything that has been sent. I've gone to the web sites recommended.
> 
> ...


Well put, however you mentioned the very thing that prompted me to begin this thread. The fact that they know what is better for the membership. The fact they they took it on their own to assume the membership wanted this. The fact that they did not even ask any of the members on their stance. That to me is more than enough reason to boycott any and everything that has to do with CCA. I have no problem with someone wanting to stay for whatever reason they have. I am not going to stay in the organization, and I will take as many with me as I possibly can. I made that promise to Mr Murray and I intend to keep it.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

baylvr, good post. If you want to make a difference within CCA, bring back GCCA or its equivelent. Just like every other political group CCA panders to whatever crowd they have at that time. We need a Texas fishing voice and as was done in the past, we don't need PAC's or government help in accomplishing what needs to be done.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> baylvr, good post. If you want to make a difference within CCA, bring back GCCA or its equivelent. Just like every other political group CCA panders to whatever crowd they have at that time. We need a Texas fishing voice and as was done in the past, we don't need PAC's or government help in accomplishing what needs to be done.


WHEW! {drying off sweat bullets}... when I saw Haute Persuit as the poster in the "New Posts" on this thread I thought... "Oh lawd he's fixin ta let me have it!" hehehe Geez the pressure!!  Thanks man... I totally agree!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Kenner21 said:


> I agree with a lot of what is being said about the CCA,they've done and continue to do some goods things for inshore fishing but offshore is a complete different story. The CCA only repeats the old shrimp tawl mantra of theirs over and over without ever adressing the commercial over fishing problem. Too many people just join for the STAR tournament and never see what use their money is put too, myself included. Now it's comming around to bite us on the rear end as we've pledged money to on organization thats not aligned with we feel is right. In particular them supporting the 2 snapper limit in state water. Let Texas manage Texas waters.


There ya go, and with that said EVERYONE should get out of CCA. This time it is Snapper. What will it be next? Bay and lake fishermen and women just might be in jeopardy next. You never know and I for one am not gooing to give them my money and take a chance on something like that happening.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Bellyup said:


> I just e-mailed KIII TV giving them the link to this thread and I gave them my views. I hope they are at the Port A meeting. I encouraged them to go. Next to contact is the Caller Times. Please e-mail KIII at [email protected] to show interest in this story and make sure they represent the recreational fisherman in their story if they actually decide to cover it in the news.


All you CCA supporters might want to have a look at this. Like I said you just might be next.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Angler 1 said:


> One thing I would like to see is the S.T.A.R. weigh stations (bait camps) refuse to be an official weigh station for 2008. That would be a lot easier to pull off then try and get CCA members not to sigh up. no place to weigh the fish, no tournement. I already know of two bait camps that would join right in. Here is a list of weigh stations, not very many. How many people would it take to educate the weigh stations that they may be losing more business because of the closure of STATE WATER SNAPPERY. Think about it. Most places that weigh the fish it is a burden for them anyways.
> 
> *1. BRIDGE CITY SEAFOOD*​2682 E. Roundbunch
> Orange, TX 77630
> ...


Very good Angler1. PLease let's show solidarity on this and try to get more than one person at each place to make our cause known. The fact is that there might be some truth to CCA not educating chapters that are mostly made up of bay and lake folks (I saw this on another post here). The less that know the truth the better. We need to educate EVERYONE on this issue. I can honestly state that I swayed several more to not reup their membership in CCA at the duck camp this weekend. They were appalled when I told them of their stance on Snapper!


----------



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

Do you think they will put a limit on women?? Man, if I were single I would have more than just the snapper issue to reconcile with CCA. A limit on women - would that include number and size??

AGF



Snap Draggin said:


> There ya go, and with that said EVERYONE should get out of CCA. This time it is Snapper. What will it be next? Bay and lake fishermen and women just might be in jeopardy next. You never know and I for one am not gooing to give them my money and take a chance on something like that happening.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

baylvr said:


> And what of the scholarships this tournament funds? What about that Dad that has signed his son up for the tournament to encourage him to fish and learn about fair play and stewardship. Then he goes to a local weigh station to weigh in his prize winning gafftop and can't weigh it in?
> 
> Do you truly believe that encouraging weigh stations to close will solve the entire problem? They'll just change the plan... have you take pictures of a digital scale weight and email it?
> 
> Make your voice heard directly to CCA... bombard the state office with your opposition. Write letters... approach your state reps. TALK to these people!


If a dad wants to encourage his son or daughter to fish he does not need a tournament to do it. The statement you made about contacting TP&WD is a definite no brainer. I would like to believe that is being done. I have written a letter as well and attended the meeting in Port Arthur. At least TP&WD is asking OUR take on the issue, unlike CCA.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Always-Gone-Fishing said:


> Do you think they will put a limit on women?? Man, if I were single I would have more than just the snapper issue to reconcile with CCA. A limit on women - would that include number and size??
> 
> AGF


Now that's just FUNNY!! You gotta luv comic relief!! hehehe


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

"They *subjugate* *the* *meek*. But *it's* *the* *rhetoric* *of* *failure*."


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

I just contacted the Caller Times requesting them to cover the TPWD meeting scheduled Jan 9th. You can e-mail them and encourage them to cover the meeting by filling in the form and e-mailing them at this link *[url="http://www.caller.com/contactus/"]http://www.caller.com/contactus/*[/url] Of course I checked "urgent" on the subject matter selection to make sure it is read.


----------



## DeepBlueGulf (Jan 18, 2005)

Hey guys,(and gals)

I am busy at work for the next few days and amvery interested in the Red Snapper issue. I plan to be at the Port Aransas meeting, but was wondering if anyone could summarize the facts issues? I won't have time to research everything on my own and to read through thread after thread. 

If you know where a summary of the facts and issues is, that would be great. Better if you could post one from a sportfisherman's point of view.

I'll keep checking in. See you all at the meeting.

Tom - DBG


----------



## Saul T (Dec 16, 2007)

How many pounds of filets in your freezer getting freezer burn is enough?


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

baylvr said:


> I agree! This would realign the organization with the goals that those who started it were working toward! Those of us who choose to remain with the CCA should stress these points in our county and board meetings!


Creating more structure would be even better for the red snapper fishery at this point, but a hatchery would be good too (why not do both). There is a plan in place to do this but the enviros even fight that every step of the way.


----------



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

Is that a rhetorical question? Well if not then I must say since I am a bay and bluewater fisherman it tends to be the ones with the silver and multiple spots. But of course when you can keep 10 that generally happens. Oh, I am sorry that doesn't apply to those in the Laguna Madre now days perhaps they will see less feezer burn. Interesting question!

AGF



Saul T said:


> How many pounds of filets in your freezer getting freezer burn is enough?


----------



## troutsacker (Oct 1, 2007)

*here*

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cf...&MyToken=3893b233-4f1a-49df-a29f-e28a0a967681


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Saul T said:


> How many pounds of filets in your freezer getting freezer burn is enough?


Nice!! How many brain cells did you cough up to come up with that?


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> Nice!! How many brain cells did you cough up to come up with that?


I cannot top that one Haute. :rotfl:


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

Saul T said:


> How many pounds of filets in your freezer getting freezer burn is enough?


What the he!! kinda comment is that and what does it have to do with anything on this thread? I was gona hit you with some red but I decided not to because you are most certainly just stirring the pot.


----------



## Captfry (May 21, 2004)

Saul T said:


> How many pounds of filets in your freezer getting freezer burn is enough?


In one sitting my family can eat 4 filets (limit 2 fish) of red snapper. Not sure where this is coming from or where your trying to take it.


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

im kinda currious myself Saul T, you have been viewing this thread for about 20 min. please explain.


----------



## Saul T (Dec 16, 2007)

Actually I'm working on something else and haven't logged out. It's CCA's stance on justifying reduced baglimits for rec anglers.
The problem is Commercial.

Quit buying shrimp at HEB. Quit dragging meat under a popping cork. Quit buying red snapper dinners at Red Lobster.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot by suggesting eliminating possibly the only friend you have in Washington/Austin because you can't catch all the meat you want.

CCA isn't the enemy. It's the demand for commercially caught stocks.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Saul T said:


> Actually I'm working on something else and haven't logged out. It's CCA's stance on justifying reduced baglimits for rec anglers.
> The problem is Commercial.
> 
> Quit buying shrimp at HEB. Quit dragging meat under a popping cork. Quit buying red snapper dinners at Red Lobster.
> ...


Haven't you been reading any of the posts on this thread? It appears as if CCA has taken up with the commercial fishermen. Now who is our friend in Washington and Austin?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Saul T said:


> How many pounds of filets in your freezer getting freezer burn is enough?


Actually I NEVER have meat get freezer burned whether it be deer, hog, duck, or fish.


----------



## Captfry (May 21, 2004)

Originally Posted by [b said:


> Saul T[/b]
> _How many pounds of filets in your freezer getting freezer burn is enough?_





Snap Draggin said:


> Actually I NEVER have meat get freezer burned whether it be deer, hog, duck, or fish.


Maybe we need to start a thread titled food preservation, after being caught or harvested. :fish: Hehe

Now lets get back to the topic at hand....


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

CCA is not the only "friend" you have in Washington or in Austin.



Saul T said:


> Actually I'm working on something else and haven't logged out. It's CCA's stance on justifying reduced baglimits for rec anglers.
> The problem is Commercial.
> 
> Quit buying shrimp at HEB. Quit dragging meat under a popping cork. Quit buying red snapper dinners at Red Lobster.
> ...


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

CCA is not this red fish's friend at all. Look at their record on this issue if you don't believe that. The people they are aligning with, Ocean Conservancy, Gulf Restoration Network, etc.. Look at these Org's objectives. They want to do away with yours and mine recreational fishing. We MUST STAND UP and FIGHT if you want your kids to enjoy what we did. There is no saviour for us. I thought the RFA was the answer but they have turned to just a question. This is Texas and we don't need any ORG to accomplish our goals... we just need Texans.


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

Haute Pursuit said:


> CCA is not this red fish's friend at all. Look at their record on this issue if you don't believe that. The people thay are aligning with, Ocean Conservancy, Gulf Restoration Network, etc.. Look at these Org's objectives. They want to do away with yours and mine recreational fishing. We MUST STAND UP and FIGHT if you want your kids to enjoy what we did. There is no saviour for us. I thought the RFA was the answer but they have turned to just a question. This is Texas and we don't need any ORG to accomplish our goals... we just need Texans.


Ya you're right. Come to think of it I haven't heard anything out of Jim and the RFA on this issue.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Same old......*

Don't look like that much has been accomplished here since I left. G


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Hopefully you have been studying up.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

gater said:


> Don't look like that much has been accomplished here since I left. G


If anything should be new, it should be CCA or a representative responding to this thread and explaining their view if it is any different than what it has been proposed to be.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=98909


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Studying*

For what! I don't claim to know much about the issue, I also don't claim to know what reason CCA has for it's stance and nor do you. What I do know is that CCA continues to fight battles for the anglers of this State, and there are more important issues at hand. Yet you and others here continue to bash them. You all sound like 3 year olds who get mad when they don't get their way.

If it makes any differece to you, I'm on your side, I don't agree with Texas following the Feds limits. I think State should keep thing the way they are. The one thing that does bother me is the negative CCA talk. If you don't want to be a member, don't! Most of you don't have a clue about the organization or how its run but it's easy to sit at a key board and spread a bunch of BS. Gater


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

I talked to him the other day, he said "I told you so" I had to remain neutral but no more I will choose a side Tues pm.



Calmday said:


> Ya you're right. Come to think of it I haven't heard anything out of Jim and the RFA on this issue.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

I am not familiar with what battles for anglers the CCA is fighting at this time please fill me in.

If you are on our side please speak at the meeting and say so, I will be there.

My name is ALEX PARKER form LUFKIN TX



gater said:


> For what! I don't claim to know much about the issue, I also don't claim to know what reason CCA has for it's stance and nor do you. What I do know is that CCA continues to fight battles for the anglers of this State, and there are more important issues at hand. Yet you and others here continue to bash them. You all sound like 3 year olds who get mad when they don't get their way.
> 
> If it makes any differece to you, I'm on your side, I don't agree with Texas following the Feds limits. I think State should keep thing the way they are. The one thing that does bother me is the negative CCA talk. If you don't want to be a member, don't! Most of you don't have a clue about the organization or how its run but it's easy to sit at a key board and spread a bunch of BS. Gater


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

"I also don't claim to know what reason CCA has for it's stance and nor do you"

Shouldn't the people supporting the CCA financially have their interest protected? I'm asking ,CCA why are you supporting the push for the federal regulations to be put in place for Texas state waters? 

