# Tonights TPWD Scope Mtg...



## A Salt Weapon (Jan 23, 2006)

...in Pt Arthur was not very well attended by local fishermen. Only about 12-14 were there overall, and some of those were there to represent the Commercial Pogie Companies.


Here's the shocker to me. CCA had a representative there that read a letter stating that CCA recommends that the state abide by the Federal regulations and reduce our creel to 2 fish and a reduced season (122 days total per yr.)

I was surprised to hear that from them. CCA carries alot of weight and this could hurt our chances of keeping state snaps at 4.


Any thoughts?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Hey I just posted a thread as well. Check out my thoughts on that CCA issue.


----------



## A Salt Weapon (Jan 23, 2006)

I like your idea of writing the CCA and voicing your dislike in their position. You should have said that in front of that guy. He looked like he was weened on a pickle.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Yeah I wish I would have. Weened on a pickle huh? LOL, I had more drastic thoughts than that, but I cannot post that here. Regardless of whether or not I said it there we need to e-mail CCA and let them know the true stance of the funding members of that organization.


----------



## capt.matt (Aug 20, 2005)

I am very disappointed to here our first meeting was a flop.


We need to get the word out about this. The next 3 meetings are very important. I can't belive CCA did that.


----------



## A Salt Weapon (Jan 23, 2006)

I'm disapointed too, but some that I spoke to just said "what's the point, they always do what they want to do anyway".

What's important to understand that this 1st round of meetings IS NOT a "hearing". It's only a "scope". The purpose is to see if there is enough support to keep the limits the way they are, or do they go against the feds. TPWD has a good handle on our fisheries and they seem to want to keep them the same.

Maybe with more time the next 3 meetings will have a better turnout.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Well, everyone that joins CCA for the S.T.A.R. also agree's to there rules which are you support ANYTHING the do, Case in point all CCA current members agree to what they are doing right now recommending that the state abide by the Federal regulations and reduce our creel to 2 fish and a reduced season (122 days total per yr.) When you sign up with CCA you make them stronger and they have thousands of members. One Letter equals Thousands of people backing the statement basically.

Like it or not if you are a member of CCA then by there rules you agree to there letter. Sounds like we need a very strong showing in the next meetings.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Angler 1 said:


> Well, everyone that joins CCA for the S.T.A.R. also agree's to there rules which are you support ANYTHING the do, Case in point all CCA current members agree to what they are doing right now recommending that the state abide by the Federal regulations and reduce our creel to 2 fish and a reduced season (122 days total per yr.) When you sign up with CCA you make them stronger and they have thousands of members. One Letter equals Thousands of people backing the statement basically.
> 
> Like it or not if you are a member of CCA then by there rules you agree to there letter. Sounds like we need a very strong showing in the next meetings.


We need stronger showings and floods of e-mails protesting the stance CCA has taken. I understand that you accept what they are doing by joining, but if enough people voice thier opinion against their stance and they see a huge loss of membership if they keep it up, they might want to ask what the membership wants in the future before just blatantly making a stance as they have this time.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

I will have people at the next meeting from 3 hours away. 

Here is the sad part how many marine dealers in the Golden Triangle? Where were they?

I was not suprised that the CCA would side with the FEDs. 

I can tell you if 14-15 show up at the rest of the meetings we can start liking Chubbies and Hardheads.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

BEER4BAIT said:


> I will have people at the next meeting from 3 hours away.
> 
> Here is the sad part how many marine dealers in the Golden Triangle? Where were they?
> 
> ...


There were only 14 - 15 TOTAL there. Most of them were TP&WD employees that pretty much had to attend. There were only seven of us there voicing opposition and one in favor; however the one in favor represented thousands if not more.

I have made up my mind to drop my membership with CCA. Their stance on this issue is way too hard lined for me. I could understand it if the Snapper numbers were actually low. I would be in full support of it as well, but they are not even close to low on the Texas coast. At least out of Sabine Pass they are not.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

cca is not the organization walter fondren and his buddies founded.(GCCA). it is just a big political group whos head honchos make big $$$$. i saw this coming many years ago. a conservation group supporting the biggest kill tournament on the coast turned me off. maybe anglers will wake up now and stop supporting them. tp&w needs to support the people of texas and not give the feds what they want. i do not snapper fish but i am on the rec. snapper fisherpeople side.


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

> I was surprised to hear that from them. CCA carries alot of weight and this could hurt our chances of keeping state snaps at 4.


 the only reason this would surprise anyone, is because they haven't been paying attention for the last several years.and they have already hurt the offshore fisherman.

on a similar note, we are facing a possible closure to all fishing in the Flower Garden Banks NMS, to include Stetson,As a member of the Sanctuary Advisory Council, i have requested support at our meetings from the recreational and commercial sector's. I have also asked for contact information on open forums,from anyone interested in current happenings within the SAC.As of today i have not had one reply.

So it is sad, but lack of involvement in these meetings does not surprise me at all. but it does scare the &^%!! out of me.

i will see yall in Galveston on the 8th

Mike


----------



## oldtrackster (Jul 20, 2007)

Mike could you repost on the Flower Garden meetings. I am several hours from the coast and I bet the meetings are to far to make especially on weekdays. Could you use some letters? Where would you want them sent?


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

i sure will oldtrackster, but just so we don't derail this thread, (which was not my intent).
i will start another concerning the meetings.
but to answer your question. yes. letters would be great.

you have a PM.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Mike can you rally the rest of the captains for hire in surfside? If Galveston Co is a flop we can put our boats up for sale in Mexico they will keep fishing for snapper.


----------



## Team Ranger Bob (Jul 13, 2004)

*Port Arthur*

I wanted to go for inshore reasons but was assured that my concerns were unfounded. The other reason is that I have learned that we need to keep our eyes on these people to see who is pulling the strings.
Parks and Wildlife is filled with good people but it is still dominated by politics and their mandate is not for the benefit of the resource only.

Why is it a surprise that CCA would come out against you?

The only reason we have inshore maximum size limits on trout now is because of CCA! They are the only reason it ever became an issue.
They have a long history of not listening to their members.

Ranger Bob


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

BEER4BAIT said:


> Mike can you rally the rest of the captains for hire in surfside? If Galveston Co is a flop we can put our boats up for sale in Mexico they will keep fishing for snapper.


been there done that buddy. see ya there


----------



## Whisky Delta (Apr 16, 2007)

I've only been a CCA member for a couple of years, so I guess that's my excuse why I don't know better. I'm not the type to give up on what I think was a good organization, and what is probably the ONLY source of collective support, so I tried making several phone calls to voice my opinoin this AM. You would've thought I was calling AT&T to complain about my bill!

I'll admit, I have a peanut brain,.....should I expect Robby Byers (CCA Texas) to call me back on Monday?


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

WD please come to the next meeting with us


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

WD
dont hold your breath buddy.i made numerous phone call to CCA to discuss there stance on the Emergency Rule, prior to it being implemented.
i never recieved a return call.i did recieve some well thought out emails with best wishes at the end.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I called today and spoke directly to Pat Murray. He is the Vice Presdient and Director of Conservation. I posted a thread pertaining to this.


----------



## Whisky Delta (Apr 16, 2007)

BEER4BAIT said:


> WD please come to the next meeting with us


I can't make it bro, sorry. I did provide a written statement and gave my opinion last night,..basically a bayboater's perspective; "only time I'm catching snapper out of Sabine will be in the winter, and with fed regs I'm shut out".

Looks like you're coming out of Lufkin for next week (3 hours?!) Green to you for the commitment.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

******* come on to the meeting see ya lurking, you to wahoo


----------



## raghead (Jun 27, 2005)

I'll make it. Swing by and pick me up on the way, Alex -


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Bring Gordon


----------



## raghead (Jun 27, 2005)

it's a date.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

wahoo


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I cannot make it either. Too far and I have to work. I hope the turn out there is WAY better than Port Arthur. Good luck and let's keep the heat up on this issue.


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

******* said:


> it's a date.


Alex,,,id be worried about the above statement before he cut his hair !
.
.
.
.
.
.
.i know ,,,i know at least you have hair
figured id beat ya to it


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

I will be coming from Lufkin paid to much for a 31 footer to bass fish from it.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

His hair gave static on the radar so he had to cut it LMAO. Call all the captains there lets bust heads and rip threads at this meeting.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

A Salt Weapon said:


> ...in Pt Arthur was not very well attended by local fishermen. Only about 12-14 were there overall, and some of those were there to represent the Commercial Pogie Companies.
> 
> Here's the shocker to me. CCA had a representative there that read a letter stating that CCA recommends that the state abide by the Federal regulations and reduce our creel to 2 fish and a reduced season (122 days total per yr.)
> 
> ...


Hmmm, CCA is going to recommend what they think is best for the fishery guys. This is no surprise tactic. Evidently doing what is best for the fishery is going to **** a few people off, that is no surprise either. The commercials are going to be represented at these meetings, it is up to the recreational fishermen to make sure they attend, or quit whining.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

chicapesca said:


> Hmmm, CCA is going to recommend what they think is best for the fishery guys. This is no surprise tactic. Evidently doing what is best for the fishery is going to **** a few people off, that is no surprise either. The commercials are going to be represented at these meetings, it is up to the recreational fishermen to make sure they attend, or quit whining.


Does that mean we can count on your attendance at one of the upcoming meetings?


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> Does that mean we can count on your attendance at one of the upcoming meetings?


No Mr. Draggin. It is not an issue I am interested in. I do not fish offshore. I do however recommend that the offshore fishermen attend and let your opinions be heard.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

that's the spirit!!!


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Jack Cowan and the late Perry Bass are the buddies. It is not the plan they had.



capt. david said:


> cca is not the organization walter fondren and his buddies founded.(GCCA). it is just a big political group whos head honchos make big $$$$. i saw this coming many years ago. a conservation group supporting the biggest kill tournament on the coast turned me off. maybe anglers will wake up now and stop supporting them. tp&w needs to support the people of texas and not give the feds what they want. i do not snapper fish but i am on the rec. snapper fisherpeople side.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

chicapesca said:


> No Mr. Draggin. It is not an issue I am interested in. I do not fish offshore. I do however recommend that the offshore fishermen attend and let your opinions be heard.


