re: CCA has really lost its way….

quote:

---

I’m not familiar with that. Link? Also, if it was done, it was done by membership/board approval. Member ship wanted to keep 5 fish. Pretty simple baw.

---

So is CCA’s mission to appease anglers? Or conserve the resource? If it’s the former, maybe the name should change to reflect angler advocacy instead of resource conservation.

I’m not going digging for the link, but I’m sure the joint committee meeting videos are archived. I watched the meeting. The joint committee opposed the original NOI with a 3 fish limit for no legitimate reason. You’d think Cresson would’ve sided with the research and the resource, and gone into detail on the stock assessment and its contents. Instead, he basically referred to it as overreach. Then, of course, the CCALA social media accounts (and David) virtue signal about how instrumental they were in conserving the Louisiana redfish population. It’s laughable.

quote:

---

Ha. This means nothing anymore

---

A notice of intent based on a years of research compiled into a stock assessment isn’t fact-based? This type of comment is one of the reasons why people find it hard to get behind CCALA.

quote:

---

could have gone. could have spoken.

---

I was in Oklahoma for work, otherwise I absolutely would have been at that meeting. Several of my friends were there. I participated in the most recent commission meeting regarding the dates for the 2025-2026 duck season. If you're looking to pick at someone for not being involved with policymaking in order to distract from your inability to answer difficult questions, I think you should find someone else. The resource was well-represented at the meeting and I doubt my physical presence (or lack thereof) had any effect on the ultimate outcome whatsoever.

Regardless, you've made comments like this several times and it's really just a consistent red herring. A quick google search indicates that CCA's stated purpose/mission statement is to (1) protect, serve, and safeguard marine resources, (2) educate the public on the importance of conserving those resources, (3) advocate for policies that ensure protection of the resource for future generations, and (4) build a strong community of marine advocates.

CCA literally exists to (a) raise money from outdoorsmen who have neither the time, resources, nor the ability to participate in things like the joint committee meeting, in order to (b) satisfy 1-4 above. In other words, CCA exists so people don't have to go to those meetings. Please explain to me how CCALA completely ignoring actual scientific data concerning the redfish escapement rate/recruitment and directly opposing the path which would lead to the fastest rebuild of the resource accomplished that. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The major landowners are going to force the regulatory hand. Biloxi Marsh Corp banned it on the WMA. If it’s not enforced, I can see them threatening to pull the lease.