"there are more important issues at hand" 

To you maybe, I love offshore fishing espeically with friends and family. My parents can't handle long offshore runs and we have a lot of fun every year fishing state water red snapper. So speak for yourself this one hits close to home. Not to mention we(recreational snapper fishermen) have had our limits cut to 2 16 inch fish in federal waters, our already short season shortened further and now they want to take change the state water regulations. So yes a lot of us are upset the CCA is on board with this. Why shouldn't we be?


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

There were people who saw this coming and were proactive about what they saw coming, and it was not CCA that got this done at TPW.

April 9, 2007 TPW--Raising the minimum size limit on tarpon from 80 inches to 85 inches. In an earlier proposal, two options were considered: raising the minimum size to 90 inches, or implementing a purely catch and release fishery for tarpon in Texas. TPWD biologists worked with Jerry Ault, Ph.D., a University of Miami expert on tarpon, to instead arrive at an 85-inch minimum that would allow Texas anglers a shot at setting a new state record but would still provide significant conservation benefits. McKinney told commissioners that, eventually, catch and release would be proposed, but that it would be most effective if regulations are standardized in other Gulf states and Mexico.--Requiring the use of circle hooks when fishing for red snapper and maintaining the current 15-inch minimum size limit and a year-round season in state waters. Commissioners also approved the publication of a proposal to consider delegating rule-making authority with regard to red snapper to the TPWD executive director so the department could respond to changes in federal regulations more quickly. This proposal will come before the Commission for approval at the May meeting.--Enhancing the ability of Texas enforcement officials to prosecute cases in Texas courts by adding language in the Statewide Hunting and Fishing proclamation mirroring federal rules for the red snapper commercial fishery individual fishing quota (IFQ) program. This will allow state officials to make state cases when the case would otherwise not meet the profile/economic level to warrant federal prosecution.The commission also approved minor changes to "clean-up" current rules, including broadening the definition of what types of boats are prohibited from harassing fish; including language that makes it clear that coastal and salt waters mean the same thing; exempting offshore aquaculture operators from state bag and size limits as they land cultured fish; and allowing the use of freshwater catfish heads in crab traps.The TPW Commission approved an Inland Fisheries recommendation increasing the possession limit for striped bass from 10 to 20 on Lake Texoma. The change would reduce angler confusion with respect to fish landed in Texas.Also approved was a one-year extension of


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Lil Al Calmday

Speaking of RFA they are still around and still working hard on this Snapper issue. Remember about a year ago when all this was a hot topic some of them got banned for some questionable language and also bashing CCA. Seems things have changed now. 
I just want to keep the politics out of this. Im still a RFA Texas board member..

Charlie


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

Charlie,

Full Circle to say the least.

Will


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Looks like a fine bunch working on the snapper data that is used as the "best available science"

http://www.gulfcouncil.org/beta/gmfmcweb/motions/motions%202006-08.htm

SEDAR panel participants from August 2006

Motion: to approve the list of candidates to a NGO Advisory Panel that would be used as a pool for selecting SEDAR participants

Nelson, Russell Coastal Conservation Association

Baker, Pam Environmental Defense

Maharaj, Vishwanie Environmental Defense

Sarthou, Cynthia Gulf Restoration Network

Viles, Aaron Gulf Restoration Network

Cufone, Marianne Gulf Restoration Network

Dorsett, Chris Ocean Conservancy

Fetherston, Elizabeth Ocean Conservancy

Jamison, Judy Gulf &SA Fishery Foundation

Medici, David Gulf &SA Fishery Foundation


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

gater said:


> For what! I don't claim to know much about the issue, I also don't claim to know what reason CCA has for it's stance and nor do you. What I do know is that CCA continues to fight battles for the anglers of this State, and there are more important issues at hand. Yet you and others here continue to bash them. You all sound like 3 year olds who get mad when they don't get their way.
> 
> If it makes any differece to you, I'm on your side, I don't agree with Texas following the Feds limits. I think State should keep thing the way they are. The one thing that does bother me is the negative CCA talk. If you don't want to be a member, don't! Most of you don't have a clue about the organization or how its run but it's easy to sit at a key board and spread a bunch of BS. Gater


You don't claim to know much but still want to voice your opinion...LOL Then you want to denegrate others who know more on the subject. You my friend are a JOKE.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Thanks*

You must feel better now!!!!


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

Mont,

you been at the lease all weekend?


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

​ 



Texas Parks and Wildlife Scoping Meeting



University of Texas Marine Science Center Port Aransas



January 9, 2008 7:00pm to 9:00pm



Texas Parks and Wildlife is being pressured to follow Federal Red Snapper regulations in State Waters. This would mean we would go to two Red Snapper 16" and a much shortened season of 122 days. We currently have a year around fishery in Texas State Waters with a four fish limit of 15" for Red Snapper. The reduction of Red Snapper Bag Limits would be devastating to our Coastal Communities.



This is a States Rights Issue. We simply need to tell TPWD to not follow Federal Regulations in State Waters.



The Feds are also asking TPWD to limit us to one Blacktip Shark in Texas Waters.



We need to say no to one Blacktip.



There is the issue of removing the Commercial Reduction Boats in the Menhaden fishery from Texas State Waters. Menhaden are very important as they eat algae. These fish remove brown and red tide from our Coastal Waters. They are also the basis for the food chain for all recreationally caught sportsfish. This will not affect the recreational bait usage of menhaden just the Commercial Factory Trawlers with purse seines. 



We need to say YES to removing the Reduction Industry from Texas State Waters


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

gater said:



> You must feel better now!!!!


How did you know???


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

choooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! man it's like the ole' conservation forum all over again!!..minus Jim Smear,Hilton and Gorda Dave.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Dang Haute, chill out dude! This just goes back to what I said earlier about some people having deeper issues than just this one thing. I kind of joked earlier about some people getting mad because they weren't elected treasurer of their CCA chapter so now they've quit and CCA is the worst thing on the planet. Of course that's not true but some have such an attitude about them that they come off as being stubborn and non-negotiable. I know I'm fighting a losing battle with some of you but that's ok too. I will state again that I find it hard to believe that some people can discount all the positive things this organization has done and is still doing because of one decision, which I understand is very important to some of you.
BTW, I don't think Mont has been at the deer lease. I'd like to think that even though this issue is hot right now most of the comments have been above the board and there has been only a little pot stirring...a little by me I hate to admit. I hope it stays that way. Tom


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

Holy smokes I got my first Red Dot from ParkerB for my thoughts on this thread. 


Lets not let this become a personal issue. We're all entitled to voice our opinions and can do so in a mature way. ParkerB please feel free to add to this conversation instead of passing out little red dots to everyone you don't agree with. Me I'm still waiting for an explanation why the CCA has aligned itself with the NMFS and other federal government agencies?? 

Nate


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> I will state again that I find it hard to believe that some people can discount all the positive things this organization has done and is still doing because of one decision, which I understand is very important to some of you.
> Tom


Tom, for me, it is all about an organization that takes donations primarily from the recreational fishing industry and then that organization is supporting a government's view to remove our right to fish. If you don't think that is a huge issue, then I encourage you to really evaluate it. Recreational red snapper fishermen have been taking it left and right over the years and hopefully we have finally decided enough is enough. As said earlier, if red snapper is that endangered, then make it a game fish. That is apparently what happened with redfish. Let people eat tilapia in restaraunts. That may sound extreme, but come on, I think a fishing organization telling you that you no longer have the RIGHT to fish is as extreme as it gets. I would MUCH rather support our rights to fish than the rights of someone in New York to eat red snapper.

Additionally, the precendence this will set is utterly scary. The slippery slope of fishing closures for other species and areas of the gulf of mexico is a real possibility. We can not allow this to happen. To some extent, I wonder if CCA supports closure of Texas red snapper so if they close other fisheries, no one looks left out or singled out. This is pure speculation, but there has to be more to this. I always wondered why GCCA changed to CCA. It really diluted their attention to Texas and at the same time it made them bigger. That is another scary thought if they decide to screw you as they look at the overall benefit/loss ratio (which usually all comes down to dollars)

As far as I know, they have done nothing substantial for offshore fishing in Texas. To encourage closure of the snapper season for the majority of the year is a huge blow they are doing to Texas without a positive offshore history to help ease the pain.

*Lastly, I seldom fish for red snapper. I bet I keep less than 4 a year on average. I became involved in this thread becasue the issue kills me and I think no one should ignore the danger of allowing the right to fish slip away.* This has cleverly been done over the years, as the restrictions slowly became worse and worse. No way, IMO, are recreational fishermen keeping more snapper now than 10 years ago. I cannot see how that is possible, but maybe I am naive. I would like to see the numbers and then be told how they actually come up with the numbers. If indeed we are keeping more red snapper during a much shorter year, then how can they say they are endangered? To me it doesn't add up as that should indicate a healthy fishery.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*3 year olds?*



gater said:


> For what! I don't claim to know much about the issue, I also don't claim to know what reason CCA has for it's stance and nor do you. What I do know is that *CCA continues to fight battles for the anglers of this State, and there are more important issues at hand.* Yet you and others here continue to bash them. You all sound like 3 year olds who get mad when they don't get their way.
> 
> If it makes any differece to you, I'm on your side, I don't agree with Texas following the Feds limits. I think State should keep thing the way they are. The one thing that does bother me is the negative CCA talk. If you don't want to be a member, don't! Most of you don't have a clue about the organization or how its run but it's easy to sit at a key board and spread a bunch of BS. Gater


Gater, you are right that I have no clue as to how to run an operation such as CCA, but consider what you have just said. For the anglers of this state, certainly for the anglers of this board, there is no more important issue at hand. If you don't fish for snapper, then that is easy to say. I haven't been bashing CCA and I would actually like to defend them- you see I am really something of a tree-hugger myself. If I believed that red snapper in Texas state waters were endangered, I would support a complete shutdown of the fishery. However, when I have personally witnessed the evidence of the availability of Texas red snapper, I can find no justification of CCA's position of supporting what is basically a closure to a healthy fishery. You say you are on our side and yet you support CCA? Do you fish offshore? Do you know how easy it is to catch snapper? You say that there are more important issues at hand for the anglers of this state. PLEASE tell me what those pressing issues are. I am not one to readily subscribe to conspiracy theories, but I do know that you can usually follow the money trail. I suspect, and to some degree accept, that the Texas offshore angler is a financial loss that CCA can withstand, but why would they want to force the state of Texas to restrict a healthy fishery to comply with Federal regulations? If the snapper we take from Texas waters comes from the same TAC that the Eastern Gulf is part of, that could be the money trail. I could be wrong. I would like to support CCA, but I cannot see why they want to stop my friends and myself from harvesting a healthy fish population. I would like to know what more important issue they are fighting for the anglers of this state. I respect that you, Chicapesca, Baylvr, and others have come on this board to defend an organization that you believe in and work to improve, but please, when you do support this organization that defends your fishery while accepting (encouraging actually) the loss of ours, don't call us three-year old whiney girls for bashing it. If CCA supported a closure of speckled trout fishing in Texas because they are over-fished in the Chesapeake Bay, would you still be defending them? Again, what are those more important issues? Gater, since you disagree with CCA on this issue, please let them know.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Kenner21 said:


> Holy smokes I got my first Red Dot from ParkerB for my thoughts on this thread.
> 
> Lets not let this become a personal issue. We're all entitled to voice our opinions and can do so in a mature way. ParkerB please feel free to add to this conversation instead of passing out little red dots to everyone you don't agree with. Me I'm still waiting for an explanation why the CCA has aligned itself with the NMFS and other federal government agencies??
> 
> Nate


LOL... I got one also. I noticed that he hasn't posted anything. It was just a drive-by.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Pocboy said:


> Dang Haute, chill out dude! This just goes back to what I said earlier about some people having deeper issues than just this one thing. I kind of joked earlier about some people getting mad because they weren't elected treasurer of their CCA chapter so now they've quit and CCA is the worst thing on the planet. Of course that's not true but some have such an attitude about them that they come off as being stubborn and non-negotiable. I know I'm fighting a losing battle with some of you but that's ok too. I will state again that I find it hard to believe that some people can discount all the positive things this organization has done and is still doing because of one decision, which I understand is very important to some of you.
> BTW, I don't think Mont has been at the deer lease. I'd like to think that even though this issue is hot right now most of the comments have been above the board and there has been only a little pot stirring...a little by me I hate to admit. I hope it stays that way. Tom


POCBOY... I have stated that I agree with much of what CCA has DONE if you go back and look... but this thread is about what they are DOING NOW. I'm not worried about the past on this issue... just the present. Just wondering, are you a member of the Ocean Conservancy or the Gulf Restoration Network in addition to the CCA?