I agree with having those that fish offshore attend, and that means EVERYONE that fishes offshore; however this to me is not an offshore issue over lakes and bays. This is an issue that could very well affect the type of fishing you care for in the future. Would you not want as much support for your cause? Afterall we all fish whether it is freshwater, ice, saltwater, offshore, or inland.


----------



## Team Ranger Bob (Jul 13, 2004)

*What to do!*

Get as many people that think like you as you can and make sure they are on the record at these meetings.
The next thing to do is to find when the data from these meetings will be presented to the Commission.
Attend the commission meeting in Austin, (CCA will) this is the most important part!
The more that attend the better, you will find out who really cares at this point. If you get one in fifty it will be a great success.

Commission members are political appointees so e-mail the governors office.
Make sure and send a copy to your state rep.

The most important event will be showing up and saying your peace in front of the commission!

Present representative numbers of the offshore community that agree with you, show a perceived monetary impact on business that pay state tax.
Establish a link with a known political group, one that is open and has been shown to bring voters out to the poles.

Leave CCA alone, you will not change their minds.

Be prepared to be discouraged, be ready for the greenies to turn into reddies, be prepared to be called out and ridiculed on public forums for what you believe is right and be ready for those that stand with you to stay at home when it counts.

Ranger Bob


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> I agree with having those that fish offshore attend, and that means EVERYONE that fishes offshore; however this to me is not an offshore issue over lakes and bays. This is an issue that could very well affect the type of fishing you care for in the future. Would you not want as much support for your cause? Afterall we all fish whether it is freshwater, ice, saltwater, offshore, or inland.


Mr. Draggin, I already have the support for my cause, my cause is the fishery first. I want the fishery to be healthy so if I do chose to fish it, it will be there. In fact, that is why GCCA was formed in the first place, the fishery was in trouble, and measures were taken to protect it. I do agree with some of what you say, but I don't agree with your general bashing of an organization that does a lot of good, despite what you think, or for that matter know.


----------



## Third Wave (May 24, 2004)

*Ditto*

I thought this was a NO BASHING zone anyway.

I seem to remember some past problems when that got out of control.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

chicapesca said:


> Mr. Draggin, I already have the support for my cause, my cause is the fishery first. I want the fishery to be healthy so if I do chose to fish it, it will be there. In fact, that is why GCCA was formed in the first place, the fishery was in trouble, and measures were taken to protect it. I do agree with some of what you say, but I don't agree with your general bashing of an organization that does a lot of good, despite what you think, or for that matter know.


I see your point and I fully understand all the yada yada yada about healthy fisheries; however the Snapper fishery in Texas is EXTREMELY healthy. I can assure you that it is no problem to go out and limit easily. In fact I could easily catch 100 or more Snapper a day. That is the point. If it ain't broke then don't fix it, and for goodness sake don't break it!


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

Screw CCA!

Till now the snapper were being wiped out by shrimpers according to CCA and now they are gone for the most part. Now they think the recs are wiping them out??? They have turned in to a bunch of inviro freaks.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

GCCA worked wonders for our inshore fisheries here but this is not the same organization. CCA has its fingers entrenched in the Eastern Gulf and Eastern Seaboard and will put their interests over ours it appears.  They have apparently caved in to NMFS's desire to establish rules for the entire Gulf as a whole. We aren't talking about pelagics that cruise the entire Gulf's boundaries... these are reef fish and should be allocated to each Gulf region so as to sustain fishing pressure and continue to grow. This ain't your redfish's CCA.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> I already have the support for my cause, my cause is the fishery first.


exactly what part of "fisheries first" does the STAR tourney fall under? Just wondering.


----------



## awesum (May 31, 2006)

chicapesca said:


> Hmmm, CCA is going to recommend what they think is best for the fishery guys. This is no surprise tactic. Evidently doing what is best for the fishery is going to **** a few people off, that is no surprise either.


Hi Chicapesca ....* What is best for the fishery* .... this is our point. Many of us feel that the CCA is either misinformed or uninformed on the status of the fishery. They're saying the Red Snapper fishery in state waters is in trouble, we're saying it's not. Go with some of us and we'll show you spots where the bottom lights up with legal fish.

I respect the fact that you are an active member of CCA San Antonio. Good for you. I was one of the first people to join GCCA in the mid 70s when Walt Fondren founded it. I haven't been a member for 5 years now because it's changed so drastically from it's inception. I have friends that are still active in CCA but even they admit it's not what it once was. I don't know how long you've been participating in CCA but if it is more than 15 - 20 years you would see the changes too. I am not for bashing CCA any more, however, we need a way to convince them that what they feel is right for the fishery is askew. Perhaps not joining and reducing their revenues and power is one way some feel to do it.

Peace

BJ


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

manintheboat said:


> exactly what part of "fisheries first" does the STAR tourney fall under? Just wondering.


MITB, I didn't realize that there was a problem with the fisheries in the STAR tournament. As far at TPWD is concerned they are all pretty darn healthy. The only one in question was removed from the tournament if you would recall.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

awesum said:


> Hi Chicapesca ....* What is best for the fishery* .... this is our point. Many of us feel that the CCA is either misinformed or uninformed on the status of the fishery. They're saying the Red Snapper fishery in state waters is in trouble, we're saying it's not. Go with some of us and we'll show you spots where the bottom lights up with legal fish.
> 
> I respect the fact that you are an active member of CCA San Antonio. Good for you. I was one of the first people to join GCCA in the mid 70s when Walt Fondren founded it. I haven't been a member for 5 years now because it's changed so drastically from it's inception. I have friends that are still active in CCA but even they admit it's not what it once was. I don't know how long you've been participating in CCA but if it is more than 15 - 20 years you would see the changes too. I am not for bashing CCA any more, however, we need a way to convince them that what they feel is right for the fishery is askew. Perhaps not joining and reducing their revenues and power is one way some feel to do it.
> 
> ...


Hey BJ, I agree with you. CCA has changed, it has grown, it's issues have changed and grown as well. I feel conflicted about this too, but I tend to go with the science, such that it is. I don't want our limits to be cut in half on the red snapper. Also, I think TPWD should continue to govern state waters too. Yes, let CCA know how you feel. I think that is a good thing. I don't totally agree with everything that CCA does, but for the most part, it does a whole lot of good. We as volunteers do a lot of good. I don't go on this board and bash RFA, I think they are a great organization. I don't agree with everything they do, but at least they are out there doing it.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> MITB, I didn't realize that there was a problem with the fisheries in the STAR tournament. As far at TPWD is concerned they are all pretty darn healthy. The only one in question was removed from the tournament if you would recall.


Really? I guess that is why CCA among others pushed for a 5 fish limit in the lower Laguna Madre; because the population of trout was so darned healthy.

My problem is that CCA puts themselves out there as "fisheries first", yet they have the largest fish killing tournement out there, which is extremely hypocritical if you ask me. If they were truly fisheries first, they would put their money where their mouths are and get rid of the STAR. You and I both know that we will have a Baptist pope before that happens because without STAR, the CCA membership would shrink to about 10% of its current size eliminating their main revenue stream. Pat Murray would have to take a pay cut then. No STAR, no CCA.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Chicapesca

Science well yes but bad science is not good. Fish counting, lets talk about that one. How do you do that. Taking samples over sand bottoms and not counting fish on rigs. is that good info ? I think not. Shrimping killing 80 % of small snapper, I think not. Remember shrimpers have been in the gulf long before CCA and there were plenty of snapper. Now fewer shrimpers and less snapper. Naw not good. A handfull of LEO's to enforce the rules over the entire gulf No not good. Enviros and commercials in bed together, naw not good. Why because it allows the commercials to fish year round with 13 inch fish (honor system) and recreationals a few months and 15 in fish. If you think the VMD's are working your are so misled. Lets get real CCA has sold us out and is in bed with the enviros which results in the Commercials killing most of the fish..(strongest PAC) Sorry money talks..

PS check the salaries of CCA folks.. It mite scare ya 

Charlie


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Pat Murray from April 2001 article.

Murray says recreational fishers get caught in the crossfire between fisheries managers and commercial fishers. The latter, he says, cause much more negative environmental impacts than do recreational fishers. "Regulators tend to act with a broad brush and they group all fishermen together, despite the many differences in gear and impacts between commercial and recreational groups," said Murray. "*We don't want recreational fishermen to be excluded just because it's easy to do."*

*Oh the irony. Seems he has a short memory.*


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

manintheboat said:


> Really? I guess that is why CCA among others pushed for a 5 fish limit in the lower Laguna Madre; because the population of trout was so darned healthy.


TPWD passed that as a proactive move. I respect your opinion, but will have to disagree with you on the STAR tournament MITB.

And Charlie, I agree, a lot of the data is flawed, and there is not enough enforcement of the commercials. I wish the commercials would have to cut back so the recs don't have to. And, no I don't think VMD's are working, I don't even believe they are on all the boats. As far as the salaries of the CCA employees, I'm not scared. I appreciate your argument as well, but will have to disagree on some levels.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Hughoo222 said:


> Pat Murray from April 2001 article.
> 
> Murray says recreational fishers get caught in the crossfire between fisheries managers and commercial fishers. The latter, he says, cause much more negative environmental impacts than do recreational fishers. "Regulators tend to act with a broad brush and they group all fishermen together, despite the many differences in gear and impacts between commercial and recreational groups," said Murray. "*We don't want recreational fishermen to be excluded just because it's easy to do."*
> 
> *Oh the irony. Seems he has a short memory.*


I can't speak for Mr. Murray, but as far as I know CCA still has this stance.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Chisaspesca

Well in reality CCA did remove Snapper from their STAR tourney (at my urging). Provided them with documentation on the negative impact on the (egg layers) big snaps. they took it out and w ent back to ling which was good. on the other issues they have lost touch with the real issues and caught up in the extremely flawed scientific approach. its jus too sad. In the beginnig they were for real. Pat murry is a good personal friend of mine but he has to "roll with the flow" I think the folks are beginning to figure them out but whether it impacts them (CCA) we will have to wait and see.. Re the salaries .. you should be concerned at least. 
Good fishing 

Charlie


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

There is no proof the state water snapper is in danger. The feds want to count the state water snapper in the TAC. (so what) The NMF should not have any say what goes on in state water. There should be no comercial fishing in state water, PERIOD. Why would CCA go with the Feds on this? if the state water snapper is thiving. What is the grounds the CCA is going on? What study? Why? I am not beating them up I just want facts. The TPWD does not know of such information,,,,,,,,,,,I know.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*The lobby that we seem to be up against*

Chicapesca, You say that you do not fish offshore and that this is not an issue that concerns you, yet you support what is close to a shutdown of the rec snapper fishery based on what you have acknowledged to be flawed science. Why?

