Never have never will!!! Learned my lesson with D.U.!!!!

10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish

I find it ironic that groups with names like "Trout Unlimited" and "Ducks Unlimited" are the some of the biggest pushers of harvest and access restrictions.

I'm still coming up the learning curve regarding CCA, but Trout Unlimited promoted an elitist agenda that actually opposed many state and federal stocking efforts in trout streams.

Dividing sportsmen and micromanaging details about how the natural resource pie is divided is bad conservation! Preserving our hunting and fishing rights for the next generation is as important as ensuring there will still be resources and habitat to hunt and fish.

You are about to give me a stroke man, this is simply not true:shaking:
Restricting harvest and access? No sir! No sir! No sir! I am not going to try and defend Ducks Unlimited because its pointless (just like trying to explain tripletail limits and basic wildlife management principles:)).

You need to start another thread where everyone can bash all the conservation organizations:rotfl:

Ducks Unlimited restricting access:shaking::eek::work:

Correct me if I am in need of a history lesson, but didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?

Didn't this have the effect of driving up the price of duck hunting and effectively restricting access to the more affluent? Duck hunting is surely much more of a rich man's sport in 2013 than when my dad introduced me to duck hunting in 1978.

Don't get me wrong, the science showed a genuine need to reduce the use of lead shot in areas where it was being ingested by waterfowl. But the global ban for waterfowl hunting that was put in place was overreaching and is serving as a template for current efforts to expand lead bans to include upland game and rifle ammunition as well. RKBA advocates recognize current efforts to bad lead ammunition as aimed at 2nd amendment rights by driving up prices and restricting access. The 1991 waterfowl ban was the camel's nose in the tent.

Why is DU silent on the current issue of banning lead for upland game and rifle ammunition? (Feel free to correct me if my assertion of DU's silence is incorrect.)

Also, wasn't DU a player in a lot of the wetland preservation regulations in the 1980s and 1990s that amounted to a major governmental intrusion on private property rights requiring private landowners to jump through hoops to develop their own property?

The parallel between DU and CCA is this: supporting restrictive regulations that restrict access beyond the needs supported by sound science sets bad precedents that will be copied and exploited to further restrict hunting and fishing rights in the future.

i dont believe that banning lead shot is the reason the price of duck hunting has gone up..

Steel shot is certainly higher than lead shot.

it is not THE reason duck hunting has gone up..

I guess since gas prices are so high, it is the reason that vehicles are more expensive now days..

what about the fact that land/lease is becoming harder and harder to come by? i think that is more of the reason that duck hunting is more expensive than lead shot.

Maybe not for the average joe in LA, but I remember when I wanted to get legal to hunt some resident Canada geese and also any in season ducks that flew by a few years back on land I was farming in Ohio. I already had access to the land (farming it), a resident hunting license, and a 12 gauge (squirrel, deer, doves, coyote), along with ready access to a variety of lead shot sizes and chokes. I checked the regs and needed to buy steel shot and a duck stamp. Kinda pricey. After my first attempt, I quickly realized that steel shot stinks and forked over the dough for some bismuth or hevi-shot or something that actually put a few birds in the freezer. I think my son is finally putting those steel shot shells to use on his science project this year. But yeah, the lead shot ban and the duck stamp significantly increased my cost of participation and also reduced performance.

The military's move to lead free ammunition will similarly cost taxpayer's more money and downgrade ammunition performance. Similarly, if lead free ammunition is forced upon hunters, the costs will go up and performance will go down. Ditto of lead free sinkers and tackle are forced upon anglers.

Mandated fuel economy standards and safety features to compensate for lighter vehicles (to meet the fuel economy standards) are a big part of it.

:rotfl: Come on, don't those leases provide ammo? All that steel shot drove those lease prices up!

Yes, that is a major factor in Louisiana. Less marsh (erosion) and more people. The laws of supply and demand are at work. But for families that have owned land in LA for generations, the cost of ammo and the federal duck stamp are major factors in recurring expenses, as they are for families that own the land they hunt or hunt nearby public land in other states.