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Unbound*

Is there any reason why I can't be on your side and still support CCA? Even though I disagree with them on this issue there are many other battles going on and there will always be new ones down the road. What else is there!

I'm with you on this, why would we want to shut down a healthy State fishery or a Federal fishery for that matter. I have mentioned this before and I don't know the whole story but it is my understanding the the Feds wanted to shut down the entire fishery and the two fish deal was some sort of compromise to keep the fishery open. Don't scream at me, but I heard this awhile back and I won't judge because I don't know the history behind it. I don't snapper fish but maybe a few times a year and when I do its usually a short State run in the winter. When I was younger I spent alot more time offshore but even then we didn't target Snapper as much as other species. I voiced my concerns before concerning Shrimp bycatch, that IMHO it is not and issue with small Snapper. My family owned one of the largest shrimping operations in the area so I know first hand what comes up in and offshore trawlers net. The whole data system is seriously flawed thats one reason BRD's are used today. Just like I know what a shrimp net catches I also know first hand that the Snapper population is not in as bad shape as some of these people think. Sometimes you have to get out from behind a desk and see for yourself. At the rate things are going this battle will continue for sometime. The only thing I think will change things is Game Fish status for Snapper. It's ashame but I see no reason why the fishery could not support a 5 million # TAC for the commercials and a 4-5 fish and a year round season for the Recs.

As for CCA and it's other projects, right now as it stands the one and most important issue that we all face and this is the Freshwater Inflow issues in this State. Freshwater is vital to our coatal estuaries and without it
we are in for serious trouble down the road. You think the Snapper issue is complicated, it's nothing compared to this monster.

Another thing that people don't realize is that the commercials continue to push to get the Redfish fishery opened in the Gulf of Mexico. This is something that you have to stay on top of because the commercials have deeper pockets than CCA and other organizations that are fighting to keep them at bay. They recently went to court to try and get that done. There are more but those two are alway at the forefront.

It was mentioned that only 7 people showed up for the hearing in Beaumont and a call went out to get a good showing in Dickinson next week and it looks like they may have a good crowd. Numbers are important for thing like this. 200 people will get more attention than 7 and this is why numbers are so important to CCA yet folks on here have called for a boycott of the STAR. Those membership numbers have the same effect as the public hearing next week except on a larger scale. The powers to be in Austin and Washington are more likely to listen to a organization that has 90,000 members opposed to 90. The STAR is not a fundraiser, thats what the banquets are for. The STAR's purpose is to retain and recruit new members and along the way give away some nice prizes and more importantly close to 3 million in scholarships since it's inception.

Unbound, CCA is far from perfect, it has made some decisions over the years that I have disagreed with but it has also done some great things as well. As with any organization they will continue to do whats best but maybe not's what best in everyones eyes. I disagree with the stance they are taking here and I don't know all the facts as to why they chose this road. However, even though I disagree and I will voice my opinion I will still support the organization for what they have done in the past and for whatever may be in the future. You and everyone else here has the right not to belong to the organzation but bashing them in a public forum accomplishes nothing. Take your voice to Dickinson next week and speak your mind there were it will hopefully count.

With CCA and the TP&W managing our fishery hopefully we never have to worry about how many Trout are in Chesapeake Bay and yes, since I do disagree with CCA on this issue I will let them know. I called Pat yesterday but have not heard back yet, don't worry, he'll call! Gater


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

O.K.. At least you didn't call me a 3 year old girl. I understand the importance of fresh-water inflows and acknowlowedge that it is a worthy fight. I am happy to hear that CCA is fighting for that. This is similar to college scholarships, bay and beach clean-ups, and other positive things that CCA does. They are fighting for the recs for redfish but gainst the recs for red snapper. Could that have anything to do with the number of fishermen (money trail)? A 2 fish 3 month season is no compromise; it is a constituency deemed worth sacrificing. I will take my voice to the Port Isabel meeting this week in the hopes that TPWD will be looking out for my and, more importantly, the fisheries interest. But when CCA sides with NMFS in managing our fisheries, I would be worried about the future of trout fishing if I were you.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Unbound*

Sorry I didn't realize you were from down South, go to Port Isabell and be heard!
Never say never but OUR Trout fishery is regulated by the State and they seem to have a pretty good handle on things. However, any offshore species is fair game to the crazy ideas those people have. Gater


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Kenner21 said:


> Holy smokes I got my first Red Dot from ParkerB for my thoughts on this thread.
> 
> Lets not let this become a personal issue. We're all entitled to voice our opinions and can do so in a mature way. ParkerB please feel free to add to this conversation instead of passing out little red dots to everyone you don't agree with. Me I'm still waiting for an explanation why the CCA has aligned itself with the NMFS and other federal government agencies??
> 
> Nate


What is a red dot, and who is ParkerB? I have not seen anything in here from them. That is not fair!! How come I did not get one? Afterall I am the one that started this thread he he he. :rotfl:


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Hey baylvr, I have a few questions for you. Please answer them all. I would appreciate it.

1) What type of fishing do you do?

2) What is your favorite fish to catch and eat?

3) What if you absolutely knew 100% that your favorite fish was not doing as badly in your region as the NMFS would want everyone to believe?

4) What if CCA wanted to adopt more stringent regulations pertaining to question #3? How would you feel about them then?

On another note I am delighted to inform everyone that CCA has lost at least six more members over the weekend. One being a good friend and fellow offshore boat owner. A few more came from the duck camp, and another from my conversation with a good friend of mine that is a captain and fishing guide. I urged all of them to tell everyone and get the word out. They assured me they would.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

gater said:


> For what! I don't claim to know much about the issue, I also don't claim to know what reason CCA has for it's stance and nor do you. What I do know is that CCA continues to fight battles for the anglers of this State, and there are more important issues at hand. Yet you and others here continue to bash them. You all sound like 3 year olds who get mad when they don't get their way.
> 
> If it makes any differece to you, I'm on your side, I don't agree with Texas following the Feds limits. I think State should keep thing the way they are. The one thing that does bother me is the negative CCA talk. If you don't want to be a member, don't! Most of you don't have a clue about the organization or how its run but it's easy to sit at a key board and spread a bunch of BS. Gater


Now THIS is funny! What more important issues are at hand? The ones that affect YOU and the way YOU fish? "As long as they are not bothering me and it affects someone else I am OK with it." That self centerdness and bury my head in the sand until it goes away attitude is only going to help them. Well here is a dose of reality. YOU and YOUR way of fishing might be next. I hope not, but if it is I will bet that you would take a more hard lined stance against them as we are here.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

snap, no offense but whatever 10 or 15 people you get to quit CCA or not renew their memberships won't affect anything one little bit. In fact, you might recheck with those guys when it comes time to sign up for STAR. Good luck in your attempt to get the Snapper situation squared away because despite our opposing ideas I do think it is an important issue, especially for those of you that go offshore.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> snap, no offense but whatever 10 or 15 people you get to quit CCA or not renew their memberships won't affect anything one little bit. In fact, you might recheck with those guys when it comes time to sign up for STAR. Good luck in your attempt to get the Snapper situation squared away because despite our opposing ideas I do think it is an important issue, especially for those of you that go offshore.


None taken. I would like to first point out that it will be a far greater number leaving than 10 -15. As far as STAR is concerned, they have been informed on that as well and do not plan to fish the tournament. I also believe there will be 2coolers at every place mentioned on here as a launch and weigh in place for the tournament to educate more people there as well.

On another note, I would like to thank you for wishing me luck in my attempt to resolve the Snapper issue. I tried that with Pat Murray of CCA and he would have nothting to do with it. That was what prompted this thread and my crusade. I promised him I would do this, and as I have mentioned more than once in this thread, I plan to keep that promise.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> Hey baylvr, I have a few questions for you. Please answer them all. I would appreciate it.
> 
> 1) What type of fishing do you do?
> 
> ...


Hey Snap! Ok! I'll answer openly and honestly... here we go...

1. I'm 91% bayfishin girl... typically wade fishing... 9% spent at the river this past year learning about marshes and back lakes.

2. Redfish... I love the hunt and the fight! Plus I love em on the grill!

3. Well I'd take my plight directly TO those folks... and continue to talk TO those folks. I'd gather petitions... I'd attend meetings... I'd write letters to whom ever was concerned to have my voice heard. I'd rally others to continue to do the same. I'd join in with special interest groups to get the message TO those who are trying to change the rules. I'd run for office against them or support a person I felt worthy of the position and campaign for them.

4. See answer 3. But I'd stick with em and fight from the inside! My money... my voice... my right!

Fair nuff?


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Just for information purposes alone... due to an email I wrote on Saturday... I have a meeting tonite with one of the state guys from the CCA Houston office who says he'll answer whatever questions I have. 

I also received a note from Jim Smarr - thank you Jim -- and he posted some extremely informative stuff and pointed me in that direction -- I'm going to take some notes from these posts and from Jim's post and see if I can get some answers and I'll post up accordingly.


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

BEER4BAIT said:


> I talked to him the other day, he said "I told you so" I had to remain neutral but no more I will choose a side Tues pm.


Alex, i received a call from him myself a couple of days ago, it is amazing the amount of foresight that he has.....he was right on all counts. even the ''i told you so''


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

CHARLIE said:


> Lil Al Calmday
> 
> Speaking of RFA they are still around and still working hard on this Snapper issue. Remember about a year ago when all this was a hot topic some of them got banned for some questionable language and also bashing CCA. Seems things have changed now.
> I just want to keep the politics out of this. Im still a RFA Texas board member..
> ...


Charlie
i look forward to listening to what you have to say Tuesday, you have not only been a champion for this cause, but have always taken the high road.

i know that was not easy at times.
Thank You, see ya on Tuesday
Mike


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

Since I posted that I hadn't heard from the RFA on this issue I have been contacted by several guys that filled me in on what the RFA had been up to and I can assure you all that they have been fighting the good fight concerning this issue.

I know that there was some conflict on here in the past and I'm not trying to stir that old pot up again. I just want to let everyone knows that some one is out there on our side of this issue.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

baylvr said:


> Hey Snap! Ok! I'll answer openly and honestly... here we go...
> 
> 1. I'm 91% bayfishin girl... typically wade fishing... 9% spent at the river this past year learning about marshes and back lakes.
> 
> ...


Thank you and yes, fair 'nuff; however CCA is not allowing us OUR rights and OUR voices, but they keep taking OUR money to fuel THEIR agendas. That is one of the main reasons that prompted my crusdae against them.


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Calmday said:


> Since I posted that I hadn't heard from the RFA on this issue I have been contacted by several guys that filled me in on what the RFA had been up to and I can assure you all that they have been fighting the good fight concerning this issue.


That is great to hear. I am a member of RFA but have not paid much attention. I just sent them a check last year.

*Now, we have to drive everyone from CCA to RFA if this is the case.* Snap Dragin, we can start this movement. I have made the switch already. I am sure if CCA can not come up with a very good reason for their views, that we can start a drive to switch many of their members to RFA if indeed RFA sticks up for our rights. This should include bay fishermen. The limits have already been cut on specs in the lower laguna. That surely will spread.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Bellyup said:


> That is great to hear. I am a member of RFA but have not paid much attention. I just sent them a check last year.
> 
> *Now, we have to drive everyone from CCA to RFA if this is the case.* Snap Dragin, we can start this movement. I have made the switch already. I am sure if CCA can not come up with a very good reason for their views, that we can start a drive to switch many of their members to RFA if indeed RFA sticks up for our rights. This should include bay fishermen. The limits have already been cut on specs in the lower laguna. That surely will spread.


Send me a link to their site. I would like to check them out. If I like what they have to say they can have my money. Rest assured CCA will not be getting it any more, so I will gladly give it to a deserving organization.


