Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614562)

How many of you actually attended the meeting?:shaking::rotfl:

These are 100% PUBLIC meetings

Originally Posted by meaux fishing (Post 614579)

I've been to a couple of the before... Doesn't do any good. Their mind is already made up

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 614581)

Kinda like going to the public waterfowl meetings. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Originally Posted by meaux fishing (Post 614579)

I've been to a couple of the before... Doesn't do any good. Their mind is already made up

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614595)

Some of these commissioners would not know what a tripletail was if it was on their plate, what they have to go by in making their decision is 1. public input and 2. a presentation given to them (which is also given to everyone in the audience as well). They then make a decision.


Like it or not, its actually about as fair a process as can be. If you have better ideas, they would like to hear them. You can go to the meeting and discuss them:)

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614562)

How many of you actually attended the meeting?:shaking::rotfl:

These are 100% PUBLIC meetings

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag (Post 614601)

I'd rather sweep leaves on a windy day.

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 614598)

And you forgot number 3. Head CCA lobbyist on the commission board

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614608)

Serious question:

In what way would CCA or this member of the commission benefit from a tripletail limit? Answer, none at all


They just want to do whats best and lookout for future generations of fishermen, its in their mission statement.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614608)

Serious question:

In what way would CCA or this member of the commission benefit from a tripletail limit? Answer, none at all


They just want to do whats best and lookout for future generations of fishermen, its in their mission statement.

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 614611)

Pat on the back. "I" did that. Just like "I" changed the big lake limit. It's not about what's best. It's about power.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614625)

Well, "I", does not mean CCA. This individual may have ties to CCA somehow, but thats not the stance of the CCA.

CCA as an organization did NOT lower Big Lake limits, someone who has ties to CCA may have been instrumental in it, but not CCA.

Big big difference.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614624)

Here is the CCA

David Cresson, executive director of the Coastal Conservation Association-Louisiana, told the commission his organization supports the implementation of regulations on tripletail.
"There is limited information in general on tripletail, but it's extensive in other parts of the country," he said. "We've been visiting with scientists, and the information is undeniable: Eighteen inches is where they become sexually mature."
Cresson said CCA would like to see a five-fish creel limit placed on the fish as well as an 18-inch minimum-length limit.
"It just seems like it's smart, common sense and forward-looking to have some management of these fish," he said.
Cresson told commissioners the recapture rate of tagged tripletail is 2 1/2 times higher than with other game fish, which, he said, is an indication of how vulnerable the fish are to over-harvest.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614630)

What part of any of that is bad?



and you forgot to bolden in the other parts such as this:

Cresson told commissioners the recapture rate of tagged tripletail is 2 1/2 times higher than with other game fish, which, he said, is an indication of how vulnerable the fish are to over-harvest

and there in lies your answer and why there is a concern:)


the part about limited knowledge is true, but with the knowledge that IS known, it is very sensible. There is LIMITED knowledge on many many species of fishes. Its because they are hard to study, and can be very expensive to study. We don't know everything about blue marlin, tunas, etc. but there are both size and creel limits on both of them

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614628)

Who OWNS this mag?? and who wrote this story??
http://content.yudu.com/A1rzu2/TideM...sources/18.htm

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 614629)

you go fishing, you have 3-guys in the boat. Thats 15 triple tail.... how many times have you gone out and caught more than that?? When the grass comes in close I know you can catch 40 to 80, i have been there for this.. im not taking sides on this, but what exactly the problem with a 5-fish limit? Most people are happy to run the bouy line and pick up 3 or 4 triple tail. Also what science do we have to say we don't need a limit. I know when the grass is thick and close i could rape the heck out of some triple tail......