I am deeply offended that you use this pattern of reasoning to support such restrictions on what I and many here believe to be a sustainable resource that we enjoy harvesting. This is an issue that I am very concerned about. I love to fish for and to eat red snapper. I have invested considerably to be able to do so and I have a deep interest in keeping this fishery healthy. As others have been stressing in their replies to you, I can tell you from experience that red snapper have been very easy to catch here in Texas. There does not seem to be any shortage of them. We who fish for them believe these restictions are not needed here in Texas. I can't speak for the abundance, or lack thereof, in Florida and maybe they are stressed there, but being as they are not pelagics, it seems ridiculous for the Feds to want to regulate them as such. If speckled trout were overfished in the Chesapeake Bay, should we restrict fishing for them in Laguna Madre? "I don't fish for them, so yeah, lets do it so there'll still be specks here if I decide to start."

This cavalier attitude of supporting restictions on an issue that doesn't affect you but will affect others is beyond my comprehension. I'll survive these restrictions if they come to pass (I teach in Texas public schools and it reminds me of _No Child Left_ _Behind_, the Feds imposing their will on state issues, and I'm surviving that), but I have friends running headboats who may not survive.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Unbound said:


> Chicapesca, You say that you do not fish offshore and that this is not an issue that concerns you, yet you support what is close to a shutdown of the rec snapper fishery based on what you have acknowledged to be flawed science. Why?
> 
> I am deeply offended that you use this pattern of reasoning to support such restrictions on what I and many here believe to be a sustainable resource that we enjoy harvesting. This is an issue that I am very concerned about. I love to fish for and to eat red snapper. I have invested considerably to be able to do so and I have a deep interest in keeping this fishery healthy. As others have been stressing in their replies to you, I can tell you from experience that red snapper have been very easy to catch here in Texas. There does not seem to be any shortage of them. We who fish for them believe these restictions are not needed here in Texas. I can't speak for the abundance, or lack thereof, in Florida and maybe they are stressed there, but being as they are not pelagics, it seems ridiculous for the Feds to want to regulate them as such. If speckled trout were overfished in the Chesapeake Bay, should we restrict fishing for them in Laguna Madre? "I don't fish for them, so yeah, lets do it so there'll still be specks here if I decide to start."
> 
> This cavalier attitude of supporting restictions on an issue that doesn't affect you but will affect others is beyond my comprehension. I'll survive these restrictions if they come to pass (I teach in Texas public schools and it reminds me of _No Child Left_ _Behind_, the Feds imposing their will on state issues, and I'm surviving that), but I have friends running headboats who may not survive.


This is eloquently stated to say the least! I wish I could have worded my stance as well. I see there are no rebuttals from the CCA follewers on this one! I for one am not going to bury my head in the sand and would do the same if other brethern on this site had a similar plight with the "machine" as I, but with a different species. As I have stated we are all in this for the same reason, so I see no logic in division for any reason or species.


----------



## garrettryan (Oct 11, 2004)

Alex work your magic.. Me Gusta the SNAPPERS 



BEER4BAIT said:


> wahoo


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Snap Draggin said:


> This is eloquently stated to say the least! I wish I could have worded my stance as well. I see there are no rebuttals from the CCA follewers on this one! I for one am not going to bury my head in the sand and would do the same if other brethern on this site had a similar plight with the "machine" as I, but with a different species. As I have stated we are all in this for the same reason, so I see no logic in division for any reason or species.


OOps I misspelled followers. -5 Spelling!!!


----------



## A Salt Weapon (Jan 23, 2006)

A good point was mentioned earlier. Where WERE the marine dealers? where were the reporters? Where were ANY of the many offshore guides that work out of Sabine? All of these people could have had valuable input, and most have a monetary stake in the stes decision, yet they couldn't come and give an opinion? I beleive that most didn't know about it or didn't understand the ramifications and how they will impact their future.

PLEASE, get the word out. I found out about the meeting the night before, on 2cool. Otherwise I would have known nothing about the meeting until it was too late.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Dawson and Texas marine should be spanked unless they plan on pontoons taking over LOL


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

There are far more marine dealers than those two. They should all be spanked for not having at least one representative there from each dealership. Hopefully y'all can rally the troops to the remaining meetings. Everyone needs to e-mail letters pertaining to this issue to TP&WD as well. Art Morris was the main speaker at the one in Port Arthur. He gave me his card. It has his phone number and e-mail address on it. I am quite sure he will do the same there. Let's get the word out and have a strong voice in this. Hopefully we can yell louder than the collective CCA/enviro nut bags.


----------



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

Not that we necessarily have time for this but everyone keeps talking about "flawed" science supporting the Fed's position and their antidotal or observational experience with the abundance of red snapper in State waters but most times if you are going to prevail in these matters you need good science to support your position. Antidotal or observational analysis with an emotional appeal has an effect but probably not as good as a well defined rational analysis conducted with solid scientific methodology. So, why with all these wonderful marine biology programs in our fine State hasn't there been a good analysis of our State red snapper fishery?? I know TP&W has data but I haven't been privy to that information and perhaps someone might share that info. Ultimately, if it looks like TP&W is going to side with the Feds and CCA then requesting an independent objective analysis by a reputable institution within our fine State marine biology programs or another non-CCA non-commercial affiliated group might be a possible strategy. I would offer some of my own money to support such an effort if others thought it to be a possible strategy - just some food for thought. I am confident that if such an analysis were conducted it would support what we all know which is that we have an extremely healthy State fishery!! I'll see ya'll at the meeting.

David


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

TPWD knows that. The feds are counting the state water snapper in the TAC and their computer models are showing a decline, not so. They failed to do a hands on study which would take years to produce results. Simple solution to the whole mess push comercial fishing past the 9 mile line.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, The feds are using the 9 miles in their TAC to justify the shortening of the season? They have already set the season length based on that? Don't let them tell you it would make the season longer. 

Don't let the feds tell us what to do, in our water they gave to us more than 40 years ago 

Please come to the meeting


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Unbound said:


> Chicapesca, You say that you do not fish offshore and that this is not an issue that concerns you, yet you support what is close to a shutdown of the rec snapper fishery based on what you have acknowledged to be flawed science. Why?


Yes, well said sir. You are right, I guess it does concern me, however, I do not support the feds. I do not support a shutdown of the rec snapper fishery. I do, since I am not a scientist, and do not have as vested an interest in offshore fishing as I do inshore fishing, rely on the opinions of people I respect. Let it be known and on public record that I applaud you and anyone else that shows up at these meetings to voice your opinions. And, I do believe that no organization is beyond criticism. That is not what gets me, it is the generalized bashing that I don't care for. Yes, be mad at CCA for not standing up for what you believe in for whatever the reason, but CCA believe it or not is doing some good things. I have said what I wanted to say, so I'll try to gracefully step out and leave you guys to your opinions.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> This is eloquently stated to say the least! I wish I could have worded my stance as well. I see there are no rebuttals from the CCA follewers on this one! I for one am not going to bury my head in the sand and would do the same if other brethern on this site had a similar plight with the "machine" as I, but with a different species. As I have stated we are all in this for the same reason, so I see no logic in division for any reason or species.


Ah Mr. Draggin, that is because some of us go home and don't stay on the computer all evening. I detest sand in my hair for your information. I try to stay abreast of issues and pick and choose which ones I can afford to invest my time in. I hope the turnout is overflowing at the next meetings, and that everyone also lets CCA know how they feel.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> Mr. Draggin, I already have the support for my cause, my cause is the fishery first. I want the fishery to be healthy so if I do chose to fish it, it will be there. In fact, that is why GCCA was formed in the first place, the fishery was in trouble, and measures were taken to protect it. I do agree with some of what you say, but I don't agree with your general bashing of an organization that does a lot of good, despite what you think, or for that matter know.


Amen!

It amazes me how all the good that was heralded in the past goes to the forgotten abyss in the face of a disagreement. If you disagree... follow the plan laid out about going to Austin... if you can't make the meetings to voice your opinion... write letters!

Call the CCA and let your voice be heard there too... bashing them on a fishing board that they don't read is not effective... write TO the CCA!

Calling for a mass exodus of CCA based on an issue that most have never even been made aware of is not going to fix it. Secrecy and laying low on this issue is what's gotten it as far as it has! Action and being proactive will make the difference! Making your voice be heard is what it's gonna take!

You've got a great guy trying to pull a LARGE group together for this next meeting and though our views may not line up directly... I certainly applaud his efforts and I plan to be there to speak up... even as a CCA member... I think it's important to let them know they should NOT presume to speak for every member insinuating a united front when making decisions!

I don't think chicapesca's point was that they don't care... the point made was what I've said too... those who are affected by it were the ones who brought it to my attention as well. Because I'm a bay fishergal, had it been the bays I would be up at arms too... but I stand beside my offshore fishing brethren on issues that pertain to them as well, I just didn't know about it until now!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

baylvr said:


> Amen!
> 
> It amazes me how all the good that was heralded in the past goes to the forgotten abyss in the face of a disagreement. If you disagree... follow the plan laid out about going to Austin... if you can't make the meetings to voice your opinion... write letters!
> 
> ...


I have a problem with this. You are saying CCA is being bashed about a problem they are not aware of on a board they do not read, when in fact, they are taking a side against Texas fishermen. This board is read by mostly Texas fishermen and they are acutely aware of the issues facing them. That CCA National does not read or care about it, is on them not us. CCA has taken a position and that is what most people on this board have issue with.