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

One thing that we need to avoid doing again is starting another war between the CCA and the RFA on this board. It happened before and it ended up hurting the RFA. That's why we don't see what's going on with them here on 2cool. Calm heads prevail. We don't need anymore trouble for those that can and will help us.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

I think it is ironic that the RFA saw this coming and people thought they were crazy here. They were at TPW working on this Texas State waters thing over a year ago according to the TPW meeting info. I remember all the hoopla and have remained silent till I did my own homework.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Hughoo222 said:


> I think it is ironic that the RFA saw this coming and people thought they were crazy here. They were at TPW working on this Texas State waters thing over a year ago according to the TPW meeting info. I remember all the hoopla and have remained silent till I did my own homework.


RFA's tactics and methods drove me and a lot of others away from them regardless of what they were trying to do.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


> RFA's tactics and methods drove me and a lot of others away from them regardless of what they were trying to do.


Hey Mont, could you pleas enlighten me and perhaps others on RFA and their tactics. I for one had never even heard of them until I began this thread, and would definitely like to see what other opinions are, whether they be for or against them. I guess like what we are seeing on this thread about CCA.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Oops, I misspelled please. -5 spelling!


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Snap Draggin said:



> Hey Mont, could you pleas enlighten me and perhaps others on RFA and their tactics. I for one had never even heard of them until I began this thread, and would definitely like to see what other opinions are, whether they be for or against them. I guess like what we are seeing on this thread about CCA.


I can't even begin to post the stuff they said about me personally and EJ. On top of that, they took it upon themselves to trash this site in their own forums. I decided I didn't want or need any of that and removed them. I am not sure who Hughoo222 is, but I would bet my last dollar that they are in with the same crowd I ran out of here before.

Folks, there's no such thing as a perfect organization, so check all of them out and make your own decision.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Snap draggin

RFA will be at the meeting Tuesday. I switched to RFA while back and became a Texas RFA board member because it seems they are the only group that is truly looking out for my fishing rights. Ill see you at the meeting. No politics please..folks can make up their own mind.. 


Charlie


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

hey is hughoo222 ole good tooth from the old conservation forum?(Steven Goodtooth Morris)......


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


> I can't even begin to post the stuff they said about me personally and EJ. On top of that, they took it upon themselves to trash this site in their own forums. I decided I didn't want or need any of that and removed them. I am not sure who Hughoo222 is, but I would bet my last dollar that they are in with the same crowd I ran out of here before.
> 
> Folks, there's no such thing as a perfect organization, so check all of them out and make your own decision.


Well personal attacks never are good. I do agree that there is no such thing as a perfect organization. I will definitely do my homework before I join another one.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> Well personal attacks never are good.


 {tapping foot}

 kidding!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I just want everyone visiting this thread to realize that I strongly believe there is a time and place for everything. The CCA issue is no exception. Please read the post I made in another thread. Please attend the TP&WD meetings and voice your opinions, but leave CCA out of it. Everyone here knows where I stand with them, but as I said there is a time and place for everything. 

Good luck to y'all! I also see that at least there might be a better turn out than Port Arthur due to all our work and mentioning of the dismal turn out there. If the intent of TP&WD is to actually take the public's input and apply it to thier decision I commend them. CCA should have only ONE rep. there if they keep the same protocol as Port Arthur. I hope their rep feels what Custer felt at Litle Big Horn in all the meetings that are left! At least TP&WD can see that the general public's opinions differ greatly than those of CCA.

I am also in total agreement that CCA should not be bashed, nor should they even be mentioned in any comments or letters to TP&WD. That is not even close to their problem and they do not need anything else complicating matters on what is at hand. Let CCA hear our opinions on their stance and focus on the issue with TP&WD.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

baylvr said:


> {tapping foot}
> 
> kidding!


OK now what is THAT supposed to mean:question:


----------



## Third Bar Slim (May 21, 2004)

*CCA Bashing*

I can't believe it has been almost 7 years since Mont, myself, and some others started SCA but the memories are very fresh.

During this time, several of the members viewed the onset of SCA as an opportunity to engage in unabated online bashing of CCA. The majority of this occurred on the old W M I board and it was heck trying to keep up with the posts and respond as a spokesperson for SCA. We eventually managed to quiet the bashing for the most part and go about our business of retiring shrimping licenses.

I had conversations with several of our volunteers that essentially went as follows:

Volunteer- "Why are you trying to censor me? CCA blah blah blah and it ticks me off."

Me- "If you would focus your time, energy, and online typing skills towards what we are trying to accomplish as opposed to bashing CCA, we just may gain some support and assist TPWD in buying back some licenses."

Once we got a handle on the bashing and started focusing on the task at hand, we started gaining support and were able to retire some licenses. Eureka!

I pulled my little girls around the Boat Show yesterday and it sure was nice to be a spectator as opposed to working behind a booth. This thread, however, reminds me of how many memberships I sold at the Boat and Holder shows by sticking to the task at hand as opposed to bashing CCA.

I dropped by Tom Hilton's booth and spoke with him briefly regarding the progress of the TGBR, etc. I personally like Tom and wish he and the other RFA spokespeople on here had focused on what they were trying to accomplish as opposed to bashing CCA, Mont, etc.

2Cool is...to my knowledge.....the largest Texas based saltwater message board and gets bigger by the day. Had RFA focused strictly....and I mean strictly....on the issues at hand and what they were trying to accomplish...and left out the bashing, name calling, etc.....I can only guess that they would still be here gaining support and new members by the day.....not to mention having small armies mobilized to attend these meetings.

Of course, that's not saying that they (RFA) aren't working on some great things right now....it's just a shame that they missed out on a great opportunity to attract additional support via this forum.

If you really want to effect change regarding state water snapper, attend the meetings. Write members of the TPWD commission. Call them on the phone. State your case. Be polite. Get others to do the same.

Bashing CCA and calling for people to cancel their memberships will have absolutely no effect on the commission's decision. Zero. It will also have no effect on the growth of CCA. Zero.

For the record, I am not currently a member of CCA and have not been for the past few years.

I do, however, have first hand experience in starting a conservation group from the ground up and can say with a great degree of certainty that if your cause/stance/idea is legitimate.....and will benefit people.....and does not include bluster or bashing.....and you stick to the facts.....people will literally come out of the woodwork to help with their time and/or money.

My $.02

Mark


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Third Bar Slim said:


> I can't believe it has been almost 7 years since Mont, myself, and some others started SCA but the memories are very fresh.
> 
> During this time, several of the members viewed the onset of SCA as an opportunity to engage in unabated online bashing of CCA. The majority of this occurred on the old W M I board and it was heck trying to keep up with the posts and respond as a spokesperson for SCA. We eventually managed to quiet the bashing for the most part and go about our business of retiring shrimping licenses.
> 
> ...


Well put and that is all fine and good; however I did not begin this thread as a CCA bash. I began this thread for one reason and only one reason. That is to inform as many people that would read it on their stance and try to achieve exodus from that organization.

The bashing begins when those that are angered by the organization's stance on this issue, or others. They write their opinions here and the mud slinging begins. I believe there have been some very good points made on here both pro and anti CCA.

If the regime of CCA would have just polled their membership and asked their opinions on the issue things would have been very different I assure you; however they did not, nor did they have any real legitimate information to substantiate their stance other than NMFS studies that were not even done in our waters to my knowledge. Maybe someone on here can show me legitimate proof rebutting that last sentence. Until I read it I will believe what I have written.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

I agree 100%. Every CCA member has the right to know before hand what views CCA has in the works in the future and let every single member in the loop what upcoming stances they intend to do. After all the people that become members are paying there salaries.



Snap Draggin said:


> If the regime of CCA would have just polled their membership and asked their opinions on the issue things would have been very different I assure you; however they did not, nor did they have any real legitimate information to substantiate their stance other than NMFS studies that were not even done in our waters to my knowledge. Maybe someone on here can show me legitimate proof rebutting that last sentence. Until I read it I will believe what I have written.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Third Bar Slim said:


> I can't believe it has been almost 7 years since Mont, myself, and some others started SCA but the memories are very fresh.
> 
> During this time, several of the members viewed the onset of SCA as an opportunity to engage in unabated online bashing of CCA. The majority of this occurred on the old W M I board and it was heck trying to keep up with the posts and respond as a spokesperson for SCA. We eventually managed to quiet the bashing for the most part and go about our business of retiring shrimping licenses.
> 
> ...


Excellent! I totally agree!


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

In all fairness I seem to recall the name calling and all in the past being a two way street.

Many were civil and many got baited into spats with both sides acting childishly including a few moderators who got carried away.

I am not a member of either group but think these issues are important because I enjoy fishing.
I could care less what someone said about somebody's mama.


----------



## Wakerider1424 (Nov 25, 2007)

I am just asking, remember, just asking, why is it so bad that they try and help the snapper and make it 2 in state water?? I am a young fisherman, and was just wondering what is wrong with that?


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

I stoped by the CCa booth at the boat show and voiced my discontent with them. Thier spokesman there began to tell me how much good the CCA had did by eleminating the shrimpers from killing fish. I informed him that was a non issue because theprice of fuel and the foreign farm raised shrimp had put most of the shrimpers out of business anyway. He than began to tell me that the CCA was doing alot of other things for the offshore fisherman. I asked him to tell exactly what they were and he could not name one thing. 

The real issue is the feds want the state of Texas to enforce thier laws for them. 

24 hours untill the shoot out at the OK Corral be there.


----------



## woody7 (May 28, 2004)

Because the current population of snapper far exceed what CCA's flawed science review claims.The snapper population, nor any other saltwater species is not hurt by recreational fisherman. Anybody with a depthfinder and a budget model GPS coupled with minimal fishing skills can limit out on snaps.. Can anyone honestly say that trout or redfish are as easy to limit out quickly as snapper?? Why the tight restrictions on the rec hook and line folks?


----------



## Wakerider1424 (Nov 25, 2007)

Thanks guys. I was just wonering why all of us were mad about this. Thanks for you guys voicing your opinions. More opinions would be awesome too!


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Great to see young blood  what makes it so bad is that the comercial fishermen can have at it 24-7 when they used to have it just the first 10 days of the month. State snapper are not on a decline. What we have to lose is 50% of our for hire captains and party boats. I come from 3 hours away to fish, others com from Oklahoma Arkansas and Kansas just to get on a party boat and fish for red snapper. Red Snapper is on species that is the easiest to target, why because they are very abundant. That is why when people think of "deep sea fishing" they think snapper. The feds are in line with the comercial fishermen and not the recreationals, making hard for us to have a fair share. We have a 4 fish per person that can be caught year round. They want a 2 fish per person with a 120 day season. NO!

Hope that helps



Wakerider1424 said:


> I am just asking, remember, just asking, why is it so bad that they try and help the snapper and make it 2 in state water?? I am a young fisherman, and was just wondering what is wrong with that?


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Hughoo222 said:


> In all fairness I seem to recall the name calling and all in the past being a two way street.
> 
> Many were civil and many got baited into spats with both sides acting childishly including a few moderators who got carried away.
> 
> ...


It's all water under the bridge to me at this point, concerning RFA. As a publisher, I have to strike a balance between what people want to read and what people are willing to pay to advertise. It's simple economics. Sometimes the message is lost with those presenting it. I wish all conservation groups well, even those I don't personally agree with.


----------



## Wakerider1424 (Nov 25, 2007)

BEER4BAIT said:


> Great to see young blood  what makes it so bad is that the comercial fishermen can have at it 24-7 when they used to have it just the first 10 days of the month. State snapper are not on a decline. What we have to lose is 50% of our for hire captains and party boats. I come from 3 hours away to fish, others com from Oklahoma Arkansas and Kansas just to get on a party boat and fish for red snapper. Red Snapper is on species that is the easiest to target, why because they are very abundant. That is why when people think of "deep sea fishing" they think snapper. The feds are in line with the comercial fishermen and not the recreationals, making hard for us to have a fair share. We have a 4 fish per person that can be caught year round. They want a 2 fish per person with a 120 day season. NO!
> 
> Hope that helps


Wait.. they are trying to make it that we have no State Water Snapper year round??? and the 2 per person? i am ok with the 2 per person but the season for state water is not so cool..


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Wakerider1424 said:


> Wait.. they are trying to make it that we have no State Water Snapper year round??? and the 2 per person? i am ok with the 2 per person but the season for state water is not so cool..


Some people want to convince Texas Parks and Wildlife to allow red snapper management in Texas waters to fall under federal regulation. That, my young friend, will allow you to fish for red snapper 122 days a year and keep only 2 when you do. I consider this essential closure of a fishery and a huge loss of out right to fish.

