Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614884)

This is the same mentality that just drove that entire ammo and gun craze we just experienced and not one thing happened but ammo and gun prices went thru the roof:rolleyes: This is the LDWF for lord's sake, why in the world would they do anything to decrease the amount of fishermen - they won't. They work FOR us 100%, this isn't the federal gov't:rotfl:

Five 18"+ tripletail will last you a few fish frys, its not even law yet so go and catch 200 of em:)

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614896)

How many did you catch on tournament day? :eek::rotfl:
Seems people who don't fish near that amount on 'you're' lake didn't have a problem catching over there

That is a very cool story though bro, what does the amount of time you spend on Big Lake have to do with CCA and/or tripletail limits?

I think your frustration with the limits on Big Lake are finally narrowed down to Henry Mouton. He says it all in his letter that he was the 'soul' driving force between that, and then over 70% of folks were behind it, thats a vast majority, but of course none have as much expertise as you and your vote should count more though right?:grinpimp:
#andherecomesthepostabouthowalltheguideswantedthel owerlimitsbecausetheycan'tfish
blahblahblahyadayadayada

Been fun w, til next time

tune in next week when we revisit how 'the weirs are killing the lake':rotfl:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614863)

And probably way less have actually caught 5 in one trip:)

which is EXACTLY what is amazing to me that there are that many people concerned about a fish they never target:confused:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 614893)

I'm questioning their methods, not their motives.

Gotcha, its all in that paper I feel certain, I don't know I haven't seen it either, and would like to myself

Should the executive branch restrict liberties based on public opinion (by whatever sampling method) or by sound science?

The million dollar question my friend. Sound science says many things (for instance the freshwater diversions) but the public is standing in the way of sound science on that issue. I think wildlife and fisheries management should be based on sound science, BUT you also have to receive public input. Duck seasons for instance have a range of dates and LDWF could just as easily go in and say these are the dates without public input but instead they try and please as many people as possible (even though they still piss off a bunch of them so its catch22:rotfl:)

When LDWF or CCA or whoever supports a regulation change based on what they are hearing from anglers or their membership or whomever, then they are making decisions based on public opinion rather than science.

Its another catch22 (damned if you do, damned if you don't) with non-profit conservation organizations. You see what happened when they were neutral on the whole 'navigable waters' issue in SE LA, they got hammered on that (damned either way they went) and there wasn't near about 70% agreement on that issue. If 70% of their base wants a lower limit, they better listen or else it would have been just like Round 2 on the navigale waters issue. Its a slippery slope

In our democratic republic, public opinion should be allowed to influence the elected legislature. However, the elected legislature has delegated certain wildlife management regulatory powers to the executive branch with the understanding and expectation that these regulatory powers only infringe on the liberty of citizens when these restrictions are shown to be necessary by sound scientific methods.

I wish you could send this to everyone that has a fishing and hunting license, this is excellent

Sometimes being on the side of anglers and hunters means listening to the science and making data driven decisions and ignoring the momentary public opinion of those same anglers and hunters.

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 614901)

And why worry about the Nazi's killing the Jews if you are not a Jew?

They are proposing to convict people of crimes for keeping more than 5 tripletail. Should this be a crime any more than being a Jew should be a crime?

Prove it!!!

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614898)

^^^^Yep he is defeated ...:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Keep drinking the PURPLE DRANK

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag (Post 614897)

Originally Posted by speck-chaser (Post 614913)

Well, all I know is that Ive never caught a 3 tail, so Im writing to Obama and complain about all them better fishermen out there that wont give me my fair share.:shaking:

Originally Posted by speck-chaser (Post 614913)

Well, all I know is that Ive never caught a 3 tail, so Im writing to Obama and complain about all them better fishermen out there that wont give me my fair share.:shaking:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 614901)

And why worry about the Nazi's killing the Jews if you are not a Jew?

They are proposing to convict people of crimes for keeping more than 5 tripletail. Should this be a crime any more than being a Jew should be a crime?

Prove it!!!

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614636)

because next step its 10 trout...2 reds......2 flounder and so on so on

with ZERO study they keep moving limits down..

thats the problem

Originally Posted by AceArcher (Post 615034)

Perhaps if this thread were a discussion on what type of organization needs to succeed the CCA since they are becoming a bit wayward.....???

Instead of it just being a revolving anger door....

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 615138)

I think that's the other thread mainly ... but this thread is also pointing out that a good conservation organization would steadfastly adhere to the principle that regulations need to have their necessity demonstrated by sound science.

A good conservation organization should be committed to the Constitutional principles of liberty such that sportsman's liberties in pursuing and harvesting game should only be restricted with there is sound and compelling scientific data demonstrating a true conservation need. Regulations should not be based on the fear that the resource might not remain for future generations; they should be based on sound scientific data showing the resource cannot be sustained for future generations under current management practices.

Sustainable harvests and use of the resources should always be allowed, and the burden of proof for those proposing new regulations should always be on those proposing to impose new criminal penalties for liberties which have been previously enjoyed and unregulated.

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 615138)

I think that's the other thread mainly ... but this thread is also pointing out that a good conservation organization would steadfastly adhere to the principle that regulations need to have their necessity demonstrated by sound science.

A good conservation organization should be committed to the Constitutional principles of liberty such that sportsman's liberties in pursuing and harvesting game should only be restricted with there is sound and compelling scientific data demonstrating a true conservation need. Regulations should not be based on the fear that the resource might not remain for future generations; they should be based on sound scientific data showing the resource cannot be sustained for future generations under current management practices.

Sustainable harvests and use of the resources should always be allowed, and the burden of proof for those proposing new regulations should always be on those proposing to impose new criminal penalties for liberties which have been previously enjoyed and unregulated.