:confused:

Box of lead shot $7
Box of Stell shot $20

I would say out law of lead has driven the price of duck hunting a lot, my dad said they woud get boxes of lead shot for $2 a box and when Steel came out it was around $15 a box

There are more factors than just the banning of lead shot.

we all know lead is cheaper than steel.. thanks for stating the obvious.

all im saying is that there are more factors that contribute to the price increase of duck hunting.

Sure, but let me put it this way. Suppose that it were certain that the price accessing to land for deer hunting were to increase by 1000% over the next 20 years, would that make it reasonable to ban the use of lead in deer hunting bullets even though that might also increase ammo prices by 1000% over the same time period?

Do the non-governmental factors driving up the cost of land access justify or mitigate the governmental factors driving up the cost of ammunition? Of course not.

Compared with the overall costs of fishing, banning lead in lures and sinkers will only be an incremental cost to the average angler. So are we all in agreement to ban lead in lures and sinkers?

Kill 1,000 doves in bean field with lead... Flood next year for ducks have to shoot Steal shot

Save the polar bears

I agree. All im saying is, now days there are MANY factors that contribute to the higher price people are paying to duck hunt, and it is not just because lead is banned.

go catch a fish or something

Will ....should you be in Baton Rouge today??

While I agree with you on very few of the things we often debate here, this really does point out the hypocritical ways of some of our governing bodies.

Now, back to more of "Do you support the CCA?":cool:

I don't think I can.

I applaud their efforts to improve habitat by reef development and deployment.

But manipulation of political process by pseudoscience to criminalize honest and reasonable sporting and commercial harvests of abundant and available resources earns my disdain.

This is not 1970 or 1980 any more. Conservation groups should be able to foresee how the misuse of governmental power toward ends which seem quite measured and reasonable at the time can set dangerous precedents for more exhaustive and totalitarian power grabs later on.

I recommend Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny" for documentation and descriptions on how past conservation efforts lead to current and future power grabs.

kind of like when gas goes up and then out comes a BS excuse that the prices of oil are up because some kid in the middle east took a dump in a puddle of oil .. or at least thats about how all the excuses sound to me lol

MG the problem with what your stating here remains the same, If we use a flood of anger to defund CCA and nothing is around to "take the reigns" on the good that they do. The net is going to be a huge loss. I think it's very very fair to say that the lobbying work the CCA does to prevent commercial interest's taking hold of gamefish populations like they did 15 years ago, is worth it's weight in gold.

I have always lived a good bit away from the coast so to me it's only a few times a year that i get to come see what the fun really is like in south LA. But i know i have heard many people say that when the Blackened Redfish Craze took over and commercial harvesters kicked it into high gear.... there were some times before CCA started up where redfish became somewhat of a rarity.

(if i am wrong on that someone please correct me) (I lived far away during said time period and only have heard the stories)

Therefore the only viable options are to find some way to get CCA to sing the correct tune.... or to start another organization to do it for them.

Woah Nelly- I think that $15 bucks we pay for a Federal Duck Stamp is one thing that has been good for ducks and duck hunters. Sorry that $15 helped run you out of duck hunting, but that has accounted for 5.2 million acres for the National Refuge System and valuable Waterfowl Production Areas.

For every dollar you spend on Federal Duck Stamps, ninety-eight cents goes directly to purchase vital habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC) oversees the use of Federal Duck Stamp funds for the purchase and lease of wetland habitat. The MBCC also reviews, but does not approve, the use of Federal Duck Stamp dollars for the purchase of small natural wetlands and their associated uplands for preservation as Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs).