For any young fisherman or fisherwoman, this is a huge issue as it will likely lead to more closures. Resistance must be made now to avoid this closure and future closure. Besides, Texas waters are not Federal waters.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Meetings*

From The Port Aransas Boatmens Assc.

1. Keep the rule making process for Texas' waters in Texas. You do not want federal rules in Texas' sovereign waters. :texasflag

2. Recently federal regulators proposed banning retention of blacktip sharks taking away an economically critical fishery which by their own studies is not overfished nor undergoing overfishing. We don't want this kind of rulemaking any closer to our shores than it already is. Better yet let's move it a further out to 200 miles.

3. Fisheries management needs to be based on the best available data. We like our own data. Let's use it and make our own rules.

4. This is a states' rights issue and Texas wants to maintain its rights. Don't sell out biologist's and Texas angler's rights and ability to manage our fishery by bowing to federal pressure.

5. Fisheries regulation should be based on the best available information. Not using local data will trump rules based Texas biologists' studies of what is good for Texas waters, Texas anglers, and Texas fisheries. What is being proposed will allow federal studies of areas as remote as the East Coast to be the scientific data used to determine what is best for Texas.

6. This is not a migratory-only fishery management issue since federal regulation includes species like, snapper and redfish.

7. We don't want federal laws extended to our Texas' beach and in many cases beyond.

8. Giving up Texas control will result in the reversal and federal destruction of progress Texas has made managing Texas fisheries based on Texas data to the liking of Texans.

9. Here is a better idea: when the federal government can provide data superior to Texas data about Texas waters then they can come back and ask again. Until then, Texas voters demand its representatives maintain the sovereignty of our great state by respecting the data from our fisheries scientists under Texas control, the needs of Texas anglers, Texas business, and most importantly- Texas fish. Better yet, let's move Texas rules out to 200 miles for the same reasons. When federal regulators want to bring Texas and federal rules for Texas fisheries into alignment they can do so using the best available data, the most relevant rules, and do so in the interest of the people most affected. Texas data, Texas rules, and Texas anglers govern Texas waters!

Also, at the hearings there will be a rule Texas anglers need to be in favor of so don't object to everything. 

The other issue is the mass-netting of menhaden in Texas state waters. We need to be for the state proposal to ban this. After destroying the areas they have been using, commercial interests seek to come into Texas waters under federal permits and catch our menhaden to be reduced into bulk protein. We do not want them here. We want our fish to eat our menhaden. The proposal is not aimed at Texas angler's ability to use natural bait.

Please attend and speak at the scoping meetings.


----------



## Wakerider1424 (Nov 25, 2007)

thanks guys, i just thought they wanted to adopt the 2 per person rule. I didnt know they were pressuring texas to take all of the rules. Thanks again 2coolers


----------



## Coastal Whaler (Dec 28, 2005)

I have been fishing for over 40 years and all that time the fishing laws in Texas were made and enforced by the Texas Parks And Wildlife Department. They always seemed to be independent, used their own data to come up with the size and bag limits needed for our state. It appears the TP&W department has changed their stance. I have read recently where they are training in correlation with the Federal Wardens to help enforce Federal regulations along with State regulations. The TP&W department to my knowledge has always used bag limits instead of season closures while the US Wildlife Department uses both bag limits and season closures readily at their whim. I am really disappointed to hear that the TP&W Department is now changing their stance on season closure for fisheries management. My only guess is this has come about due to Federal Funds in some way or another. I guess in the future we will be buying our licenses from the US Texas Parks And Wildlife Department. I guess another proud tradition for Texas has gone by the way side. CCA seems to have left their proud Texas tradition several years ago.


----------



## KG2 (Nov 15, 2006)

the pt a meeting is tomorrow a 7pm right?? where is it located in port aransas i know the place isnt that big but i dont wanna be late!


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

KG2 Port Aransas is WED. at 7pm Galveston is tomorrow, I believe


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Yes Capt Mike


----------



## KG2 (Nov 15, 2006)

darnit....i got laser practice on wednesday!:cloud:


----------



## snapcon (Oct 11, 2005)

Scoping meeting dates and locations are listed below. All meetings run 7-to-9 p.m. For more information, contact Art Morris at [email protected] or (361) 825-3353.

*January 8, 2008* - Galveston County Extension Service Office, 5115 Highway 3, Dickinson, TX

Not in Galveston.....Dickinson which is about half way between Houston and Galveston.



capt mike said:


> KG2 Port Aransas is WED. at 7pm Galveston is tomorrow, I believe


----------



## Jack Hexter (Jul 3, 2004)

On February 26, 2003 the Coastal Conservation Association Florida released a special report documenting a history of bias against recreational fisheries in federal management programs. The report, Failures and Exploitation Bias in Federal Fishery Management Programs, Recommendations for Systemic Changes, was presented to the Sportfishing Leadership Conference in St. Petersburg, Florida

CCA is currently fighting to keep the recreational allocation of AJ's in the Gulf at 84% and the Commercial at 16% when NMFS and the Gulf Council have recommended that the rec allocation be reduced to 71% (That's 1 fish for every two anglers)

CCA Sued and beat NMFS over Shrimp Trawl bycatch

In response to a lawsuit filed by CCA against the National Marine Fisheries Service last year, a federal judge ruled in March that NMFS violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by its continuing failure to take timely and appropriate steps to rebuild red snapper stocks in the Gulf of Mexico or to regulate the harm to red snapper caused by shrimp fishing. The judge's ruling overturned a 2005 rebuilding plan for red snapper because it failed to address and regulate the shrimp fishing industry.

"We have fought NMFS on the issue of shrimp trawl bycatch for more than two decades," said Cummins. "Its refusal to address bycatch adequately at any point in the past has forced recreational anglers to accept tighter and tighter regulations while doing nothing to recover red snapper. With the successful conclusion of the lawsuit and the action taken by the Gulf Council, those days are hopefully over."

CCA Sued and beat NMFS when they tried to close the red grouper fishery to recreational fishing a couple years ago, and finally, NMFS admitted the stock assessment on this fishery was in error.

I don't know how any of you can say CCA is aligning themselves with NMFS since they seem to be suing (and beating) them at every turn.

The snapper allocation is pretty evenly divided between the commercial and recreational sectors. The real culprit in this fishery, as we all know, are the shrimp trawl's which have been addresses by the CCA in the form of a suit.

The real culprit and foe of the recreational fisherman is the NMFS.

We in Florida are catching more red snapper than we ever have, and you in Texas are telling us that you have no problems with the numbers of snapper. It's obvious that NMFS stock assessment is once again *WRONG*, so, instead of bashing the organization that is helping you and the fishery, why not bash and pitch a B*tch about NMFS, the Gulf Council and Roy Crabtree


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

Jack, it seems to me that you just answered your own question. If you , me , and everyone who has a pulse realizes that NMFS is indeed the problem, why in the world would CCA come out and support our state agency going along with NMFS ? The problem is that as their organization branches out, they have become more interested in political clout and not so interested in the state that gave them their beginning, that's all . We as Texans are just feeling a little betrayed and violated right now.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

The real culprit and foe of the recreational fisherman is the NMFS.

We in Florida are catching more red snapper than we ever have, and you in Texas are telling us that you have no problems with the numbers of snapper. It's obvious that NMFS stock assessment is once again *WRONG*, so, instead of bashing the organization that is helping you and the fishery, why not bash and pitch a B*tch about NMFS, the Gulf Council and Roy Crabtree[/QUOTE] 
If the NMFS is the real culprit, and believe me I am in full agreement of that statement, why would the organization that you protect so diligently (CCA) side with them? Have you ever given that any thought?

If there are more Snapper being caught in Florida than you ever have then why change the rules and regulations? Why restrict recreational fishermen? Texas is no different. I cannot say that there are more than ever, but I can honestly say that they are very plentiful. If CCA were to lobby to completely stop ALL commercial fishing for Snapper I would be 110% on their side. I am in full agreement with the injunction filed against shrimpers; however they are also trying to make it hard to justify owning a rather expensive offshore boat (not to mention the gas prices) to fish for the species I (the recreational fisherman) enjoy eating most.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

capt mike said:


> Jack, it seems to me that you just answered your own question. If you , me , and everyone who has a pulse realizes that NMFS is indeed the problem, why in the world would CCA come out and support our state agency going along with NMFS ? The problem is that as their organization branches out, they have become more interested in political clout and not so interested in the state that gave them their beginning, that's all . We as Texans are just feeling a little betrayed and violated right now.


Here here, I second that!!!!


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Well Ill say this about that (as Forrest Gump would say). There were very few red snaper in the east Gulf (compared to the western Gulf). when Columbus discovered this place.
totally different habitat. Now there are more tyes of grouper east but snapper naw never has been.

now NMFS CCA and Enviros... Yes NMFS has been and continues to be the problem BUT, why did CCA join together with the Enviros in the lawsuit relulting in shorter seasons and fewer fish for recreationals but allowing Commercials fishing year round on an HONOR system ??

Charlie


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

CHARLIE said:


> Well Ill say this about that (as Forrest Gump would say). There were very few red snaper in the east Gulf (compared to the western Gulf). when Columbus discovered this place.
> totally different habitat. Now there are more tyes of grouper east but snapper naw never has been.
> 
> now NMFS CCA and Enviros... Yes NMFS has been and continues to be the problem BUT, why did CCA join together with the Enviros in the lawsuit relulting in shorter seasons and fewer fish for recreationals but allowing Commercials fishing year round on an HONOR system ??
> ...


Another excellent point! As I have been trying to convince these bay and lake fishermen all along they and their way of fishing might be next. Then what? Keep supporting CCA??!!! I say dump 'em before they get a chance to affect anyone else. This fight might appear to be over Snapper, but it is over the NMFS and commercial industry. CCA just happens to have formed an alliance with both of them; therefore they need to be put out of business in the name of recreational fishermen who fund their idiotic agenda.


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Jack Hexter said:


> CCA Sued and beat NMFS over Shrimp Trawl bycatch
> 
> In response to a lawsuit filed by CCA against the National Marine Fisheries Service last year, a federal judge ruled in March that NMFS violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by its continuing failure to take timely and appropriate steps to rebuild red snapper stocks in the Gulf of Mexico or to regulate the harm to red snapper caused by shrimp fishing. The judge's ruling overturned a 2005 rebuilding plan for red snapper because it failed to address and regulate the shrimp fishing industry.
> 
> ...


That's my biggest problem with CCA position on all this. Those days are not over, because I do not believe, as 'we all know', that the shrimp bycatch is a primary problem. If the days were over, the CCA would be pushing for relaxed limits. But they are not, because they use flawed data. So, get it straight CCA, are the days over because your lawsuits were successful, OR are they not over because you missed the boat and shrimping is not really the issue.

I think everyone does know that the shimping fleet is a fraction of what it was, and still we have no recovery. So just why is that? Either there is a recovery and there are lots of snapper and the data is bad, or there is not a recovery so shrimping therefore cannot be the primary culprit. You can't have both sides of this arguement.

I am not going to bash CCA, because they have done some good things. But I don't belong anymore (and I was a member from the ol' GCCA days) because I too believe they have lost touch with at least my priorities. So my efforts and my money go elsewhere now. But, assuming they do continue to push efforts with NMFS and flawed data, and it effects me personally, then I certainly see that putting them in the 'other side' camp. JMHO.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

jig said:


> I do not believe, as 'we all know', that the shrimp bycatch is a primary problem.


Ding ding ding!

In fact, any intelligent analysis proves that it cannot be, yet CCA perpetuates the myth, and if you drink the Kool-Aide, Jacks interpretation is easy to understand.

I, for one, do not want to destroy CCA (even if we could). They are a very effective lobbying organization. Alas, lobbying organizations run on money, and lots of it, and the REAL money is on the East Coast. It's a little embarrassing to me, as much time as I have spent in DC, not to be able to say exactly WHY they threw us under the bus, but in the large sense, it's about money and competing interests where the most money is. Of that I'm certain.

Also, as evidenced by this thread, here in the birthplace of the organization, a place where bay fishing trumps offshore fishing in every way (money, people, days of effort, demographics), there will ALWAYS be CCA loyalists and defenders, and lots of them.

CCA did not have an "oops" last year. New circumstances did not arise at the last minute which forced them to change their stance without time to advise their allies in the recreational fishing community.

They looked us in the eye, and told us what their position would be, and then, with no further discussion did exactly the opposite.