Trust me that letters to Austin will and have been written and also that so long as CCA maintains their curent alliances that we will fight them tooth and nail.

As for all that has been done good in the past, I will agree, but this is the present and CCA now has strange and disturbing bedfellows.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I have a problem with this. You are saying CCA is being bashed about a problem they are not aware of on a board they do not read, when in fact, they are taking a side against Texas fishermen. This board is read by mostly Texas fishermen and they are acutely aware of the issues facing them. That CCA National does not read or care about it, is on them not us. CCA has taken a position and that is what most people on this board have issue with.
> 
> Trust me that letters to Austin will and have been written and also that so long as CCA maintains their curent alliances that we will fight them tooth and nail.
> 
> As for all that has been done good in the past, I will agree, but this is the present and CCA now has strange and disturbing bedfellows.


No... you misunderstood what I meant... or I wrote it causing a misunderstanding.

What I'm saying is most CCA members are not aware of the CCA stamp of approval being placed on this issue with them siding with the Feds. It simply has NOT been discussed in any meetings I personally have attended. I learned about this issue while reading this board... and have been reading what other members here have suggested to me to educate myself on the matter.

I'm not taking a stance against what anyone is fighting FOR. The only stance I'm taking is against the proposal of a mass exodus from CCA. This is based on someone's opinion the same as my staying WITH CCA is based on mine.

I'm also saying that with the reading I've done and the posts I've read... I intend to let my voice be heard to CCA as well. But I won't give up on the main issue they stand for... and that's conservation.


----------



## fuelish1 (Aug 3, 2004)

Nothing T's me off more than the fact that the commercial industry gets more and more and more and we the recreational fishermen get less and less and less...yea, WE are NOT the problem.....SHEESH! I guess money talks.......


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

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.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

I really think we have made our point on CCA, and I am totally on board. Let's move our focus to the real enemy, and that is Pew Trust, Environmental Defense, Ocean Conservancy and Gulf Restoration Network!!! When it is all said and done, these are the guys that will screw us.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

You are correct that there is more than one "enemy" of the recreational fisherman. But, the CCA has a very substantial influence on decisions made by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department because of past and future contributions to the TPWD. TPWD may notice that a huge exodus from CCA would affect their future fundings from CCA. 

We need to make it clear to CCA about our stance on this issue.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

You need to understand that there is ONE enemy, and that is the enviros. Trust me, CCA and the commercials are not our friends at all but we need to focus on the task at hand and leave those losers in our dust.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Have you written to the CCA and told them your stance? Have you informed TPWD of your stance?


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

My near term focus is to get a point out for the current meeting events that the TPWD are conducting with the public. You are correct...we need to think about the bigger picture. ...one step at a time....


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

No I haven't. I just developed this stance. I plan to...it's worth the fight.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

baylvr said:


> Have you written to the CCA and told them your stance? Have you informed TPWD of your stance?


Yes to both... for 2 years running.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Well you gotta stand for something. I applaud whatever effort you put forth other than touting it on a fishing board. Get up there to the meeting Tuesday night and make yourself heard! Get a petition together and have people sign it and go to Austin and present it! Be proactive!

Have you ever participated in a Kid Fish at the Texas Sea Center? Have you ever participated in the program to set the fingerlings from a hatchery loose in the bays? Have you ever seen the faces of the young men and women who have received a scholarship from CCA and are now volunteering their time with the CCA while they attend college?

That's the "good stuff". That is what I'm sticking with it for!


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

baylvr said:


> Have you written to the CCA and told them your stance? Have you informed TPWD of your stance?


Time and time again. I have had several conversations with CCA brass to no avail. I have also sent numerous letters, emails and phone calls to TPWD, NMFS, and senators and congressman. I have also attended meetings and have spread the word to everyone I could. I can and will do more in the future.

What have you done?


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

manintheboat said:


> Time and time again. I have had several conversations with CCA brass to no avail. I have also sent numerous letters, emails and phone calls to TPWD, NMFS, and senators and congressman. I have also attended meetings and have spread the word to everyone I could. I can and will do more in the future.
> 
> What have you done?


I volunteer my time as the Treasurer of the Brazoria County CCA. I pick up trash with my neices from the beaches when we visit and from the bays when we fish. I participate every year in the crab trap cleanup effort in our bays. etc... etc... etc...

I get OUT there and WORK to make a difference for what I believe in.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

baylvr said:


> Have you ever participated in a Kid Fish at the Texas Sea Center? Have you ever participated in the program to set the fingerlings from a hatchery loose in the bays? Have you ever seen the faces of the young men and women who have received a scholarship from CCA and are now volunteering their time with the CCA while they attend college?
> 
> That's the "good stuff". That is what I'm sticking with it for!


No that is not good stuff. That is great stuff. But all of the scholarships, fingerlings and happy faces of youngsters are not going to erase their sorry record on fisheries, especially as of late. In balance, I agree that they do some very good things, but they do some very bad things, and that is mainly what I am talking about. They have a huge membership of recreational fishermen, and they at least owe a little bit to those people. It is not right that they stick a knife in their back, scholarships, fingerlings and happy kids notwithstanding.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

baylvr said:


> I volunteer my time as the Treasurer of the Brazoria County CCA. I pick up trash with my neices from the beaches when we visit and from the bays when we fish. I participate every year in the crab trap cleanup effort in our bays. etc... etc... etc...
> 
> I get OUT there and WORK to make a difference for what I believe in.


that is good stuff, I really appreciate it and it sounds like you are truly part of the solution, not the problem. My beef is with the leadership of CCA. There are some very good folks in the rank and file of that org., and you seem to be one of the better ones and I sincerely applaud you for that.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

manintheboat said:


> No that is not good stuff. That is great stuff. But all of the scholarships, fingerlings and happy faces of youngsters are not going to erase their sorry record on fisheries, especially as of late. In balance, I agree that they do some very good things, but they do some very bad things, and that is mainly what I am talking about. They have a huge membership of recreational fishermen, and they at least owe a little bit to those people. It is not right that they stick a knife in their back, scholarships, fingerlings and happy kids notwithstanding.


Those are my feelings exactly.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Right now I can't say I'm happy with the leadership either. I feel they've kinda dropped the ball on keeping us worker bees informed. Plus I simply cannot stand for someone to presume to speak for me simply because I choose to be a part of the organization.

However... I intend to be heard from the inside! I choose to participate so that I feel I have the God given right to speak my mind about what the organization does! I firmly believe in what the founders of the organization set out to do... and believe it or not... there still are those who follow my same line of thinking!

Do they make mistakes? You bet... but the bottom line for me is the good they accomplish! Is there room for improvement? Absolutely! But I hope to be part of the catalyst for improvement!

But the big dogz of CCA don't read this fishing board is my point! Everyone has made fantastic points for AND against the CCA... TELL *THEM*!! That's all I'm saying! Make them accountable to you for what you feel they've done wrong! Let them know by flooding them with letters, emails, petitions, phone calls. I know you've DONE this... continue to do it! PERSISTANCE is the key!


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

baylvr said:


> Right now I can't say I'm happy with the leadership either. I feel they've kinda dropped the ball on keeping us worker bees informed. Plus I simply cannot stand for someone to presume to speak for me simply because I choose to be a part of the organization.
> 
> However... I intend to be heard from the inside! I choose to participate so that I feel I have the God given right to speak my mind about what the organization does! I firmly believe in what the founders of the organization set out to do... and believe it or not... there still are those who follow my same line of thinking!
> 
> ...


I have told them time and time again. I am honestly done with them. I appreciate the fact that people like you are in that org. I really hope you can put a bee in their collective bonnets over this. The membership really needs to stand up and it sounds like you are on the path.

Thanks

Jeff


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

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.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

ttt....


----------



## 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 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.
> 
> ...


I agree... but there ARE still those members who are working based on the old principles from the founders... who DO still believe in the plight of the recreational fishermen... heck we ARE recreational fishermen! Attend the meetings... voice your opposition... or come up with a better solution... but just WORK for what you believe in!

And I just gotta say.... "_provides grandma with a new grandpa, (may the old grandpa rest in peace),_"... that's funny right there... if you don't laugh at that you need to get the h*!! outta here cuz that's _funny_ right there!!


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

Thank you....


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

baylvr said:


> I agree... but there ARE still those members who are working based on the old principles from the founders... who DO still believe in the plight of the recreational fishermen... heck we ARE recreational fishermen! Attend the meetings... voice your opposition... or come up with a better solution... but just WORK for what you believe in!


I have a simple solution. It is the same solution that GCCA was so succesful in saving the redfish. Close off commercial harvest. Stick to what they have done in the past. Heck, you can't catch redfish in federal waters but you can in Texas. WE NEED THE SAME ATTITUDE WITH RED SNAPPER. They know what solution would work, thus they should further regulate the commercial industry. I bet if they closed redfishing in Texas waters they wouldn't hear the end of it.


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Email that very opinion to CCA EVERY day... bombard every email listed on their site with that opposition... make yourself heard! We ALL should! The members who have paid money especially need to speak up!! They're speaking for us collectively like everyone in the organization agreed to it! Let them know you DO NOT agree! Be united!!


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

ttt....


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> I see your point and I fully understand all the yada yada yada about healthy fisheries; however the Snapper fishery in Texas is EXTREMELY healthy. I can assure you that it is no problem to go out and limit easily. In fact I could easily catch 100 or more Snapper a day. That is the point. If it ain't broke then don't fix it, and for goodness sake don't break it!


This is me clapping for you and your 100 snaps. Now please, put a sock in it.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

parkerb said:


> This is me clapping for you and your 100 snaps. Now please, put a sock in it.


This is me clapping for CCA.. 100 no 80 no 50... no 30... no FU! Traitors...


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> This is me clapping for CCA.. 100 no 80 no 50... no 30... no FU! Traitors...


10, 6, 5, 2, ZERO!


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

parkerb said:


> This is me clapping for you and your 100 snaps. Now please, put a sock in it.


Put a sock int it??!! :rotfl: Maybe you should go and have a visit at MY thread. It is the one calling for an exodus of CCA. With that said,I think you know what you can do with that sock.