I understand the possible dilemma, but I'm not convinced it's real. Consider some imperfect analogies: I'm a life member of the NRA, but in recent years I've sent more money to GOA and JFPO. However, I think my more enduring contributions to RKBA will be through my individual efforts which include:
1. Voting.
2. Training my children, not just in the shooting sports, but also in teaching them the key critical thinking skills to spot political trickery.
3. Bringing my children to Project Appleseed events.
4. Supporting my brother's efforts to use GI Bill funds (through the VA) to train veterans to be NRA instructors.
5. Debunking the bad science behind computerized ballistic identification systems and mandatory registration of ballistic ids (I was a peer reviewer)
6. Raising awareness (at the grassroots level) that the expansion of governmental power at all levels invites tyranny and endangers liberty.

By analogy, I think that organizations that complement CCA and compete for their funding base may well help keep them honest. But real political power still rests predominantly with the voters, so my proposed plan would focus instead on:
1. Voting
2. Training my children, not just in the angling sports, but in critical thinking skills to spot the political trickery.
3. Bringing my children to events that include a great time fishing but also incorporate fundamental aspects of preserving the heritage of fishing for future generations without trampling on the rights of others in the process.
4. Debunking bad science that is used to manipulate environmental and conservation regulations.
5. Beyond this, I am open to suggestions and discussions.

Why do you think an organized group is essential to success? I think most elected officials really fear what the NRA membership will do at the polls more than they fear what the NRA will say about them.

Is the clout of CCA really how they influence regulatory decisions or the fear politicians have about what anglers (including the CCA membership) will do at the polls?

There is one theory that NRA does not really want the Supreme Court to rule in a final and definitive way on the 2nd amendment, because that would deplete their membership and rob their power. Might it be possible that CCA is more interested in the exercise of political clout than in the conservation principles it espouses?

I also think it is more expensive to most everything than it was 20 years ago. Steel shot has certainly helped, but land/ lease cost and access have more to do with than anything I would think.

Back on topic, I will say that CCA has done a bunch of good for our state and fisheries. I know they have treaded in areas that all don't agree with and they should be held accountable if they are backing something without the proper science to enforce regulation. All who disagree need to go to the meeting, form a petition, make sure MG is there and try to get the answers you want to hear. They ask and want public comment. I know there are politics involved this is Louisiana people. At least you can say you tried.

I sure didn't want to get into this but this is wrong on so many levels, its like "W" has gotten into your brain or something:rotfl:

[QUOTE=MathGeek;615330]Correct me if I am in need of a history lesson, but didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?

Didn't this have the effect of driving up the price of duck hunting and effectively restricting access to the more affluent? Duck hunting is surely much more of a rich man's sport in 2013 than when my dad introduced me to duck hunting in 1978.

There are many many factors behind why leases are skyrocketing. One of them is because they can get it. If I was a farmer I would flood every bit of my land and lease it to the highest bidder, because people will pay it just to have a spot to sit. Duck hunting has become the 'cool thing' to do and a case of shells is the least expense for a duck hunter:help:

Don't get me wrong, the science showed a genuine need to reduce the use of lead shot in areas where it was being ingested by waterfowl.

Then why did you say this "didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?" Aren't you adamately FOR science driven regulations, I mean the entire tripletail thread would show that you are. Seems to me that lead was killing ducks indirectly and a conservation organization for ducks stepped in and showed the science that lead does in fact kill ducks (and it does still to this day, there are studies on Catahoula Lake going on yearly that will show this)

But the global ban for waterfowl hunting (global ban:shaking:) that was put in place was overreaching and is serving as a template for current efforts to expand lead bans to include upland game and rifle ammunition as well. RKBA advocates recognize current efforts to bad lead ammunition as aimed at 2nd amendment rights by driving up prices and restricting access. The 1991 waterfowl ban was the camel's nose in the tent.
You are really reaching here. Lead is bad for ducks, period, don't try and put the rest on Ducks Unlimited, they did it for the ducks (DUCKS unlimited). This sounds like that Nazi and Jew thing you posted on the tripletail thread:rotfl:

Why is DU silent on the current issue of banning lead for upland game and rifle ammunition? (Feel free to correct me if my assertion of DU's silence is incorrect.)