As Charlie can attest, I still tried to make excuses for them. I believed something wierd happened to cause this behaviour. I was mistaken. There wasn't. Deception, pure and simple. And NOW, this.

I totally believe CCA is siding with NMFS on this issue to show us that they can, and that they are powerful enough to swing it, and punish us for speaking out of line.

Those who say that as long as there is a STAR tournament there will be CCA members are right. I do not wish the organization, to which I belonged since GCCA days and donated a many a hunting trip to, to fail. But I believe that significant defection (that's different from defecation) of offshore fishermen and vocal airing of the issues is the ONLY chance to get them back on track on these issues. And, at that, I believe it's a thin chance.

See you tonight.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

jig said:


> That's my biggest problem with CCA position on all this. Those days are not over, because I do not believe, as 'we all know', that the shrimp bycatch is a primary problem. If the days were over, the CCA would be pushing for relaxed limits. But they are not, because they use flawed data. So, get it straight CCA, are the days over because your lawsuits were successful, OR are they not over because you missed the boat and shrimping is not really the issue.
> 
> I think everyone does know that the shimping fleet is a fraction of what it was, and still we have no recovery. So just why is that? Either there is a recovery and there are lots of snapper and the data is bad, or there is not a recovery so shrimping therefore cannot be the primary culprit. You can't have both sides of this arguement.
> 
> I am not going to bash CCA, because they have done some good things. But I don't belong anymore (and I was a member from the ol' GCCA days) because I too believe they have lost touch with at least my priorities. So my efforts and my money go elsewhere now. But, assuming they do continue to push efforts with NMFS and flawed data, and it effects me personally, then I certainly see that putting them in the 'other side' camp. JMHO.


He's not saying that those days ARE over... he's saying that with this lawsuit against NMFS to make them follow through with what they were told to do... those days "hopefully" are over. The NMFS still has not complied with what they were originally told to do... OR with what the lawsuit has brought.

I've spent several days researching and asking questions on both sides of this issue. Is the data being used flawed? Maybe so, yet I haven't been able to find a recent report _from the state of Texas_ as a rebuttle to these numbers showing an increase OR a decline in the Snapper either. With the primary focus of CCA being the "resource first" and preservation of those resources... that goal has NEVER changed it's focus... what data should they use?

Where is there more recent data that will back the fight to keep the Texas water fishing regulations the same? Will TPWD do a study? How can we hold this change off without better data?

The problem is that this issue is being viewed as a "Gulf Wide" resource problem that needs to be addressed... and they feel a "Gulf Wide" fix is the remedy. So has each individual state run some sort of reports showing the numbers within each state's boundaries... proving there is no decline? Or are we basing our argument on the fact that we can still easily catch a limit on each trip?

I'm ASKING this question... I just can't find anything to fight the data that IS present and unfortunately being used as the basis for the decisions that have been made.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Hey baylvr, have a look at the thread I pasted below. If you and the rest of the CCA proponents can rally them to do what is posted there I would not only keep my membership, I would recant my thread here and completely be in favor of the organization. They had a very big part in the same thing for Redfish and Trout when they were GCCA. Let's see where they REALLY stand now. I have two words for you and the others GOOD LUCK!

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=147772


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

It's good!!


----------



## Brewgod (May 21, 2004)

*Some points to ponder...*

CCA is siding with the feds because the rule change would provide for consistancy in enforcement. Many times, on the water, *TPWD Game Wardens* hear "I caught those in "state water" " and know better but can't prove it. CCA has donated HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to TPWD Enforcement. When it hears this from officers on the line, it's going to do something to protect it's investment.

Keeping the 4 fish bag limit could conceivably SHORTEN the season because those fish contribute to the recreational TAC. Think about it. Understand, I am not debating whether the science/data is flawed. I am talking about the rules under which we must operate *at the present time*.

Personally, I think IFQ's leave a LOT to be desired as a managment tool, and that Comm's can easily find a way around VMS's. However, once IFQ's are in place, and the number of commercial licences is locked *I suspect *(my opinion) that CCA will launch a drive to buy the comm licenses, retire them and add to the recreational TAC.

TGBR is a project of an orginization that competes with CCA for $$, and has, for lack of a better euphemism, "Made a public break" with CCA. While there are those inside of CCA that think the TGBR concept is outstanding, everyone must understand that its a marketplace and each is going to protect its portion of the $$. I am not debating whether they should kiss and make up, work together for the good of the resource etc, I am stating the REALITY of the situation.

Is any orginization perfect? No. Is there EVER 100% agreement in any orginization with 50,000 members in this state? Of course not. Does CCA need to communicate better? Absolutely. Throw the Baby out with the bath water? No. Are they taking a REALLY long view? YES. There is NO ecosystem managment strategy that has a "Quick Fix", anyone that tells you otherwise is misleading you...


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Brewgod

Heres a quick fix... keep the first 5 snapper between 12 and 28 inches. Because of the much lower mortality rate you could fish year around and actually kill less fish. Thats too easy tho huh ?

Charlie


----------



## Brewgod (May 21, 2004)

Actually, I like the first 5 period. 6 inches or 36, 5 and you're done, no size limit. It's a quick fix to the recreational bycatch mortality numbers, but not the entire Snapper issue...


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Brewgod

on the upper size limit I was just trying to protect the real brood stock. Well one step at a time 1st recreationals 2nd commercials. To fix that someone needs to organize a "task force" of officers from various agencies along the coast to target nothing but illegal fishing. After a few years it would be fixed.. 

As you know you can write all the laws you want but with no enforcement its a waste of time. good fishing

Charlie


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

CHARLIE said:


> As you know you can write all the laws you want but with no enforcement its a waste of time. good fishing
> 
> Charlie


Amen!! Fantastic point!!


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

CHARLIE said:


> Brewgod
> 
> on the upper size limit I was just trying to protect the real brood stock. Well one step at a time 1st recreationals 2nd commercials. To fix that someone needs to organize a "task force" of officers from various agencies along the coast to target nothing but illegal fishing. After a few years it would be fixed..
> 
> ...


Good point for sure Carlie. The laws in place and lack of enforcement basically keep honest people honest. Can't wait to get your take on the meeting tonight. Tight lines.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

everyone claiming simple "logic" reasoning about shrimp boats not being a problem ever dove behind one? My club and I jump behind shrimp boats quite a bit, after dodging sharks we see 1000's if not 10,000's of juvi snapper floating on the water. Yes there are fewer shrimpers, HOW much of a decrease in total catch (in tons) has their been? Straight from the NMFS website it states 


> The number of vessels shrimping in the EEZ has declined (from approximately 4,000 in 2000 to approximately 2,500 in 2005)*(yes a decline in the number of boats)* and economic projections indicate the number of shrimp vessels will decline until at least 2012. The decrease in participation is not the result of the permit moratorium as proposed in Amendment 13 but rather the economic climate of the fishery - vessels are simply not profitable. Stabilizing the number of vessels in the fishery would *allow fishermen the opportunity to harvest a greater proportion of the annual shrimp crop and increase their economic returns.*


 That last part is what I'm talking about. Bycatch can be found typically around 4lbs per 1lb of shrimp according to research data. This is down from 12lbs bycatch to 1lb shrimp. ON PROPERLY WORKING AND USED RIGS. HOWEVER I have had conversations with lifelong shrimpers talking about how they routinely bypass TEDS and other devices increasing shrimp and bycatch rates in nets. So unless the total yield is reduced, you will have the same amount of bycatch.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

"TGBR is a project of an orginization that competes with CCA for $$, and has, for lack of a better euphemism, "Made a public break" with CCA"

Then doesn't it make sense for the CCA to support federal regulation in Texas waters since it'll torpedo the whole TGBR project and thus get rid of the competition? Just thinking out loud here.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Kenner21 said:


> "TGBR is a project of an orginization that competes with CCA for $$, and has, for lack of a better euphemism, "Made a public break" with CCA"
> 
> Then doesn't it make sense for the CCA to support federal regulation in Texas waters since it'll torpedo the whole TGBR project and thus get rid of the competition? Just thinking out loud here.


With that said I se no other alternative. There are very many fine points made on here to justify what I have said all along.

BOYCOTT CCA AND ANYTHING THEY HAVE TO DO WITH!!!


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

The TGBR is not an official RFA project. RFA is fighting in congress to get some flexibility in the Magnesum Stevenson Act, which will hopefully make the interim rules unneccesary. 

The TGBR is being fought for by a group called the Texas Gulf Coast Stewards. All of these guys are also members of RFA, but this is by no means a RFA project. 

CCA did plenty to try to chop RFA's knees off for many years. They do not want competition especially by an organization that actually looks out for the rights of recreational fishermen. If CCA is trying to torpedo the TGBR, which is a very good thing for the Texas coast, regardless of who is trying to get it done, it just illustrates what a small minded petty organization they really are.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

rodwade

yes shrimpers do impact the Snapper population but not to the extent folks are led to believe. I want to make a point here, get you to thinking about something... One sow snapper say 25 pounds plus or minus lays about 100 millions eggs maybe twice a year..
A shrimp boat could not kill that many fish in years. For longliners and some of us recreationals to be allowed to kill many of these fish impacts the fishery way more than any shrimper.. longliners have been allowed to fish over the areas kill thousands of these egg layers and to fish illegally inside 50 fathoms. no enforcement to stop it from happning even when told where the boats were and names. I spoke with Crabtree of NMFS about this issue and he wasnt even aware that had been a severe increase in the longliner catch.. 

Now again do shrimpers impact the fishery? sure they do but not the 80% kill as some agencies say. I was around 40 50 years ago when there were hundreds of more shrimpers in the gulf with no BRD's and there were plenty of snapper. Now with way less shrimpers with some BRD'S the snapper are declining (according to NMFS). Wonder why.The plain simple answer is absoloutely no law enforcement.. As I have said before, you can write all the laws you want and with no one to enforce them nothing changes. 

Note.. Did get CCA to remove snapper from their STAR tourney..

Charlie


----------



## Brewgod (May 21, 2004)

TGBR is a great idea regardless of what CCA thinks or does, what regulations are passed, what NMFS or TPWD does because it creates HABITAT for the resource. Don't lose sight of the goal to create a larger, more stable population available to the RECREATIONAL fisherman, for many years into the future.

Reducing or eliminating shrimper bycatch will reduce the mortality of juvenile snapper, and a whole host of other species necessary to the ecosystem, period. Who really cares whose numbers are right, that's a side issue. There are a number of parts that add up to a whole, recreationals need to focus on what can be done to improve the fishery and quit appearing divided to the opposition.
Habitat. Enforcement. Valid research. Bycatch reduction. Reduction in recreational mortality. Reduction of commercial licenses. Improvement of TAC numbers for rec's. These are what we need to be spending our time on....


I have talked to no one at CCA who is trying to torpedo TGBR, but I know that there are others who feel differently...


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

CHARLIE said:


> rodwade
> 
> yes shrimpers do impact the Snapper population but not to the extent folks are led to believe. I want to make a point here, get you to thinking about something... One sow snapper say 25 pounds plus or minus lays about 100 millions eggs maybe twice a year..
> A shrimp boat could not kill that many fish in years. For longliners and some of us recreationals to be allowed to kill many of these fish impacts the fishery way more than any shrimper.. longliners have been allowed to fish over the areas kill thousands of these egg layers and to fish illegally inside 50 fathoms. no enforcement to stop it from happning even when told where the boats were and names. I spoke with Crabtree of NMFS about this issue and he wasnt even aware that had been a severe increase in the longliner catch..
> ...


Excellent point and well taken. Now that you have mentioned it, I fully agree with the shrimper issue. I can rember huge armadas of them "back in the day" as well. I have been around a little while and remember "the good ole days" of catching Snapper until you were hurting so badly you just quit. I guess I just got caught up in the shrimpers are evil hoopla, but that is a very valid point.

As far as the long liners are concerned, THEY are the ones that definitely need to be stopped. The rules and regulations that have supposedly been placed upon them are not working for a number of reasons. Lack of personnel to enforce them, lack of equipment and vessels are just a couple. It is obvious that all the "restrictions" placed upon them are not working. The one restriction that should be placed is a TOTAL 100% restriction on commercial fishing for any species of Snapper.


----------



## ding-a-ling (Jul 29, 2005)

Charlie makes a great point, you always have to protect your broodstock at all costs. As part of work I have hand fed a few groups of red snapper from fingerlings on up to 5 lb or so in a tank - summary is we got around a pound a year each time, so its not the fastest growing fish anyway. Point is big ones take a long time to get there and that 20 lb fish you catch probably took about that many years to get there and she kicks out zillions of eggs along the way.