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

parkerb said:


> This is me clapping for you and your 100 snaps. Now please, put a sock in it.


This has got to be the most idiotic comment from any of these CCA threads so far. Congratulations parkerb you're a real winner.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

This is me clapping for Calmday, LMAO


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

BEER4BAIT said:


> This is me clapping for Calmday, LMAO


I think that one deserves a standing ovation!!!


----------



## A Salt Weapon (Jan 23, 2006)

*Boat Show-Down*

Well, since I started this thread, I thought I'd tell about my spirited convo w/ the "paid" CCA rep at the Boat Show...
I walked up to his booth and he said "Would you like to sign up?" I said, " I used to be a member, but, I'm glad I'm not now and I will NEVER be again, because of CCA's position on the snapper regulations". The fight was on! Here's a quick summation of our lengthy _chat. _
He pointed out that the snapper are in serious trouble and we all must do out part. I disagreed with his being in trouble part, but told him that even if it was, the problem is not the recreational fishermen and reducing our catch to 2 is not the answer. "What's YOUR solution" he asked I said "The same one I've had since they went from 10 to 7,...get rid of the size limit, because every time you increase it another inch, you also increase the mortallity rate as people kill fish trying to get that fish that's legal." He looked puzzled, so I said, "Imagine if the limit was 1 fish, 30" min. Everyone in this building could go offshore and a handfull would catch a limit, but THOUSANDS would be killed in the process. So, what did we accomplish by increasing the limit? More killing (Stupid)." I also pointed out that right now, on Toledo bend, you're _required_ to keep every crappie you catch, regardless of size, (up to your limit) because at this time of year they are mostly caught in deep water, and to release them would kill them. The same idea applies offshore.
He told me "CCA doesn't think that the Commercials or Recs are the problem", so I argued that it makes no sense to cut ours in half if we aren't the problem. He only replied that we have to be willing to do our part too, if we want other areas to cut back to help the fisheries. I disagreed again, stating that "the studies are not regional, that although Florida snapper are in trouble, it doesn't mean that Texas' are. That to reduce limits everywhere would make as much sense as cutting back specks in Lake Sabine because there's a shortage in Laguna Madre". When asked where the Feds get their data, he said they go on party boats etc. and do surveys. I told him that "those studies aren't that accurate, because you can fish the same area 2 days in a row and get very different results. That doesn't mean that it's better or worse, but that the fish simply moved." At one point he said that CCA isn't concerned with recreational fishermen's desire, that "they aren't here to make for better fishing, just strictly conversation", to which I pointed out that "they are at the Boat Show, going after the sportfishermen's $$$, but they aren't willing to get input from those fishermen to see how they want that money spent." 
He finally admitted that he was a member, but he's really only there because he's a paid promoter and he get's his salary by doing shows etc., and signing people up.

In closing, I told him to brace himself, because the CCA's about to see a decline in membership like they've never experienced (and I really beleive that).

Sorry for the long post, but actually there's a whole lot more that was said, just had to cut it short.

Disclaimer:I am probably inaccurate in some of my info, but I'm pretty darned close on most of it.


----------



## shanker (Jan 15, 2006)

Kudos to you, A Salt Weapon.

greenie coming your way


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

In closing, I told him to brace himself, because the CCA's about to see a decline in membership like they've never experienced (and I really beleive that).[/QUOTE]


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

A Salt Weapon said:


> In closing, I told him to brace himself, because the CCA's about to see a decline in membership like they've never experienced (and I really beleive that).
> 
> Man I sure hope you are right about that.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Snap Dragin*

Don't kid yourself, if you really think they will that many members your living in a dream world. For everyone they lose, which won't be many, there will one or two to take their place. Gater


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

Snap Draggin said:


> I see your point and I fully understand all the yada yada yada about healthy fisheries; however the Snapper fishery in Texas is EXTREMELY healthy. I can assure you that it is no problem to go out and limit easily. In fact I could easily catch 100 or more Snapper a day. That is the point. If it ain't broke then don't fix it, and for goodness sake don't break it!


Man there is no way you can use the'if it ain't broke don;t fix it' theory here..what,you gonna wait till there are no more snapper and then say...hhmm man i remeber when we could go out and catch snapper?...uh oh! hey! we beter try and fix it now.Yea it's healthy you ever heard of preventive maintenaince? kinda like when YOR..LOL..car is acting funny.do you stop and try to figure it out? or,do you keep driving until it stops and leaves you stranded on the highway?!!it's that kind of thinking that got the species in trouble in the first place.maybe you need to just back up and punt ten yards or so.


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

..........


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

FISHGUTS said:


> Man there is no way you can use the'if it ain't broke don;t fix it' theory here..what,you gonna wait till there are no more snapper and then say...hhmm man i remeber when we could go out and catch snapper?...uh oh! hey! we beter try and fix it now.Yea it's healthy you ever heard of preventive maintenaince? kinda like when YOR..LOL..car is acting funny.do you stop and try to figure it out? or,do you keep driving until it stops and leaves you stranded on the highway?!!it's that kind of thinking that got the species in trouble in the first place.maybe you need to just back up and punt ten yards or so.


So are you saying that the Snapper are in a bad way as the NMFS states?


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

No,i'm just saying why not take care of the resource? as many people that are out there these days,it's not going to take care of it's self.Why beat it in the ground then worry about it later? just speaking my mind ,don't want to shart in somebody's cornflakes or anything.I would love for my kids to be able to catch them in tweenty years.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

FISHGUTS said:


> No,i'm just saying why not take care of the resource? as many people that are out there these days,it's not going to take care of it's self.Why beat it in the ground then worry about it later? just speaking my mind ,don't want to shart in somebody's cornflakes or anything.I would love for my kids to be able to catch them in tweenty years.


I agree, but that does not mean I want the recreational fishermen to be punished AGAIN. There are good if not great numbers of Snapper in Texas waters as well as federal waters out from the coast of Texas. Stop ALL commercial fishing for them. They are the ones raping the sea. Let them clean up their own mess for once. Recreational fishermen are ethical and care about the resource for the most part where the commercial vermin see only the bottom line.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Fishguts

If in fact the Snapper are in trouble (as you seem to think) or have been told then its not the recreational guy who can fix it by reducing the catch to 2 per trip. The recs didnt cause the failure (if their is any) lets face it CCA and their lawsuit resulted in allowing the commercials to fish year round on the honor system and recs to cut back to two fish and less fishing days.... Whats wrong with that picture. Lets put the blame where it belongs. Recs have paid their dues too many times. Lets get our heads out of the sand..

Charlie


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

FISHGUTS said:


> No,i'm just saying why not take care of the resource? as many people that are out there these days,it's not going to take care of it's self.Why beat it in the ground then worry about it later? just speaking my mind ,don't want to shart in somebody's cornflakes or anything.I would love for my kids to be able to catch them in tweenty years.


The recreational sector, with a closed season and 4 fish limit was doing well more than its part in helping the fishery rebuild (sounds like preventative maintenence to me). Factoring in the new regulations of an even shorter season and 2 fish limits, I would say that we are doing not only our part, but everyone elses part too, and that includes having the state regulations as they are right now. In case you haven't noticed there are other ways snapper die, and that starts with the commercial sector. NMFS, in their brilliance, has given them a 12 month fishing season on the honor system. All they have to do is underreport their catch and circumvent the VMS and they can pile up dead snapper at will. In the meantime you rail against us wanting to catch our 4 fish in state waters like we are the problem. Jeez.

I will say it again, the state water catch is already factored into the TAC (according to Mont, who sits on the advisory board at the Gulf Council and knows a thing or two about this) so changing the state regs is a waste of time and not needed.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Aint this fun ??

Charlie


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

So are you boycotting CCA AND STAR as a whole or just the offshore division? I think CCA is a prime org. for the bay system i would only think they are the same for blue waters.


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

CHARLIE said:


> Aint this fun ??
> 
> Charlie


About as much fun as listening to Kenny G play while shopping at Kroger.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

that must make you a pretty big Kenny G fan then, I guess.


----------



## parkerb (Oct 19, 2004)

*sterno*



manintheboat said:


> that must make you a pretty big Kenny G fan then, I guess.


Que? Please, don't cut me anymore with your sharp wit. Don't think my bruised ego can handle another round from the likes of you and Snappy.


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

manintheboat said:


> The recreational sector, with a closed season and 4 fish limit was doing well more than its part in helping the fishery rebuild (sounds like preventative maintenence to me). Factoring in the new regulations of an even shorter season and 2 fish limits, I would say that we are doing not only our part, but everyone elses part too, and that includes having the state regulations as they are right now. In case you haven't noticed there are other ways snapper die, and that starts with the commercial sector. NMFS, in their brilliance, has given them a 12 month fishing season on the honor system. All they have to do is underreport their catch and circumvent the VMS and they can pile up dead snapper at will. In the meantime you rail against us wanting to catch our 4 fish in state waters like we are the problem. Jeez.
> 
> I will say it again, the state water catch is already factored into the TAC (according to Mont, who sits on the advisory board at the Gulf Council and knows a thing or two about this) so changing the state regs is a waste of time and not needed.


Did i say 'hey Manintheboat your the problem'? no i did not! so stop taking it like i just walked to your house and cussed you right in the face....LIKE I SAID i'm simply speaking my mind.Turn up your Kenny G and take it easy..LOL


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

no, but you seem to be implying that we are not already looking after the resource. My point is that the regulations we already had were doing it on our part. Nothing personal.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

The lawsuit had NOTHING to do with the IFQ system for the comms, year round fishing, or the vessel monitoring. All that happened before a decision was announced in the lawsuit. 

And, as y'll will recall, in the lawsuit, the Judge determined that the regulators were not following the law. CCA was a party to the suit. 

I say, good work CCA. Getting the regulators to follow the law and recover the fish stocks within the time mandated by law is a good thing. How thats now twisted around to be some sort of evil act is beyond me. Its the law.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Darn Ernest, you've made sense and now they'll all be confused.


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

Hey! it's ole Ernest,where you been?...