Remember that its DUCKS Unlimited, not upland game unlimited or pheasants forever or rifle ammunition unlimited. Their mission is for wetlands and waterfowl. No dog in that fight for them. And why do you want them to be, you just said they were 'overreaching' in the paragraph just above, which is it? Are the overreaching? or are they not doing enough? Can't have it both ways

Also, wasn't DU a player in a lot of the wetland preservation regulations in the 1980s and 1990s that amounted to a major governmental intrusion on private property rights requiring private landowners to jump through hoops to develop their own property?

Oh you mean when we FINALLY found out the real importance of wetlands and people had to actually apply for permits (what you call 'jump through hoops', I call permits, thank goodness this came about). Before this came around, a person could just do anything they wanted to with a wetland - develop it, dam it up, drain it, etc. This affects other people downstream. If you had property downstream of someone who altered their waterway, you could have been flooded downstream

The parallel between DU and CCA is this: supporting restrictive regulations that restrict access beyond the needs supported by sound science sets bad precedents that will be copied and exploited to further restrict hunting and fishing rights in the future.

That is your opinion and everyone is entitled to them, and you do not have to support anything they do;)

Yeah, yeah. And all the lottery proceeds go to support education. And your social security payments are kept in a "lock box" for you to draw on in retirement.

Most "dedicated" governmental funding schemes are shell games. The US treasury (federal funds) are one huge frungible, co-mingled deal.

On the whole, I'm glad the feds bought some wetlands rather than confiscating them through regulation without compensating the orignal owners.

But you are not going to convince me that a Duck Stamp is not just another tax, kinda like Obama Care is just another tax.

You bring up an excellent point. On most federal lands, lead shot is not allowed for shotguns and it is rightfully so in my opinion (study after study will show you that spent lead kills birds)


BUT, could you imagine the butthurt if LDWF came out and said that lead shot could no longer be used for doves:shaking::rotfl: It would be a riot in Baton Rouge, and every sportsmens website would be blowing up - BUT it makes total 'cents', the science is there and it makes sense but this is where the general public voicing their opinions comes into play (just like the tripletail thread:)). What would MG say about that I wonder? The science supports it? Hmm, what you say MG?

You have some reala issues with the government:rotfl:. The duck stamp is not a tax. It goes specifically to wetland conservation, and that is the cheapest thing you will buy to go duck hunting


Some of you guys have got to take a break from Rush Limbaugh, he will have you believing this stuff:spineyes:

So you are saying that "political agenda" is holding the state back from banning lead for doves. You're catching on now

Not saying it's not a tax, but one of the good ones IMO. I don't trust them any more than you, but this is accounted for and put in the ground so I'm told. It has been a good thing for wildlife conservation and well worth $15.

dude must have a man crush on WD...

Actually, a person had to OWN the wetland to do anything with it. After DU, they needed the federal government's permission to do what they wanted with their OWN property.

One can pass laws that reasonably restrict uses of land that might adversely impact neighbors without requiring landowners to obtain federal permission for just about any development or improvement. And how the congressional authority to "regulate interstate commerce" got twisted into the authority to require landowners in a given state to get permission from the federal government to develop their own property is beyond me. The regulation of private land to minimize negative impact on neighboring properties should have remained a state issue rather than a federal power grab.


Regarding lead shot, the science showed that ducks ingesting the lead shot in certain types of habitat was killing the ducks. Reasonable, science based regulation would have banned the use of lead shot for hunting in those kinds of habitat. Banning use of lead shot in midwestern corn fields was an overreach that did not have scientific support.

Criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties should be narrowly tailored to meet the scientific requirements that demonstrate the need without overreaching infringements that restrict liberties in ways that are not demonstrated with the scientific data.

Interesting question. Is lead shot used in upland hunting having a negative impact on given species at the population level? Which species? Cite the studies. Does the negative impact justify the increased costs of banning lead?

You should put that as your mission statement on your non-profit organization you are starting:)

Nice try:rotfl:

No one has presented a case for it yet. The data is there though, its 'the elephant in the room', (much like blinds on Catahoula Lake). Everyone is aware of it, but until someone starts pushing, its not going to be brought up, BUT it will be brought up eventually and the data will support a ban if they really push it:) Oh what a sihtstorm that will be, oh lawd!