Inshore, we protect several species with upper limits, black drum, red drum, trout recently - of course its all to protect broodfish - why should snapper be any different? The meat is better on the smaller ones and the yield is low on the big fish (they're all head) anyway.

Sow snapper are critical to a healthy fishery and hammering them really cuts you off at the knees no matter who it is catching them. Recs should self regulate (keep a big one every now and then) and commercial fishing for red snapper in the Gulf inside 50 fathoms (or anywhere) should be gone IMHO.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

ding-a-ling said:


> Charlie makes a great point, you always have to protect your broodstock at all costs. As part of work I have hand fed a few groups of red snapper from fingerlings on up to 5 lb or so in a tank - summary is we got around a pound a year each time, so its not the fastest growing fish anyway. Point is big ones take a long time to get there and that 20 lb fish you catch probably took about that many years to get there and she kicks out zillions of eggs along the way.
> 
> Inshore, we protect several species with upper limits, black drum, red drum, trout recently - of course its all to protect broodfish - why should snapper be any different? The meat is better on the smaller ones and the yield is low on the big fish (they're all head) anyway.
> 
> Sow snapper are critical to a healthy fishery and hammering them really cuts you off at the knees no matter who it is catching them. Recs should self regulate (keep a big one every now and then) and commercial fishing for red snapper in the Gulf inside 50 fathoms (or anywhere) should be gone IMHO.


I made a suggestion to TP&WD pertaining to that exactly. I even suggested a slot limit or allowing only one fish over a certain size as Speck limits are now.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Oh, one more thing. I personally catch Snapper in shallower water(less than 60'). I fish weightless and on bottom. The ones we catch on bottom never have the blatter inflated when we bring them up. I have caught a few way oversize Redfish out there that did have the blatters inflated, but we just put them back in and they swam straight to the bottom very quickly. None of them ever floated.


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

I agree with your sentiment .... problem is that the big difference between the inshore Drum and Redfish fishery and the offshore Red Snapper is that the great majority of the time, I don't think you are doing a Sow Snapper much of a favor by releasing her. Ijust think the depth factor changes any thoughts of an upper slot limit. A good skipper can self regulate, however, by moving off of a "sow hole" after catching a couple . I think we need to emphasize attitudes whenever possible.


----------



## ding-a-ling (Jul 29, 2005)

*agreed*

CaptMike,

You are exactly right about successfully releasing fish offshore, its usually a losing proposition beyond 130 ft or so depth in my exp. It would be more about affecting the larger fish caught shallower on the shelf on the upper coast as well as moving off of known holes as you mention. 35 miles off of Port A a low percentage of what we haul up and put back in the water probably makes it down and survives long term unfortunately. That same distance out of Galveston might be a different story for the fish.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

ding-a-ling said:


> CaptMike,
> 
> You are exactly right about successfully releasing fish offshore, its usually a losing proposition beyond 130 ft or so depth in my exp. It would be more about affecting the larger fish caught shallower on the shelf on the upper coast as well as moving off of known holes as you mention. 35 miles off of Port A a low percentage of what we haul up and put back in the water probably makes it down and survives long term unfortunately. That same distance out of Galveston might be a different story for the fish.


I understand that. I fish out of Sabine Pass. We have to go a LONG way to get 130' of water. If I went that far it would be for species other than Snapper.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

From rodwades post:

Quote:
The number of vessels shrimping in the EEZ has declined (from approximately 4,000 in 2000 to approximately 2,500 in 2005)*(yes a decline in the number of boats)* and economic projections indicate the number of shrimp vessels will decline until at least 2012. The decrease in participation is not the result of the permit moratorium as proposed in Amendment 13 but rather the economic climate of the fishery - vessels are simply not profitable. Stabilizing the number of vessels in the fishery would *allow fishermen the opportunity to harvest a greater proportion of the annual shrimp crop and increase their economic returns.*

Someone didn't see Forrest Gump. Fewer shrimpers dragging nets can produce the same or greater TAC with less bycatch because of more shrimp available and more productive drags. More shrimpers making long unproductive drags lead to more bycatch. Fewer shrimpers cannot cover the same amount of bottom than more.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

and it is hard to pull a shrimp net over a reef.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Haute Persuit
Is rite on.. Just look at it this way... a 100 foot net cover 100 ft of bottom 10 boats cover 1000 ft. 20 boats cover 2000 ft and so on...

Re Sow snapper put them off limits where no one really fishes for them. That would remove that pressure. Now yes some would be caught by accident that would have to be dealt with.

Charlie


----------



## tokavi (May 6, 2006)

CHARLIE said:


> Brewgod
> 
> Heres a quick fix... keep the first 5 snapper between 12 and 28 inches. Because of the much lower mortality rate you could fish year around and actually kill less fish. Thats too easy tho huh ?
> 
> Charlie


Charlie, Your right that's to easy and you forgot, it makes sense too. Problem is NMFS never makes sense and CCA agrees with them!


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Don't forget that CCA was behind the moon landing hoax, Nessie in Loch Ness and whatever mythical idea y'all can come up with.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Hey let's not forget the reason I posted this thread. Not that I disagree on the points made. There are some very good ones to say the least. I believe my signature will remind everyone of the intent of this thread!


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Oh yeah, I forgot also forgot that CCA has so much influence that they helped end the cold war, stopped the Cuban missile crisis and God willing they can stop Hillary.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot also forgot that CCA has so much influence that they helped end the cold war, stopped the Cuban missile crisis and God willing they can stop Hillary.


I honestly think you actually believe all of that!


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Apparently you do if you think CCA has any influence on the feds regarding this issue.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Apparently you do if you think CCA has any influence on the feds regarding this issue.


Now that has got to be the most insane post I have read yet! CCA has lobbyists there at Washington. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

CCA was a party to the lawsuit, along with a couple enviro groups that forced the fishery managers hands on the Magnesun Stevenson Act concerning stock rebuilding time frames and such. This lawsuit is the main reason why we have the regulations we have right now. Without the lawsuit, fisheries managers would have been able to re-assess the stock, addressing some issues with the 2005 SEDAR, as well as to get a grasp on post-Katrina effects before imposing drastic regulations. 

That is influence either way you look at it.


----------



## snapper tapper (Dec 21, 2006)

Just cancelled my CCA membership. The star tournament was the only reason I have kept it the last few years.


----------



## chad (Sep 7, 2006)

All I can say is WOW! I just got back from a week of snow skiing, and it has taken me forever to get caught up with all of these snapper threads. They are my favorite.

The whole issue just makes me sick to my stomach. I just want the Feds to leave us alone. There are plenty of snapper out there. I think it is easier to go out and catch a mess of snapper than to take my 3 year old son out on the dock and catch a mess of perch.

To me it seems as if they are trying to inflate the snapper population to levels never before seen in the western gulf. How many snapper could have possibly been here 200 years ago before there were any rigs, wrecks, pipelines, artificial reefs, or any other hard stucture for them to live around?

I personally think the limit should be higher than 4, but I can live with that. What I can't live with is 2 fish and closed seasons. Hopefully The state will stand their ground and leave things the way they are in Texas waters.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

snapper tapper said:


> Just cancelled my CCA membership. The star tournament was the only reason I have kept it the last few years.


Very good! Please tell all your friends to tell their friends etc. as well.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

snapper tapper said:


> Just cancelled my CCA membership. The star tournament was the only reason I have kept it the last few years.


Oh, don't forget to tell everyone about the tournament and not fishing it either.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

chad said:


> All I can say is WOW! I just got back from a week of snow skiing, and it has taken me forever to get caught up with all of these snapper threads. They are my favorite.
> 
> The whole issue just makes me sick to my stomach. I just want the Feds to leave us alone. There are plenty of snapper out there. I think it is easier to go out and catch a mess of snapper than to take my 3 year old son out on the dock and catch a mess of perch.
> 
> ...


Right you are. I could not agree more! I hope you are not a member of CCA. If you are I hope you have read the beginning of this thread and will follow suit. Please tell your friends not to join CCA!


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

If he read the beginning of this thread he probably read on because he knew it had to be a joke and that there was no way you could be serious.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> If he read the beginning of this thread he probably read on because he knew it had to be a joke and that there was no way you could be serious.


I believe we know the answer to that one. Just keep conversing with the voices. Everything will be OK.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

If I told you what the voices were telling me I would get in trouble.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> If I told you what the voices were telling me I would get in trouble.


May I suggest counseling??!! I hear that group hug thing works in cases such as yours.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

*Ewwww!*

Great, now I'm going to wake up screaming from a nightmare where all these sweaty, beer bellied, snapper fishermen are chasing me trying to give me a big bear hug.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Guys it's a math model, yes sows produce millions of eggs, but a single juvi grows into that sow. The more juvi's that make it the larger number of Sows there will be. 
Fewer boats running longer hours can cover the same ground 4x as many boats can. no one said boats were more productive, just that they can catch the same number of shrimp. if shrimp are spread in a density of say 1 ton per 10,000 feet of trawel distance that means that regardless of how many shrimpers there are to get 30 tons they still have to trawel the same amount of bottom. Less shrimpers doesn't mean a larger density of shrimp, just one boat catches more of the TAC. 

Simple math here let's say 5% of the juvi's make it to Sow stage of breeding. With the a single shrimper in a season killing say 600,000 juvi's per season that's 30,000 sows out of the ecosystem. With Charlies estimates that each sow lays 1,000,000 eggs that's 30,000,000,000 THAT 30 BILLION fewer fry PER YEAR!

I'm not saying shrimpers are the only problem, long liners and bandits are as well, but it seems REALLY easy to make a case for shrimping, especially when most shrimp can be domestically farmed as they do in Asia, the middle east, thailand etc.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Great, now I'm going to wake up screaming from a nightmare where all these sweaty, beer bellied, snapper fishermen are chasing me trying to give me a big bear hug.


If it were reality I do not think they/we would be chasing you to give you a hug.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I know, I know...y'all would be wanting to give me a beer so we could sit down, get drunk and argue about this till we passed out.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

rodwade said:


> Guys it's a math model, yes sows produce millions of eggs, but a single juvi grows into that sow. The more juvi's that make it the larger number of Sows there will be.
> Fewer boats running longer hours can cover the same ground 4x as many boats can. no one said boats were more productive, just that they can catch the same number of shrimp. if shrimp are spread in a density of say 1 ton per 10,000 feet of trawel distance that means that regardless of how many shrimpers there are to get 30 tons they still have to trawel the same amount of bottom.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

rodwade

Im sorry I guess I just dont understand what your trying to say. It doesent totally add up. My point was just this commercial fishing (longlineing etc.) are killing more fish(in the long run) than shrimpers ever could. Shure shrimpers kill some but nothing like the 80% CCA has been using as arguements for past several years and determined to totally incorrect. 

Im not really shure that shrimpers have a TAC. It seems so logical that fewer nets dragging certain areas of the bottom equal to less snapper killed. Has nothing to do with how long they drag or if they have reached a non existing TAC.

Charlie


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> Apparently you do if you think CCA has any influence on the feds regarding this issue.


Pocboy, I like your enthusiasm, but you are being taken by CCA just like MANY of their paying members. Sit back and think about who is misleading you and taking your money at the same time. I guarentee it is NOT Snap Draggin. I just got off the phone with a relatively high standing TPWD worker. This person *CONFIRMED that CCA is supporting that Federal Regulations be incorporated into Texas waters.* *Give TPWD a call at 1-800-792-1112 and ask them what CCA's side is.* If the person that answers doesn't know, ask them to connect you to someone that does. At the same time, please let them know that you want Texas waters to remain Texas waters and you would like them to add your name to those that desire the Texas snapper regulatons be determined by TPWD. *TPWD ARE OUR FRIENDS!! THEY CARE ABOUT TEXAS FISHERMEN. *Write to Art Morris as stated above or send a message by e-mail https://www2.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/webcomment/?p=%252Findex.phtml We need everyone's support. *This employee said the most important thing is to contact TPWD on your position.* They felt contacting your congressman wouldn't help as it is a TPWD decision. There is a lot of pressure by the Feds on TPWD. Please, please contact them.