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

FISHGUTS said:


> So are you boycotting CCA AND STAR as a whole or just the offshore division? I think CCA is a prime org. for the bay system i would only think they are the same for blue waters.


I am saying boycott them PERIOD! They are after the offshore fishermen now, you might be next. That "just because it does not affect me" attitude may come back and bite you on the arse later on.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Holding my tongue on all this while to same old tired stuff gets revisited. "Oh, here is a great idea. Make snapper a gamefish." Like we have not beaten that dead horse a time or two. 

Just love the way this whole thing has now evolved. From comms are raping snapper, and we need more enforcement - to - there are more than enough snapper and the LAST thing we need is a tool like identical seasons and bag limits to help stop some of the "winter state water liars." 

Its like a Lyndon LaRouse pep rally or something. So, truly, I have been enjoying the show.


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

*dude i think my.......choooooooooo!*

Thats it! i'm selling everthing just bring the dough.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Ernest said:


> Holding my tongue on all this while to same old tired stuff gets revisited. "Oh, here is a great idea. Make snapper a gamefish." Like we have not beaten that dead horse a time or two.
> 
> Just love the way this whole thing has now evolved. From comms are raping snapper, and we need more enforcement - to - there are more than enough snapper and the LAST thing we need is a tool like identical seasons and bag limits to help stop some of the "winter state water liars."
> 
> Its like a Lyndon LaRouse pep rally or something. So, truly, I have been enjoying the show.


Let me get this right. Are you saying state water Snapper fishermen are liars? Or are you saying that all Snapper fishermen are liars when we say there are plenty of them?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Darn Ernest, you've made sense and now they'll all be confused.


After reading some of the insane garbage you have posted I strongly believe confusion is a state of mind for you!!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Ernest said:


> Just love the way this whole thing has now evolved. From comms are raping snapper, and we need more enforcement - to - there are more than enough snapper and the LAST thing we need is a tool like identical seasons and bag limits to help stop some of the "winter state water liars."
> 
> Its like a Lyndon LaRouse pep rally or something. So, truly, I have been enjoying the show.


Since the TPWD stance of allowing every fisherman, commercial or not, 4 fish seems to be working better than the NMFS regulations... would you get behind them adopting ours?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

No, what I am saying, and as has been posted on this board previously, is that the same season & bag is primarily designed to prevent illegal fishing - be it shorts or excessive numbers caught in Fed. water and claimed to be state water fish at the dock OR during the closed season, snapper taken from Fed. waters yet claimed to be from state water. Thats the big reason. Make it black or white - no question about where they were caught. Ease of enforcement. 

I kinda thought we had all seen this with our own eyes. Know I have. Guys boxing 15's 40 miles off during the summer, or guys boxing snaps in Fed. water while AJ fishing in the winter. People have even come on this board and annouced their intention to engage in that sort of activity. 

Now with respect to numbers, show me the data regarding populations. Your opinion or mine is simply irrelevant. And, as we have debated to death (as if there is any debate), the law is regulate based upon science, not rump opinions. Don't like it, lobby to change the law the regulators are working under in managing this fishery. 

And, as I and others have said countless times, if you don't believe the regulators' numbers, put together a valid study, show otherwise, have it peer reviewed, and you are home free. Til then, all this "I think" or "I know" is merely an opinion that, as well it should, goes into the circular file with the regulators. No debate about that. Further, it would be contrary to the law for the Fed. regulators to rely upon simple "opinions" as to population in place of science. Again, there is no debate or question about it. 

What do you mean - 4 fish seems to be working better? How so? More like, we like it better. 

But, I will bow out. I have simply observed to this point, and I was only moved to post by the outrageous claim that the CCA lawsuit got us IFQ's and year round fishing for the comms.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Getting our own private studies is exactly why I oppose the TPWD caving in to the Feds. As for the "4 fish works better" question... how can you say that it does not? We have a thriving state water snapper fishery here. You have a study to cite that has concentrated on Texas statuatory waters? I doubt you do but would like to see it if so. I am tired of the "status quo' science and the resulting Gulfwide regulations myself.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Ernest said:


> I kinda thought we had all seen this with our own eyes. Know I have. Guys boxing 15's 40 miles off during the summer, or guys boxing snaps in Fed. water while AJ fishing in the winter. People have even come on this board and annouced their intention to engage in that sort of activity.


Once again, that is an enforcement problem. I don't care what rules are enacted, there are a certain percentage who will not follow them. You think altering our state regulations will change that? Maybe you should have called the Feds when you witnessed it with TX#'s...


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

Ernest, I have always respected your opinion and the way you present them. Whether I have agreed with you or not, your reasoning and presentation have always been admirable. I agree that most of us who are against the proposal to align state to federal regs are mere amateurs voicing our opinion and, as a result, have come up with a hodgepodge of reasons to keep the status quo, resulting in a defense that often is contradictory and may appear to be throwing the chit into the fan in hopes that some of it sticks. Yet, I believe that most who want to continue the year-long state fishery for recs sincerely believe that the fishery can handle it. I am only offering my opinion based on the ease that I seem to be able to catch red snapper out of SPI. If I thought that snapper couldn't handle it, I would readily agree to new restrictions. I know that my response to TDPW will be focused on the fact that if their (the State's) science shows that the population of state snapper is healthy enough to allow a continuation of a four fish limit, it is not only their right, but their duty to mange this resource in a way that will benefit the long term interests of the people of Texas in addition to the fishery's well-being. Managing this local fishery as a Gulf-wide population seems absurd. Closing this fishery to ease enforcement of federal interests is not the state's responsibility. Yes there are hypocrites in the sportfishing community who will cry about commercials and then abuse the disparity of Fed/State regs to keep illegal fish, but is the solution to further restrict the rights of the law-abiding citizens of this state? I understand that you have addressed a number of inconsistencies that have been posted on this thread, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of your post seems to be that the state should relinquish management of what they believe is a healthy fishery so some sportfishers will not violate Federal waters. If that is your position, I strongly disagree with your reasons.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*Don't insult me.*



Pocboy said:


> Darn Ernest, you've made sense and now *they*'ll all be confused.


Pocboy, are you questioning my intelligence? Keep things civil.


----------



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

I repectfully disagree with your position but I appreciate it from an enforcement position. It reminds me of the 55 mile/hr blanket Federally "imposed" speed limit on the states that some of us experienced. It really didn't do much for the ultimate goal of saving lives despite being rooted in good intentions but it definitely compromised commerce/business. It took approximately 10 years to understand this issue. Several things were learned during this period:

1. A crash at 55 was as deadly as a crash at 75 "bad science"
2. People who break the law - break the law
3. Mortality was not significantly affected
4. Commerce was significantly affected
5. Gasoline consumption was not significantly affected
6. Enforcement was consistant through the nation
7. The Federal government screwed up but had "good" intentions - the "Road to He11 is paved with good intentions"

So, as I drive down to my boat in Surfside at 70 miles an hour so I can spend much money on the pursuit of red snapper which I catch in OUR waters - I really hope that someone in front of me isn't still driving 55 and that I can catch and keep 4 fish in OUR vital waters.

Respectfully,
AGF



Ernest said:


> No, what I am saying, and as has been posted on this board previously, is that the same season & bag is primarily designed to prevent illegal fishing - be it shorts or excessive numbers caught in Fed. water and claimed to be state water fish at the dock OR during the closed season, snapper taken from Fed. waters yet claimed to be from state water. Thats the big reason. Make it black or white - no question about where they were caught. Ease of enforcement.
> 
> I kinda thought we had all seen this with our own eyes. Know I have. Guys boxing 15's 40 miles off during the summer, or guys boxing snaps in Fed. water while AJ fishing in the winter. People have even come on this board and annouced their intention to engage in that sort of activity.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Unbound, thank you for your kind comments.

I was not attempting to present a position, per se. I further don't doubt the sincerity of _most_ of the posters. But, I keep reminding myself being sincere is not the test or the hurdle to be crossed in managing the fishery.

I was merely trying to explain, against this backdrop of what appears to be a mob mentality of lynch the CCA or remember the Alamo, the basic reason for the contemplated change of policy.

As I understand the deal, the state wardens are underfunded and simply spread too thin. I don't doubt that one bit, but I can't claim to have reviewed their must recent activity logs or budget requests. I do know that the CCA has been particularly active in supporting and contributing to the wardens various boats and equipment to assist in their efforts.

I also know, without a doubt, that this Texas gamefish designation is a dead end.

Whether the state believes this is a healthy fishery or not, I have not a clue. I have not seen any significant state specific data, and I would wager thats because the fish move in and out a state water with the temps and storms and just chasing bait/avoiding being bait themselves. I do kinda doubt there could be a situation over a long term where its a real healthy state fishery and a real poor Fed. fishery just across the line because the fish don't care about any jurisdictional issues or arbitrary lines. I also tend to doubt that it would be possible for the Feds to manage the fishery if, once the fish cross this imaginary line, they are hammered by state anglers.

The comment - its so few fish it don't make a difference in the TAC (my paraphrase) - cuts both ways. So few fish its of little economic benefit to keep the season open. Its so few fish very few anglers will be adversely impacted.

All the while, I can appreciate the ease of enforcement under the new deal. Any recs with a red snapper out of season are busted. Plain and simple. Only issue really is identifying the fish.

Generally, I would tend to agree with different bags/season for different locations. Problem with that is Texas will come up on the short end of the stick relative to a bunch of more eastern states because we have more of the shrimping pressure. Head down that road, and it could be 4 fish in Alabama, and 1 fish in Texas (as an example only). Many would suggest (and Fed. regulators have said this to me more than once) careful what you wish for in dividing the Gulf cause the big loser will be Texas. But I generally agree, different type of fishery. Upper coast is shallow, less depth related release mortality but greater overall pressure - fishing and shrimping.

If I have a position at all, its make decisions based upon economic impact. In that regard, the pecking order is clearly recs, guides, then comms. If the resource is excessively pressured or over fished, eliminate or reduce comm. TAC, divide out the guides TAC from the true recs TAC, and manage towards getting as many recs as possible on the water as often as possible. True recs are the real money/economic benefit, but we capture a small fraction of the TAC.