I think its ridiculous that we can shoot lead at doves and then flood a field right behind it, or shoot snipe with lead on the very field we just duck hunted on:rotfl: Its common sense

Exactly. The evidence is there, but they keep their mouth shut about it. May be the same reason we still have to wait until 12:00 noon to shoot doves. Lol

[quote=Duck Butter;615390]I sure didn't want to get into this but this is wrong on so many levels, its like "W" has gotten into your brain or something:rotfl:

:rolleyes:
http://images.ftw.usatoday.com/wp-co.../2h6t0r5-1.gif

[quote="W";615426]Its called a civil discussion W, you lost out about page 3 in both threads when you started posting gifs and pics:)

Tell me what part of what I said does not make perfect sense

Right. Birds die from hunting and fish die from fishing. In the case of any specific component of a proposed regulation, the issue isn't whether or not individual birds or fish die, the issue is whether the effects are significantly detrimental at the population level.

The question is not, "Is there a non-zero possibility of a loon ingesting a lead sinker in New York"? but rather,

"Will enough loons find and ingest lead fishing sinkers in a given fishing area to make a significant negative impact that jeopardizes the very survival of the entire population of loons as a species?"

The question is not, "Is there a finite chance that a condor or eagle will feed on this deer carcass, ingest lead, and suffer ill health effects"? but rather,

"Will enough condors or eagles find and ingest lead from hunting bullets in a given hunting area to make a significant negative impact on the overall population"?

Another relevant question is whether the increase in crippling losses from mandated ammo changes will be greater than the gains in the populations we are hoping to protect.

Without doubt, the proposed tripletail regulations will SAVE FISH at the individual level. But the key question is whether the regulations have been shown to be scientifically necessary to preserve the health of the entire population in Louisiana waters. Is the harvest sustainable?

If losses to eagles and condors from lead rifle bullets is sustainable in a given area, then they should remain legal in that area.

If the losses to looms from lead sinkers is sustainable in a given area, then they should remain legal in that area.

If the losses of ducks to lead shot is sustainable ...

Duck butter is drunker than Cooter Brown from the Kool-Aid I don't even know where to begin.

Very nice way of painting the picture to differentiate between emotion based legislation and scientific data based legislation.

Well done sir.

I wasn't around when lead shot was legal for waterfowl, and I have done just fine with steel shot.

Now we have run the entire gamut, we have covered tripletail, Nazis, Jews, condors, and eagles, and no one has changed their mind. Its been a good discussion

Now we just need to fit in rule 34 somehow and we will have covered the entire purpose of the internets :eek:

And i do think some minds have been changed... It's gone from a straight reactionary pose of don't support CCA anymore, to a group effort to make some changes. That's a heck of lot right there DB.

OK. There is an indirect non-hunting mortality to migratory waterfowl from wind mills and airplanes. Should we ban them because of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act? Or should we ask for good data providing reasonable estimates so that we can weigh the trade-offs before demanding a ban because birds are dying and there is a Migratory Birds Treaty Act?

Has the explosive removal of oil platforms been banned yet? That causes mass die-offs at one time. I do not think explosive well removal should be banned, but I think the fish kill should be quantified and the companies removing the well should be forced to make some remediation and that the red snapper kill should count against the commercial quota. If there is not room in the commercial quota to kill the red snapper with the blast, then an alternate removal approach should be required. Is this unreasonable?

Also, there is a lot of scientific evidence that nutrient loading in the Gulf of Mexico causes seasonal hypoxia that occasionally results in fish kills. Some are calling for severe restrictions on nitrogen fertilizers. My colleagues and I (in our published papers) are suggesting that the benefits and risks of nutrient loading be considered as a whole to weigh the trade offs rather than implement federal restrictions on fertilizer use that may actually reduce fishery production in the Gulf of Mexico.