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614624)

Here is the CCA

David Cresson, executive director of the Coastal Conservation Association-Louisiana, told the commission his organization supports the implementation of regulations on tripletail.
"There is limited information in general on tripletail, but it's extensive in other parts of the country," he said. "We've been visiting with scientists, and the information is undeniable: Eighteen inches is where they become sexually mature."
Cresson said CCA would like to see a five-fish creel limit placed on the fish as well as an 18-inch minimum-length limit.
"It just seems like it's smart, common sense and forward-looking to have some management of these fish," he said.
Cresson told commissioners the recapture rate of tagged tripletail is 2 1/2 times higher than with other game fish, which, he said, is an indication of how vulnerable the fish are to over-harvest.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614632)

Page 6...CCA ties

http://www.ccalouisiana.com/cca11/im...09/fw09otl.pdf

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 614639)

i got it, i would have a problem with that...

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614648)

If they said: Look we have done research and we are seeing that overfishing is taken place on these fish so we need to place a limit
I would be 100% for that...
But the answer to this is like CCA said

"its the smart thing to do" :spineyes::spineyes:


I guess 15 trout limit to make big lake a trophy lake was a smart thing to do also :pissed:

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 614650)

It's far better to have sport anglers to initiate a conservation measure than to wait when the resource hits devcon 5, letting the Restaurant Assoc and commercial interests dictate policy. Note the fight for Snapper limits recently. (BTW, CCA has been on the forefront to help bring in a second season for sport fishermen.)

By allowing research and applied scientific data to be presented from the sportsman's point of view..not that of commercial interests, we stand to have a more favorable outcome.

I do not serve on any type of committees for CCA at this time. However, I was a charter member of CCA helping start the Acadiana chapter here in Lafayette. There was a clarity of purpose at the beginning....Remove the gill nets and make red fish and specs a game fish along with accepting new state creel limits on both.

The fight went nowhere for the first 2 years. Success was only achieved by hiring a strong lobbying firm and support on a political front. CCA today is heavily involved in the political arena; this is where the fight is for our resources.

If CCA was to abandon the State today, you would see the start-up of commercial harvesting of reds and specs the next year in our waters. Every year in the legislature, CCA has to fight bills that are attached at the last minute with commercial interests trying to overturn what the sports have accomplished.

I do not agree 100% with issues CCA takes up these days but for the overall good of our resources I still and will support the effort.

BTW, great thread Meaux. These issues need to be discussed by fellow sportsmen. Perhaps a more clear objective from our view point can be achieved and presented to the State CCA board.

Originally Posted by Clampy (Post 614652)

This is basically the NRA argument. Don't let go of assault rifles cuz next its our pistols. I can see both sides.

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 614638)

The burden to provide sound scientific support should always be on those suggesting increased regulation.

A Constitutional Republic is based on the idea that the liberty of individuals should only be restricted in cases of demonstrated necessity. The position that tighter limits are always good conservation is not only bad science, it is contrary to the ideas of liberty that the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve.

Copying other states is rarely sound science based wildlife management. Asserting the sexual maturity of a fish as the basis for a minimum length limit is not scientific management. For example, it has been shown and is well known that the sexual maturity of redfish is actually a good cause to restrict harvest of sexually mature fish.

Restrictions on liberty (tighter limits) that carry criminal penalties should be supported with good science, including stock assessments, condition indices, and understanding the role of the species in the overall food web.

The debacle with red snapper is actually endangering other species because the Draconian restrictions on red snapper are allowing them to become overpopulated in some areas to the detriment of their food sources and to the harm of other species that red snapper compete with for food and habitat.

Overly restrictive harvest limits is not good conservation. Good conservation allows sustainable harvests to prevent overpopulation for the benefit of the overall habitat and food web.

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag (Post 614656)

Here you go.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614651)

You are again tying CCA as an organization to the Big Lake trout limit argument, and its not fair because it did NOT happen. You can go off all you want on Wil Drost's influence or whatever he had on the issue, but don't put it on CCA. Hell, blame Bush

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614655)

:fireworks:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614661)

With all due respect to MG, that post may be what he envisions wildlife management to be in a perfect world, but that is far from what actually happens in this non-perfect, ever-changing world.

:)

Originally Posted by AceArcher (Post 614659)

I think what's going on here is that some of the recent stupidity in regards to fish management (see red snapper, 15 trout limit for big lake (with most studies showing that this hurts more than helps) access rights to navigable waters.... etc.... As well as well thought out programs like idle iron etc.