Of course, thats not a real popular idea with the either the comms, the guides, or folks living inland without blue water boats. Further, the law does not permit a pure economic allocation of the resources, so a change in law would likely be required. Pending that, we should be raising money and buying comm's out (with a small tweak in the regs/law). SCA type deal.

From what I have heard about the current situation (whether its true or not I could only speculate) is that the Fed. is asking the state to change, and if that don't happen, they will exercise their ability to mandate change. They have the overall jurisdiction, and there have been a bunch of complaints from our counterparts to the East about (1) divide the GOM and drop the hammer on Texas, why are we to subsidize their fishery, (2) give us 9 miles like Texas, and (3) its not fair Texas gets to fish year round, they are scalping our tourists.

HP - I don't carry a sat phone on near shore trips, cell phone is worthless, and last time I used the VHF to report what I believed to be criminal activity, it got real ugly, real quick. Real ugly.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

The question everyone needs to ask, Ernest, is why 2010 was selected as "the year". Add to that the fact that shrimping is at a historical low, since before either one of us was born.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Unbound, maybe I should have included a little smiley face with one eye winking. Tom


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

Ernest,

You made the same error you accused other posters of making in your last post. You stated, "I have not seen any specific state data, and I would wager that is because the fish move in and out of state water with the temps and storms and just chasing bait/avoiding being bait themselves."

How do you know this movement occurs? Have you put on scuba gear and gone down there to see this mythical migration? Have you had a peer review of your study? Or is this just your *opinion*?

I've caught tagged snapper and turned in the data to Texas Tech. When they responded I learned that the fish had been caught and tagged exactly 12 months prior and hadn't moved 100 yards! Snapper movements are very minimal. Thus the term "reef fish."

Furthermore, you can't rely on the Fed studies as being accurate because they don't count all the fish. Are snapper on artificial reefs counted? Why not? Because certain groups don't want the true results. That would be damaging to their "agenda."

I don't fish in northern Texas so I am unaware of Federal water numbers, but down here in SPI the federal water snapper were like cockroaches this season. They were everywhere! On small boats you could pick up a 3-4 person limit in less than 30 minutes without tossing an anchor, everytime. A headboat could limit out in maybe an hour on many days...except the Osprey. Snapper are not endangered like it is being portrayed! And yes, that is my *opinion.* And yes, I started a sentence with "and."


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

2wahoo I can provide you 2 studies that show 76-99% of tagged snapper in were recovered within 2km of thier release point. There isn't a migration period TPW stated it today. They also said our stocks are going up based on assessment data they have. The numbers just are not increasing fast enough to meet Magnuson's timeline.


----------



## Farmer Jim (May 21, 2004)

2wahoo said:


> And yes, I started a sentence with "and."


And that is perfectly acceptable grammar. And you also can start a sentence with "but".angelsm

But ending a sentence with a preposition is a completely different deal. sad3sm


----------



## Geaux Deep (Feb 13, 2005)

*It's about the fish*

Originally posted by - Earnest

"As I understand the deal, the state wardens are underfunded and simply spread too thin. I don't doubt that one bit, but I can't claim to have reviewed their must recent activity logs or budget requests. I do know that the CCA has been particularly active in supporting and contributing to the wardens various boats and equipment to assist in their efforts. "

The underfunding of state wardens is not a good reason to turn over the management of Red Snapper in Texas waters to the Feds. I believe the track record of state management verses federal management speaks for itself. I see a state warden in state waters from time to time but I have never seen a federal warden even in federal water.

Just last year here in South Texas the trout went under a TPWD regional management plan. The South Texas region has a limit of 5 trout and just North of Port Mansfield the limit is 10. What happens when a boat launches at Port Mansfield travels up the land-cut to a fish camp on the ICW for the week end? Can they catch 10 per day or 5 per day if their take out point is Port Mansfield? 

Why was this regionalization implemented? It was implemented because the data collected on various year classes of trout dictated that something needed to be done. This change was done without regard to the state wardens being underfunded.

I know that the state waters that I fish out of Port Mansfield currently hold an excellent population of 8 -12lb Red Snapper. This is not rig fishing but hard bottom and rock fishing.

My way of thinking is if TPWD can reduce the limit on trout and implement a regional management plan. Then why not increase the limit on Red Snapper and implement a regional management plan say South of LAT 27.5 and North of LAT 26.

Just my $0.02 - RH


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Good ole Ernest is back... Oh well there goes the neighborhood. 

Re turning over enforcement to feds... I think there are about 3 federal game wardens that have to enforce the entire Gulf. That wont get it. Most all enforcement done around Texas is by our guys. 

Charlie


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Geaux Deep said:


> The underfunding of state wardens is not a good reason to turn over the management of Red Snapper in Texas waters to the Feds. I believe the track record of state management verses federal management speaks for itself. I see a state warden in state waters from time to time but I have never seen a federal warden even in federal water.
> 
> Just last year here in South Texas the trout went under a TPWD regional management plan. The South Texas region has a limit of 5 trout and just North of Port Mansfield the limit is 10. What happens when a boat launches at Port Mansfield travels up the land-cut to a fish camp on the ICW for the week end? Can they catch 10 per day or 5 per day if their take out point is Port Mansfield?
> 
> ...


Good points. I mentioned p 98 and 99 in our Texas Fishing Rules and Regulation manual in my letter to TPWD as a reason to have different red snapper regulation from the feds. P 98 and 99 directly address this, so I directly quoted them.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


> The question everyone needs to ask, Ernest, is why 2010 was selected as "the year". Add to that the fact that shrimping is at a historical low, since before either one of us was born.


Poor Ernest. I think he is misguided by all the CCA and NMFS rhetoric and propaganda as are others on here. I have to say that I DO agree with the avitar. That is about the only thing I agree with when I see that name on this thread or any other.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Wait, you guys are disputing that snapper move in closer in the Winter and then move out in the Summer? Seriously? Thats what y'll are disputing? 

Migratory is a defined term. The mere fact they are classified as migratory means they don't fit the definition, not that they don't move. No one is claiming they migrate, as that term is normally defined. 

12 months later? Huh? Like caught in June of one year and then found there in June of the next? Or caught in Dec. of one year then found again in Dec. of the next? How would that fact be contrary to the idea they move closer to shore in the Winter and then back out in the Summer? 

I am not attempting to express any opinion in order to justify support or opposition to any currently considered state water plan. Not at all. I am merely describing the data and studies I have seen and describing the justifications offered for the potential change. Thus, I am confused as to how I can be accused of some sort of mistake (other than posting on this Lyndon LaRouse type thread). 

Its not turning over enforcement to the Fed. Its making consistent limits/size/season so enforcement - whether by feds or the state - will be easier.

Mont - I know the answer, and I know you know the answer. So, whats the point?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Ernest said:


> Wait, you guys are disputing that snapper move in closer in the Winter and then move out in the Summer? Seriously? Thats what y'll are disputing?
> 
> Migratory is a defined term. The mere fact they are classified as migratory means they don't fit the definition, not that they don't move. No one is claiming they migrate, as that term is normally defined.
> 
> ...


I think you said it all in one word....CONFUSED. If you are in favor of being consistent then why not pressure the feds to raise the limit to be consistent with the state regs? Especially when there is no evidence that the stocks are in the shape they are claiming they are in waters off the Texas coast.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Last one, and I am done. This is not a criminal trial. This whole "no evidence" issue reveals a complete misunderstanding of the whole process.

The Feds regulate based upon the science they have, not the science they don't have. The science they have leads arguably to certain conclusions. If one disagrees with those conclusions, the answer is putting together more/different science or showing them, with their existing science, an alternative and equally plusable conclusion.

Merely claiming the regulator's sceince is not perfect, not good, not complete, or whatever misses the whole point. The law and regs specifically require them - the Feds - to regulate based upon the sceince they HAVE - good, imperfect, or somewhere in between.

I appreciate the argument that the last stock assessment is potentially flawed. Again, that is not lost on me. Our only disagreement is how to address those flaws. I continue to maintain there are only two avenues: (i) change the laws, or (ii) come forward with better science.

Merely denying that they have any evidence is a waste of time. The Feds have some. No one can honestly dispute that. Further, the Feds have the right, as mentioned earlier by me, and detailed in another post on the Board, to cram limits/seasons/sizes down on a state. Thats the bigger picture here. Its been suggested, alluded to, mentioned, and discussed for pert near a year or so. Thus, the real game is still with the Feds.

Texas will do what it does, and then the Feds, as the ultimate decision makers, will take whatever action they decide to take. Maybe its a bluff, maybe not. Time will tell.

Finally, what part of this is unclear or confusing: "*I am not attempting to express any opinion in order to justify support or opposition to any currently considered state water plan." * I can't be any more clear. I am not taking sides on the currently contemplated revisions to state bag/size/seasons.

P.S. - I truly don't give a rat's whether anyone agrees with me or not. My reality is not based upon polling data of whether the facts and/or opinions I express are popular, unpopular, or otherwise. Further, this is not some Orwellian world were we vote on facts. Facts are just that, facts.

Get a grip. This is not a democracy or some public opinion issue. Its an regulatory agency process. Thats what the guy from the TPWD tried to say last night.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Ernest

You promise this is your last post re this issue???

Charlie


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

Ernest has some good points.


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

The problem with Ernest is that he knows that the Feds are using flawed data that don't show the true picture. He has the know-how to fight this Orwellian runaway train comin' down the track, and he takes the stance "Oh well, here it comes. Get ready, it's going to hurt a bit."

Ernest, I hear that you're an attorney with CCA. Why are you (CCA) in bed with them? Just because they are more powerful doesn't make them right. Like you said, "They can just cram the bag limits and seasons down our throat." Big Brother is definitely putting the squeeze on.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

2wahoo said:


> The problem with Ernest is that he knows that the Feds are using flawed data that don't show the true picture. He has the know-how to fight this Orwellian runaway train comin' down the track, and he takes the stance "Oh well, here it comes. Get ready, it's going to hurt a bit."
> 
> Ernest, I hear that you're an attorney with CCA. Why are you (CCA) in bed with them? Just because they are more powerful doesn't make them right. Like you said, "They can just cram the bag limits and seasons down our throat." Big Brother is definitely putting the squeeze on.