Lots of things kill speckled trout. W and I both think that a lot more trout need to be killed annually in Big Lake. Our preferred method would be raising the limit back to 25, but we both think that the population needs to be kept under better control to produce bigger fish. If you can think of a selective way to kill a bunch of dink trout without killing their food supply, please float some ideas ...

So when do the bans on windmills and airplanes go into effect?

Referencing the MBTA is arguing what the law currently is to support what the law should be. It is an example of the circular fallacy. I do not believe the law should demand criminalizing activities that may inadvertently contribute to the untimely demise of numbers of individual specimens but does not have a significant impact on the entire population.

This was an unpublished, unreviewed study from another state. Neither the data nor the methods are available, nor is it known what other game fish are used for comparison. The statement was presented as hearsay at a meeting and cannot even be attributed to a specific scientist, just a vague connection with a Mississippi study. Is this what fish and game laws should be based on in Louisiana?

Is the proposal a temporary or emergency measure while more data is gathered? No the tripletail proposal is for a permanent change to the harvest regulations. No real science needed. Just hearsay and pseudoscience.

Ok, then you are welcome not to use lead shot or lead bullets or lead sinkers. Free country.

If sustainability is admittedly not the issue, then the issue should be considered in a cost-benefit or risk-reward. Sound scientific data should inform the cost-benefit or risk-reward, and there should be criminal penalties for parties misrepresenting scientific findings to influence public policy.

And a lot of the federal laws regarding lead shot shells have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead. Why is possession of lead ammunition banned while hunting ducks? If I was hunting coyote and deer, I could possess lead slugs and buckshot. But if I was goose hunting (or wanted to take advantage of a target of opportunity), I had to be sure there were no lead ammo in my pockets or on the tractor. How much sense does this make for a farmer hunting in his own corn field in the midwest?

ps..... if you need to ask what rule 34 is.... don't ... and don't google it and follow any links either.....

just don't.

[QUOTE=MathGeek;615535]OK. There is an indirect non-hunting mortality to migratory waterfowl from wind mills and airplanes. Should we ban them because of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act? Or should we ask for good data providing reasonable estimates so that we can weigh the trade-offs before demanding a ban because birds are dying and there is a Migratory Birds Treaty Act?

You have to weigh the good vs the bad. Human NEEDS will always trump wildlife needs (especially with this POTUS:grinpimp:)

Has the explosive removal of oil platforms been banned yet? That causes mass die-offs at one time.

The oil companies are doing what is required by law, it is coming out of their pockets to have rigs removed. I already stated that this is a big time liability issue and a legal nightmare. First off, the Rigs to Reefs fund was raided by our very own. Oil companies actually donated money to this fund and the fund was very large. Then you have lobbying groups like the shrimpers who are against leaving idle iron behind (and I can see their point) because it tears their nets. After that, you get to the liability issue - what if someone runs into this structure and dies, or if this structure rusts and falls down (it will eventually fall down) someone is getting paid, so who is going to pay? The state, since it is their rig now? or the oil company since it was their rig at one point? Its a slippery slope. Well, you can put lights on these structures but that costs a ton of money (money that was in the Rigs to Reef Fund but Bobby J funded other things with that money:grinpimp:) but then you have to change the lights and lights have to be ran by some sort of electrical source (there aren't power lines out there, and generators run outta fuel, so someone has to refuel em and maintain them, see where this is going)

I do not think explosive well removal should be banned, but I think the fish kill should be quantified and the companies removing the well should be forced to make some remediation and that the red snapper kill should count against the commercial quota.

The oil companies are actually willingly donating their rigs to the Rigs to Reefs program, I don't think they should have to make any remediation. They shouldn't have to pay for what the gov't is forcing them to do. They are simply following instructions.

If there is not room in the commercial quota to kill the red snapper with the blast, then an alternate removal approach should be required. Is this unreasonable?