Thank you to everyone that has gone to the meetings. I feel this issue is very important if you value your rights to fish. I never get involved with these issues, but this one has taken an exception. *TPWD WAS SURPRISED THAT CCA WAS SUPPORTING FEDERAL REGULATIONS.* They know CCA's position. I have e-mailed this thread to CCA and they have not responded. I think that should raise some questions if you are giving them the benefit of the doubt (since they aren't defending themself.). CCA is essentially an NATIONAL agency now. They are no longer a pure Gulf Coast agency. The STAR tournament is purely a genious marketing event. CCA is giving way to national pressure on this issue. Please support TPWD, they are the ones that care about OUR gulf waters.


----------



## Brewgod (May 21, 2004)

I dont understand what is hard about this concept...



Brewgod said:


> Reducing or eliminating shrimper bycatch will reduce the mortality of juvenile snapper, and a whole host of other species necessary to the ecosystem, period. Who really cares whose numbers are right, that's a side issue. There are a number of parts that add up to a whole, recreationals need to focus on what can be done to improve the fishery and quit appearing divided to the opposition.
> Habitat. Enforcement. Valid research. Bycatch reduction. Reduction in recreational mortality. Reduction of commercial licenses. Improvement of TAC numbers for rec's. These are what we need to be spending our time on....
> 
> QUOTE]


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

Rodwade,

Some enviro might argue that you could grow your own pet red snapper in a tank and play fish with it to. 

As far as the shrimp analogy, doesn't work out that way, CPUE (Catch per Unit Effort)is definately up in that fishery, it has to be for the remaining vessels to be active and economically viable. 

Mont should be presented some numbers at the Snapper AP meeting regarding shrimp effort as it relates to bycatch, I suspect that they are well beyond their mandated 74% reduction in effort/bycatch.

Back to Charlie's point, the peak effort in days fished for shrimp trawling was back in the mid 80's, 1987 I believe. This was before they were even required to pull TED's which i would imagine do a pretty good job of getting rid of Sows. Then came along BRD's in the mid 90's, as the effort was already in decline.

how is it that Snapper stock decline is tied to another fisheries bycatch that has been pulling nets with holes in them that has been experiencing effort decline for 20 years, severely so in the last 5? 

In 1999 there were over 5000 federally permitted gulf trawlers, today there are only 1800 or so with only 2/3 reporting landings/effort.

Structure was mentioned above, the biggest point of contention I have in this whole mess is that NMFS does not count fish over artificial habitat. With over 4500 oil related structures in the gulf, this is crazy.

Count those fish and this all goes away!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

willyhunting said:


> Structure was mentioned above, the biggest point of contention I have in this whole mess is that NMFS does not count fish over artificial habitat. With over 4500 oil related structures in the gulf, this is crazy.
> 
> Count those fish and this all goes away!


The East Coast states, NMFS and CCA don't want structure counted for that very reason. They don't have much to speak of.

"It is the Shrimpers!! It is the Shrimpers!!"


----------



## Brewgod (May 21, 2004)

Oh, and thanks for the sig line wipe out folks...


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Brewgod said:


> I dont understand what is hard about this concept...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## shanker (Jan 15, 2006)

you heard it here first folks, but Im going to put it in this thread because I dont want to start a new one, but a member of the Gulf Council was quoted as saying "This is not a Democracy" Although that was taken out of context and I dont thing he meant for those words to come out in that order, but the room was FLOORED by that statement!


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

CHARLIE said:


> rodwade
> 
> Im sorry I guess I just dont understand what your trying to say. It doesent totally add up. My point was just this commercial fishing (longlineing etc.) are killing more fish(in the long run) than shrimpers ever could. Shure shrimpers kill some but nothing like the 80% CCA has been using as arguements for past several years and determined to totally incorrect.
> 
> ...


Charlie what I'm saying is this...out of the 8 shrimp boats I saw on 1 day and 3 I saw on another I would say each one culled roughly 4-5,000 Juvisnapper PER trawel based on OBSERVATIONS (no CCA DATA) I swam through the freaking things!. Now guess the 1250-2400 GOM shrimp boats (2004 data said 2400) I'll use 1250 a lower number that I've heard....at 4000 juvies per DAY (again the smaller guess of how many dead snapper I swam though.)

So 1250 boats x4000 floating dead snapper observed in SPI=5,000,000 dead red snapper. That would be 5,000,000 floating culled dead fish in a single day! Let's approximate through fishing, shrimping and natural mortality that only 5% of those 5,000,000 would make it to breading sow stage (20 years or so). So that would make 250,000 breeding fish (in 20 years) out of the ecosystem. Following me still. Now I think it was you or possibly another member that said a mature sow snapper will lay something like 1,000,000 eggs. 
250,000 breeding snapper*1,000,000 eggs=.....do I still need to put numbers up. Basically put in ONE DAY 250,000,000,000 (YES THAT'S BILLION) eggs that could have potentially been laid and matured to harvestable red snapper, have been removed from the ecosystem. All of this taken for a product which can be farmed commercially (and is) with ZERO bycatch.
Shrimpers complain about how little money there is in it. Possibly some shrimp farms should be on their Xmas lists next year.


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

rodwade,

I believe that you may be confusing longspine porgy for juvenile snapper;

Following taken off of FAO website. The study sited was done in 92, pre BRD install.

*9.4 Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic prawn fisheries of the United States

*A study conducted by the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation into bycatch reduction devises applicable for use in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic Shrimp Fisheries analysed in some depth the species composition and quantity of catch in the two fisheries. The study was prompted because of concern that shrimp fishing may have been contributing to over fishing of commercially important species through capture of juveniles of those species. Capture of juvenile red snapper (_Lutjanus campechanus_) in the Gulf of Mexico and in the South Atlantic of weakfish (_Cynoscion regalis_) along with king and Spanish mackerel (_Scomberomorus cavalla _and_ S maculatus_) in both fisheries had been cause for concern and it was thought that the incidental catch of these species in the shrimp trawl fisheries was limiting the resource available for fisheries directed at these species and the main aims of the programme were to reduce the capture of these species although, as can be seen below, other less commercially important species were more common in the incidental catch.

In the Gulf of Mexico Fish Shrimp trawl fishery was concluded that over 450 taxa were identified in the catch and average catch was about 27 kg/hour of trawling. The catch could be divided into three major components as shrimp 26%, other invertebrates 17% and finfish 67% giving a ratio of 5.25 bycatch to 1 of shrimp. This figure contrasts the figure of 10.3:1 given in Alverson _et al_ for the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery.

The top ten species found in catch were as follows in Table 15

*Table 15* -* Top ten species found in Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl catches *
​

*Species - English Name**Percentage of Total Catch​*​
Longspined porgy15​
Brown shrimp 9​
Atlantic croaker9​
Inshore lizardfish6​
Pink shrimp 3​
Gulf butterfish3​
Lesser blue crab2​
White shrimp2​
Longspined swimming crab2​
Brown rock shrimp 2​​
In the South Atlantic about 150 taxa were found in shrimp trawls with a catch rate of about 26 kg/hour. Shrimp made up 18%, other invertebrates 31% and finfish about 51% of the total catch. This gives a bycatch to other species ratio of about 4.5 to 1. The top ten species in the catch are listed as follows in Table 16. 

*Table 16*-* Top ten species found in South Atlantic shrimp trawl catches*

*Species - English name**Percentage of Total Catch​*​
Cannonball jellyfish14​
White shrimp9​
Spot9​
Atlantic menhaden9​
Brown shrimp8​
Other jellyfish8​
Atlantic croaker6​
Southern kingfish4​
Blue crab4​
Star drum3​​


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Actually I'd say I was rather high to say daily...so here are some numbers I found let's figure a year.
*Genetic impacts of shrimp trawling on red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) in the northern Gulf of Mexico
Eric Saillant*, S. Coleen Bradfield and John R. Gold *



> Estimates *of* the number *of* juvenile *red* *snapper* taken as *bycatch* in the shrimp fishery ranged, for the period 1992-1996, between 26 and 32 million individuals per year; most (65%) being age-0 fish


Okay maybe not a single day but lets do some yearly calculations then.

26,000,000 fish*5% survival to breeding sow age rate=1,300,000 fish per year would grow to be 20 year sows producing 1,000,000 eggs
That would then be 1,300,000,000,000 (NOW WERE TALKING TRILLION EGGS) per year..... now let's say 5% of those make it to breeding age..... wow see the trend here? All for a shellfish we can commercially farm!

Once again....they are not the only problems, but one of the bricks in the wall. And again a pretty easy one to show mathematically that it just doesn't add up.


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

I have seen where Natural mortality rate estimates of year class '0' approaches 97%, year class '1' 70%, year class '2' 45%. Every year there after the fishes chances improves significantly. So for a fish to make it to 4 years of age it has survived a 99.505% mortality rate.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

willyhunting said:


> I have seen where Natural mortality rate estimates of year class '0' approaches 97%, year class '1' 70%, year class '2' 45%. Every year there after the fishes chances improves significantly. So for a fish to make it to 4 years of age it has survived a 99.505% mortality rate.


This is true... other fishes think snapper are as tasty as we do.


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

They like themselves as well.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

willyhunting said:


> They like themselves as well.


Yup!


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

willyhunting said:


> I have seen where Natural mortality rate estimates of year class '0' approaches 97%, year class '1' 70%, year class '2' 45%. Every year there after the fishes chances improves significantly. So for a fish to make it to 4 years of age it has survived a 99.505% mortality rate.


Population assessment of the red snapper from the southeastern United States 
*Charles S. Manooch III*, Jennifer C. Potts, Douglas S. Vaughan and Michael L. Burton *
National Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort Laboratory, 101 Pivers Island Road Beaufort, NC 28516 USA



> Population size in numbers at age was estimated for each year by applying separable virtual population analysis (SVPA) to the landings in numbers at age. SVPA was used to estimate annual, age-specific fishing mortality (_F_) for *four levels of natural mortality (M=0.15, 0.20, 0.25, and 0.30)*. Although landings of red snapper for the three fisheries have declined, minimum fish size regulations have also resulted in an increase in the mean size of red snapper landed.


Nelson and Manooch (1982) estimated instantaneous f i s h i n g m o r t a l i t y t o be 0.58 or 0.74 i n Louisiana (depending on the method o f calculation) and 0.23 or 0.25 i n west Florida.​​Mortality rates seem to be a **** shoot....I've never seem them as high as 90%. HOWEVER these are not every year. After the first year the numbers go down drastically from the first year. Thus why I said only 5% of the stock would make it to breeding state. I also stated they wouldn't breed until age 20. TPW shows they can and do breed by age 2-3 and are mature at 4years.​


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Those guys in North Carolina is who I trust! LOL Throw in some Louisiana from 1982 and I'm Sold!!!


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

rodwade

"increase of the mean size of red snapper landed". Let me point out that the feds only count fish landed. They dont count fish killed. In other words when they do a count at the dock they count "fish caught" not throwbacks... 
Another note there were always fewer (Snapper) in the east Gulf when Columbus showed up in this world. East Gulf and West Gulf are a totally different habitat...

Mature... what does that Mean they lay eggs ?? Yes they do I will have to find one of the studies I have and show really how egg production goes up with age. Usually spikes about 20 to 25 years of age which equates to about 20 to 25 pound fish. 

Mortality rate depends on so much first being depth caught. Seems in this area mortality rate in deep water is about 80%. Decreases with water depth. State waters in my area (Galveston) say 60 ft. not too bad.

Shrimp bycatch. I believe you did see first hand the dead snapper..My number on eggs laid by a mature 25 pound snapper was 100 million sometimes twice a year by a single mature fish thats 200 million eggs. Survival rate of the eggs not too good... one of your quotes say up to 32 million individuals killed per year by the shrimp industry.. I stand by my earlier statement. Save the Sow snapper.. 

I guess to put it in a nutshell, it irritates me that a group such as CCA will grind on an issue "such as the shrimpers" which has some validity but not the extent CCA says and ignore the real significant problems such as the commercial fishing, lack of enforcement, poor data used in computer models and so on.. 

Rodwade I like your approach your trying.. Keep up the work

Charlie


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

CHARLIE said:


> I guess to put it in a nutshell, it irritates me that a group such as CCA will grind on an issue "such as the shrimpers" which has some validity but not the extent CCA says and ignore the real significant problems such as the commercial fishing, lack of enforcement, poor data used in computer models and so on..
> 
> This is why we need to educate everyone on what CCA is doing and let them make their own decision about whether or not the organization is actually for the ones that finance it or not.


----------