Oh really???!! Hmmm I wonder if that is true? It sure would make a lot more sense. He gets paid to defend them so................


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

FISHGUTS said:


> Ernest has some good points.


Maybe so, but I have not seen any.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

The idea that I am an attorney in the employ - directly or indirectly - of the CCA or any other group involved in the snapper issue is simply a LIE. 

I will let you come to your own conclusions as to why people would repeat such LIES about me. But, its a lie now, was a lie when some people started saying that a couple years back, and I do not foresee a situation in the future in which that statement would not continue to be a lie. 

But, hey, its not the first lie to be spread about me or others by a certain group of individuals, and I am sure it will not be the last. Its what they do.


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

Snap Draggin said:


> Maybe so, but I have not seen any.


Keep reading...


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

Ernest,

I owe you an apology. I really heard that you worked for CCA. Apparently I'm wrong about it. I will step and say it. Sorry, again about saying something untrue about you.

John


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

So.....once again you shoot your mouth off without checking the facts huh snap?


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> So.....once again you shoot your mouth off without checking the facts huh snap?


My thoughts exactly!


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

At least I'll stand up and admit an error. What about you?


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

2wahoo said:


> At least I'll stand up and admit an error. What about you?


I think he was talking to Snapper Dragon..could be wrong ?


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

2Wahoo, I was talking about snap. Sorry if I offended! If you'll check you'll see I greened you up for your apology before I posted about snap.


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

No problemo! Me three.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

I can assure you guys that Ernest speaks for Ernest. I don't always agree with him (a majority of my disagreements with him are over fisheries issues. I do not want to get into that right now) but I do respect his opinions. He is a smart dude for sure and contributes a lot to a conversation, especially anything that relates to politics or law, which this fisheries management situation has in spades. As for the CCA affiliation, I doubt anybody has seriously bought into that line (well maybe some have). He has taken their side many times here, but I simply take that as his personal opinion, not some kind of conspiracy. 

You need differing opinions on a subject, right or wrong. If I want to hear opinions of mine repeated over and again, I will buy a parrot.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

You guys are being too nice. Got me looking for the hook here. 

I am not upset with you 2wahoo. I appreciate your apoligy. Thank you. 

This is not personal with me. No problem whatsoever b/w us 2wahoo. 

Thank you for your kind words MITB.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Hey fishguts and pocboy. Go back and READ what I wrote, and please try to absorb it this time OK. I asked if this were true about Ernest. I never implied or agreed. I merely stated that it would make sense if it were true. I guess your lack of mental capacity to actually understand what you are reading should be easy to understand after reading the posts you two have made. That is the herd sheep mentality CCA needs and thrives on.


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

Snap Draggin said:


> Hey fishguts and pocboy. Go back and READ what I wrote, and please try to absorb it this time OK. I asked if this were true about Ernest. I never implied or agreed. I merely stated that it would make sense if it were true. I guess your lack of mental capacity to actually understand what you are reading should be easy to understand after reading the posts you two have made. That is the herd sheep mentality CCA needs and thrives on.


You know,if you put as much effort into the issue here as you do in trying to make people think your an educated genius you might sound 1/2 dumb instead of 100% idiot and do some good.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

FISHGUTS said:


> You know,if you put as much effort into the issue here as you do in trying to make people think your an educated genius you might sound 1/2 dumb instead of 100% idiot and do some good.


If you think you are getting to me you are sadly mistaken. Lesser intellects have no affect on me with the kind of sheeite you wrote here.


----------



## FISHGUTS (Jun 5, 2007)

Snap Derilick....


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Ernest did not tell the truth... He posted again. awww heck. Be careful he will get yall thrown off the board..

Charlie


----------



## baylvr (Jun 28, 2004)

Snap Draggin said:


> I think you said it all in one word....CONFUSED. If you are in favor of being consistent then why not pressure the feds to raise the limit to be consistent with the state regs? Especially when there is no evidence that the stocks are in the shape they are claiming they are in waters off the Texas coast.


However, there's no evidence from the state of Texas that they're not in a decline. All I've seen presented is the data from the Feds.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Baylvr...your wrong there. There is trawl data showing an increase in fish. Here is the problem as explained by TPWD.

Our fish are the same "stock" as the rest of the gulf thus they are saying the are the same breeding stock. Thus problems in Florida are our problems. Texas fish and the Red Snapper population IS INCREASING, however they don't feel it is increasing FAST ENOUGH to meet the deadline for Magnuson-Stevens. So our fish in Texas are doing well, but when averaged with the rest of the Gulf is not recovering fast enough to meet the timeframe.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

baylvr said:


> However, there's no evidence from the state of Texas that they're not in a decline. All I've seen presented is the data from the Feds.


What do you think those TPWD creel studies are showing them at the dock? Have you seen any NMFS or CCA guys waiting at the dock when you come in? Can you think of a better way to monitor what recreational fishermen are catching? A computer model can't count fish... it only regurgitates whatever is fed into it.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Yall think one good ole Snapper would migrate to Florida ?? Boy he would have to be way lost or one hell of a storm..

Charlie


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

:headknock


baylvr said:


> However, there's no evidence from the state of Texas that they're not in a decline. All I've seen presented is the data from the Feds.


and those numbers are bunk for reasons that have been covered again and again on this thread. Frustrating.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

FISHGUTS said:


> Snap Derilick....


That is a good one genius. You misspelled derelict.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Ernest has, to date, gotten no one thrown off this board or any other 2cool forum to the very best of his knowledge. 

Ernest is not now, and has never been, a moderator. Ernest would never agree to be a moderator. 

Ernest enjoyed both the Jungle and the Conservation Forums which previously exited. 

Charlie, as you will note, even under your "unique" interpretation of of my promise, I still have not posted again on the topic at issue. Only postings have been to respond to a direct question, accept an apoligy (as any gentlemen would), and now, to respond to a false suggestion about me from, guess who? 

Further, did I not tell you when your buddies exited this group that I was not the one behind it? I truly thought your buddies were a ton of laughs. Sure, most of the laughs were at their expense, but its was good solid laughs that many of us enjoyed. Oh, good times. 

I kinda miss them now. Wish them the best for me. 

If you see them, ask if that embezzler ever got his plea deal set aside, and if not, whether he is still in the organization's employ. I really admired the organization's willingness to continue to employ an admitted embezzler. Convicts and criminals have it too tough these days. They really deserve a second chance, especially after they admit to being an embezzler.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Ernest said:


> If you see them, ask if that embezzler ever got his plea deal set aside, and if not, whether he is still in the organization's employ. I really admired the organization's willingness to continue to employ an admitted embezzler. Convicts and criminals have it too tough these days. They really deserve a second chance, especially after they admit to being an embezzler.


Really Ernest. That is bush league. You are better than that.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Come on now Ole Ernest

I guess what you said and what you do are two different things. Seems to me you said "this is my last one" but maybe I misread it.(maybe hoping too much) 

Earnest you have no intent regarding this issue or most involving CCA but to create hate and discontent. Create problems for poor unsuspecting souls who fall for all your bait. 
Yes there were good folks removed from this board because of you and only you. Oh yes there was someone I caint remember who but acted about 12 years old who also was an agitator. Yes you succeded in pushing them over the edge. You did your job.
Regarding folks working for organizations, I guess looking closer to home things could be pointed out. Ill leave that one to you. 

All I want to do is warn folks and to totally disregard what you mite say and not get caught in your trap.. Good fishing 

Charlie


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

"Yes there were good folks removed from this board because of you and only you."

Wrong and false. Ask the guy who showed them the door. He will tell you, it was not me.

Did not one of that crew recently post on another board a very different story - relative to your version - of why he was asked to leave?

In fact, isn't this his story _in his own words_ right here?

"I got friggin sent to ******* Siberia because I went rounds with EJ and got pounded by the goon squad. Some people huh!"​​"Well truth is I sent a little private email to "someone" telling them how I really felt and that went over like a tub-o-****."​ 

Now, who can't be trusted? Huh?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Ernest
Now said:


> That answer is easy... it's always the lawyer.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

I kinda describe you from the olden days as a "Strike Buster". I see you as trying to disrupt an avenue (2cool) for folks to really vent their frustrations regarding CCA. For some strange reason you have a knack of showing up when folks who really believe in their cause and are passonate about it regarding primarly CCA you seem to show up. You are good at what you do. Im done with you. Good fishing.

Charlie


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Gee, isn't that funny. 

I see you as showing up primarily to dog pile the CCA, and then when your "facts" are brought into question, you then turn to personal attacks and false statements. Kinda like the what happened on this thread. 

Start off with a obviously false claim about CCA, and quickly start in with me on a personal level. Avoid the facts, and attack the messenger. Yet, you maintain I create hate and discontent. I guess making up stories about why people are asked to leave by falsely blaming others is some sort of goodwill gesture on your part. 

Sir, in my view, what you apear to be "done with" is any sense of decorum or respect for others.


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

The original founders of what is now called the "cca" founded the GCCA (a Texas orginization) for the sole reason of preserving the RECIATIONAL FISHING for Speck's and Red's. Read reciational fishing!!!!! And they did a very good job.In fact they did such a good job that now they are a national orginazition (read big goverment and big bussiness into national) loaded with people that are strictley conservation minded. What do you people think Rudy would think if he knew you turned your back on other fishermen? The Romans, Hitler and a few other leaders never would listen to others and thought they were going to change the world also. As far as the feds and the TP&W. I don't need a reason to want the law to stay the way it is. I am a tax payer and a voter. I can assure you I will spend alot of time writing letters and calling Texas congressmen and Senators trying to get the Commisioner of the TP&W removed if he caves into the feds! I worked on the first on the first crab trap clean-up. But I saw the light 3 Years ago!!!! The rest of you need to wake-up also!


----------



## Chuck (May 21, 2004)

*Closing time, gents*

We are closing this thread because it is getting out of hand and enough has been said. If you want to continue, I would suggest taking it to another forum such as: http://2coolsportspub.com/forums/index.php


----------