Not unreasonable, if you can come up with a better way, then the oil companies would probably shake your hand

Also, there is a lot of scientific evidence that nutrient loading in the Gulf of Mexico causes seasonal hypoxia that occasionally results in fish kills. Some are calling for severe restrictions on nitrogen fertilizers. My colleagues and I (in our published papers) are suggesting that the benefits and risks of nutrient loading be considered as a whole to weigh the trade offs rather than implement federal restrictions on fertilizer use that may actually reduce fishery production in the Gulf of Mexico.

There are other programs that are available right now for this very thing, but as of now they are all voluntary but cost-share programs are there. The NRCS promotes buffers along ditches. As of now, most farmers will farm 'ditch to ditch' and there is nothing to slow the flow of chemical runoffs. With just a 10' strip of native grasses to pick up the runoff, erosion is slowed down tremendously and the amounts of nitrogenous 'waste' coming downstream is lowered (not to mention the wildlife benefits of having small buffers of native grasses - quail!). I hate to say this but our use of chemicals is outrageous, and farmers especially. They are exempt from many of the tests to become certified for pesticide applications. We are creating 'superbugs' that are pesticide resistant by all the pesticides we use, and nevermind thats enough for that subject:rotfl:

Lots of things kill speckled trout. W and I both think that a lot more trout need to be killed annually in Big Lake. Our preferred method would be raising the limit back to 25, but we both think that the population needs to be kept under better control to produce bigger fish. If you can think of a selective way to kill a bunch of dink trout without killing their food supply, please float some ideas ...


Whatever W thinks, I will think the exact opposite:D


So when do the bans on windmills and airplanes go into effect?


Referencing the MBTA is arguing what the law currently is to support what the law should be. It is an example of the circular fallacy. I do not believe the law should demand criminalizing activities that may inadvertently contribute to the untimely demise of numbers of individual specimens but does not have a significant impact on the entire population.

This is a long standing law, just like the ban on lead shot, waaaaaay long time ago. Too late to jump on this train


This was an unpublished, unreviewed study from another state. Neither the data nor the methods are available, nor is it known what other game fish are used for comparison. The statement was presented as hearsay at a meeting and cannot even be attributed to a specific scientist, just a vague connection with a Mississippi study. Is this what fish and game laws should be based on in Louisiana?

How do you know it was unpublished? I honestly have not seen the study in reference and do not know if it was published or if it came out of someone's butt, but to answer the question, NO - fish and game laws should be based upon science (in mine and your opinion as well,) but we should also 'err on the side of caution' when science isn't readily available, this is where common sense comes into play. There ARE tripletail studies out there for other states and like I said there is no such thing as a Louisiana tripletail, they are all the same species and all the same population.

Is the proposal a temporary or emergency measure while more data is gathered? No the tripletail proposal is for a permanent change to the harvest regulations. No real science needed. Just hearsay and pseudoscience.


Ok, then you are welcome not to use lead shot or lead bullets or lead sinkers. Free country.

I am also 'free' to shoot ducks with lead if I please, but its not going to work out well:rotfl:
I don't like seeing an animal die that I can not eat, and animals dying from poisoning is not very cool


If sustainability is admittedly not the issue, then the issue should be considered in a cost-benefit or risk-reward. Sound scientific data should inform the cost-benefit or risk-reward, and there should be criminal penalties for parties misrepresenting scientific findings to influence public policy.

Another mission statement right there, but I agree

And a lot of the federal laws regarding lead shot shells have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead.

There may be 'a lot' that have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead but the main reasoning is just that

Why is possession of lead ammunition banned while hunting ducks?

I really do not know. I also do not know what the reasoning is that a person can only have 2 limits of ducks in their freezer but if I did some digging I could probably find out.

If I was hunting coyote and deer, I could possess lead slugs and buckshot. But if I was goose hunting (or wanted to take advantage of a target of opportunity), I had to be sure there were no lead ammo in my pockets or on the tractor. How much sense does this make for a farmer hunting in his own corn field in the midwest?

I haven't a clue but this is something that has been in effect for decades. There are many other laws I think need to be re-evaluated as well and are much more important - welfare is one, Obamacare is another