People are very very distrust-full of anyone previously involved with some of those fisheries fiasco's.

With that said Duck is right on the money in one regard, If you just sit on the sideline's and *****.... well you then ain't doing nothing but sitting on the sidelines and *****ing....

If you give a ****, hitch up your damned pony, take a ride to the meeting and get some answers, Stand up and say that you can get behind a program of limits / size restricitions when someone can show a need for it. ie... get your opinion out.

Generally speaking there is greater fishing pressure today than there ever has been, With technology anglers are more able to consistently hit their goals, so it is absolutely important that a close eye is kept on the resource to ensure it's future viability. If restrictions are placed based on a need then its a good thing as far as i am concerned.

With that said, i don't know doodly crap about triple tail, other than i would really love to catch one some day.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614647)

that shows ties to TRIPLETAIL, no kidding man:shaking: I said trout and Big Lake specificially


Its not a big conspiracy that CCA is trying to hide from, they have made it abundantly clear that they are in favor of tripletail regulations:) It fits right in their mission statement and its a GOOD thing to manage our fisheries for future generations, what is bad about that

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614664)

So do sheephead need a limit too?????

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614670)

:cool:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614681)

You have officially given up when you start posting that crap:rotfl: I am outta here

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614679)

If people in Louisiana start to specifically target sheephead at a much broader scale then YES, but as of now that isn't the case.

Tripletail on the other hand are really starting to be specifically targeted at a much broader scale, so regulations are being LOOKED into. Nothing has been set as of yet.


We must all remember that the same thing happened to redfish, they took some serious hits when the blackened redfish 'craze' swept through. Regs had to be set to keep the species in balance (and I am very thankful for that).

Yellowfin tuna stocks had to be assessed as well as they are at an all-time popularity right now. They once were rarely targeted, and were considered nuisance fish when trolling for other 'more desirable' species. My have things changed, and fisheries managament has to change with it as well as regulations

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614688)

You are trying to make a "FEEL GOOD" story for the CCA. Neither you nor they can justify a limit on triple tail that would show and prove that rod n reel is hurting the population!
WL&F visit marinas every day and take fish counts; we had them this Sunday at Hebert’s taking fish counts and measurements with weights. Do they show a great number of 3tail taken on these visits?
If you don’t have data to back up your creel limit your looking to establish (5 fish 18inchs long) How about start with a greater span like 20? Once you spend a few years with more study and if you then find you need to move down the limit, then so be it.
Lets not give the fisherman "BECAUSE ITS THE SMART THING TO DO"

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 614695)

The burden to provide sound scientific support should always be on those suggesting increased regulation.

A Constitutional Republic is based on the idea that the liberty of individuals should only be restricted in cases of demonstrated necessity. The position that tighter limits are always good conservation is not only bad science, it is contrary to the ideas of liberty that the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve.

Copying other states is rarely sound science based wildlife management. Asserting the sexual maturity of a fish as the basis for a minimum length limit is not scientific management. For example, it has been shown and is well known that the sexual maturity of redfish is actually a good cause to restrict harvest of sexually mature fish.

Restrictions on liberty (tighter limits) that carry criminal penalties should be supported with good science, including stock assessments, condition indices, and understanding the role of the species in the overall food web.

The debacle with red snapper is actually endangering other species because the Draconian restrictions on red snapper are allowing them to become overpopulated in some areas to the detriment of their food sources and to the harm of other species that red snapper compete with for food and habitat.

Overly restrictive harvest limits is not good conservation. Good conservation allows sustainable harvests to prevent overpopulation for the benefit of the overall habitat and food web.

You need more than anecdotal evidence that a given species is being targeted to justify making current practices a crime. You need valid scientific data showing that current harvest levels are not sustainable. This requirement has two components:

1. You need to accurately determine what current harvest levels actually are.

2. You need to accurately assess current population levels and food web dynamics to show that the current harvest levels are not sustainable and would lead to a long term decline in the resource.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614699)

Why 20? Why not 15? Why not 21? See where this is going? First off the regs have NOT been established YET!


nevermind, I am really done now:rotfl: