The government isn't forcing them to place the well and drill for oil in the first place, they are forcing them to remove the well after its useful life is over. I do not think the feds are forcing them to use explosive removals. Have the feds banned the alternate removal technologies, or are the oil companies just reluctant to adopt alternate methods because they are more expensive?

It comes down to money. Making sportsman pay more money for lead free ammunition and circle hooks, etc. is reasonable, but making oil companies pay more to remove wells with methods that don't cause massive fish kills is unreasonable?

The oil companies define better as cheaper. I would define better as not having a negative impact on sustainable fisheries.

I'm not proposing changing it, but with 20+ years of hindsight, we can prevent repeating some of the mistakes by limiting restrictions of new laws to those demonstrated to be necessary by sound science.

This was an unpublished, unreviewed study from another state.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?

After conducting extensive scholarly searches for all possible published tag studies in tripletail, I came up empty. I reviewed the CVs and publication lists of the authors in Gulf states who have published anything on tripletail in the last two decades - no published tag studies. A google search finally turned up a news report of a tag study in tripletail I emailed one of the scientists on the tag study earlier today, not published.

So what if we err on the side of caution and implement a law that stays in place for a number of years. Then science shows that some of the restrictions in the law were never necessary. By that point (your above argument), it's water under the bridge and established law "too late to jump on that train."

Dying as a result of catch and release mortality isn't cool either, and many species of fish have release mortalities in the 20-80% range (even with circle hooks and vent tools). I hope no one figures out that sport anglers occasionally hook loggerhead turtles!

Those trumpeting the need for new restrictions to reduce mortality of non-target species mention the successes but seldom the failures. Remember a few years back when the shrimpers had to install the devices to reduce the mortality of juvenile red snapper? And then several years later, they figured out that the shrimp bycatch mortality was not hurting the population. Circle hooks decrease release mortality in some fisheries, but there are other fisheries where their benefits have been shown to be insignificant years after mandating them. And the LA requirement to use steel shot to kill nuisance blackbirds is laughable. I shot hundreds of blackbirds when I raised corn in Ohio, and lead shot is so much more effective, it's not even funny. Farmers should be allowed to use the effective tools in controlling nuisance species.

Good morning MG:), I am starting another thread as well after this


Remember the whole red snapper fiasco? Its still ongoing, but its basically states vs the feds on this issue. NOAA and the NMFS have their data and are trying to restrict harvest on what we think are OUR fish (red snapper). LDWF wants to take over the management and get the feds out of our hair. Tripletail could very well be a similar issue as they are found in federal waters most of the year, so an argument could be made that this falls under federal regs (redfish caught out past so many miles fall under this category as well).

What IF LDWF is being proactive in management of tripletail BEFORE the feds get in here and try and do it?:eek: We all saw what happened with red snapper, maybe LDWF is getting ahead of this? Thats a point to ponder.

Good discussion but I am starting a new thread on conservation orgs in general

Well guys.. If you haven read this already.. The free landing permit has been extended to dolphin and cobia..

Also starting sept 5 no more venting tool..

Thanks....makes me feel so much better about dropping $30 on the venter last year at bridge side.

lol... I keep a tony chachere's cajun injector on the boat as my venting tool

I'm not asking for new laws, just that the existing laws on red snapper quota be applied to oil companies when they kill red snapper in explosive well removals. The Constitution requires "equal treatment under the law" and the fishing regs do not allow game species to be killed by use of explosives. Why are the oil companies getting a pass for explosive well removals when those explosive removals kill thousands of fish whose harvest is tightly regulated because they are in danger at the population level?

This is not a legislative issue, it is an enforcement issue that can and should be handled within the executive branch.

I'm not proposing changing it, but with 20+ years of hindsight, we can prevent repeating some of the mistakes by limiting restrictions of new laws to those demonstrated to be necessary by sound
science.

My point is not that lead should not have been banned in some areas, my point was that the lead ban went far beyond the need that was demonstrated by sound science. The sound science in the 1980s did not support banning lead in all areas where migratory waterfowl are hunted, but only in areas where it was likely to be ingested by waterfowl: wetlands. Banning lead shot in midwestern cornfields was an overreach not supported by the science. Banning the possession of lead shot was also an overreach.

Thinking the earth was flat was the result of pseudoscience. There should be sound science in place before criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties. Science needs to demonstrate the necessity of new laws before adding to the list of actions that carry criminal penalties, especially if the regulations are put into place by the executive branch (thus bypassing legislative due process and separation of powers). The call for tighter limits on tripletail, as well as the limit reduction on specks down to 15 in big lake in 2005, are based on unsubstantiated fears and not on sound science. Your approach seems to be:

"Tighten the regs before there is sound science, just in case. If it is a wrong move, it can be fixed later, once the science shows it was an unneeded regulation."


The Constitutional approach is closer to:

"The legislative branch has empowered the executive branch to implement regulations when shown to be necessary by sound science. Bypassing separation of powers and criminalizing activities without legislative approval requires a scientific burden of proof to be met."


I agree.

The requirement for non-toxic shot should depend on the location (wetlands or not), not on the target species. This is supported by the science. Banning lead shot for shooting blackbirds in the same farm fields where clay pigeons can be shot with lead is silly.

There are two issues here: state vs. fed and science vs. fear. Regardless of whether the state or feds are imposing the regulations, tighter restrictions should not be imposed until they are demonstrated to be necessary by sound science showing likely damage at the population level. If (and only if) the science shows current harvest levels are unsustainable, then tighter limits should be imposed. Suggesting that the state needs to impose unsupported and draconian limits so the feds don't jump in and do that is silly.

OK, this is my last post on this I am serious:rotfl: We are going over the same thing over and over again and it seems we are both hard-headed enough to keep going for some reason:rotfl:. I don't know how to multi-quote stuff so bear with me on the bolding stuff

We are going in circles, Draconian limits have been brought up several times. That would be a good name for the organization you should start and a good platform to run for office on

All these are issues that need to be brought up with the federal government. You can start an organization that will lobby on your behalf, but wouldn't that be doing exactly what the entire CCA bashing thread is about - being in bed with the politicians?;)

By your reasoning, lead shot should be banned, not just for hunting, in places where it might later be ingested, but lead should be banned on any outdoor range by it may later be ingested by a passing bird.

I disagree strongly on two counts:

1. Lead projectiles are protected by RKBA (2nd amendment). When the science demonstrates a sound need, lead projectiles can reasonably be regulated for hunting purposes, but non-hunting bans of lead projectiles has RKBA ramifications.
2. I guess it is a reasonable inference that lead shot might be ingested and create a non-zero mortality in game birds. But as I described previously, the science should be able to show significant population level effects from a given practice before that practice is criminalized. Have scientific studies been published showing significant population level effects of lead shot in midwestern cornfields?

In modern usage, science implies employing a specific methodology (the scientific method) whereby results are based on repeatability, reproducibility, and due care to control for confounding factors that may be muddling the observations or leading to their misinterpretation.

Some foundations of the scientific method were laid by Roger Bacon in the 13th century, but the overall method was not worked out and well applied until Galileo in the 16th century. The flat earth and the geocentric model of the solar system were two of the early Aristotelian ideas quickly dismissed with the scientific method. Most of Aristotle's assertions about the natural world were based on philosophical methods that downplayed the importance of observation, experiment, and control of confounding factors, and no one who appreciates the differences between the modern scientific method and the ancient philosophical approach would describe Aristotelian "physics" as conforming to the scientific method.

Short-cutting the modern scientific method (control of confounding factors, repeatable experiments, peer-review) is the slippery slope that leads to arguments from authority (a scientist said so) rather than from published scientific data.

Of course. The Federal bureaucracy will nearly always support a position that increases the power, funding, and scope of the Federal bureaucracy. How often does a Federal agency step away and promote an approach that expands individual liberty in a way that reduces their own power, funding, and scope?

Why make everything into a Federal issue? 17 states, including Louisiana already have Constitutional guarantees regarding hunting and fishing. These Constitutional guarantees require management to be based on needing to preserve the resources for the present and future use of the people of the state rather pandering to animal rights, anti-hunting, or anti-gun special interests.

Consider the Louisiana RKBA:

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Now, due process of law can certainly restrict ammunition used in hunting. But it seems to me that restricting ammunition used for non-hunting purposes is a restriction that "shall be subject to strict scrutiny."

If the science shows that banning lead shot when hunting upland game is necessary to preserve whole populations, yes. But if it's a matter of a trade-off where no populations are really threatened, then science should inform the political process, and then the people decide how to address the trade-off through the normal political process. If there are tens or hundreds of millions in the population of a given species, banning lead shot for upland game is not necessarily the only right outcome if none of the species are really threatened and banning lead shot is likely only save a few thousand each year. Science is not a tool to be manipulated so that one group (dove hunters in this case) is disadvantaged so that another group (duck hunters) has more of its preferred game.

In a free country, individual citizens should be at liberty to act on their fears, whether or not they are reasonable. I think I'll likely to be the first to evacuate a low lying area when a hurricane is coming even though it might be 48 hours away from landfall and might change course. When a snowstorm was coming in the midwest, I was often the first to stock up on water, food, and batteries.

But the exercise of governmental power to restrict individual liberty is a different deal. It should be based on genuine, demonstrated need to exercise that power and not on "just in case." I'd hate to see the government mandating evacuations when a hurricane is coming as soon as the most prudent citizens (including me) decide to leave.


I think citizens (like me) can be effective at the grass roots level without becoming politicians. I'm more of a scientist and an educator. I may be wrong, but I think educating the citizens is more powerful than lobbying the politicians.

And I strongly disagree with your emphasis on addressing things with "the federal government." The average Louisiana citizen needs less of the feds in his business.

Are we there yet?

Agreed. Too bad you don't want to apply the same scientific standards to tripletail that you wanted for trout.

But I do:) And until that meeting coming up I am going to withhold judgement because all this is speculation until we hear their side of the argument.


And I thought this thread died a week ago, but what in the world is this?

I disagree strongly on two counts:

1. Lead projectiles are protected by RKBA (2nd amendment). When the science demonstrates a sound need, lead projectiles can reasonably be regulated for hunting purposes, but non-hunting bans of lead projectiles has RKBA ramifications.

The right to bear arms includes lead projectiles?:shaking: I don't think it does, but the original discussion was about pellets not bullets, so I will stay on that subject. BUT, there was a study at Fort Polk looking at deer stomach contents and a large majority of them contained lead projectiles. This was a study by a student under my major professor. Deer can feed by sight, so they know what they are picking up, and it appeared by the stomach contents that some of these deer were actively seeking out the lead projectiles:eek: I am not a chemist but it has something to do about oxidation of lead, etc. You will not find this study published because it wasn't and will not be, DoD shut it down:smokin:

2. I guess it is a reasonable inference that lead shot might be ingested and create a non-zero mortality in game birds. But as I described previously, the science should be able to show significant population level effects from a given practice before that practice is criminalized. Have scientific studies been published showing significant population level effects of lead shot in midwestern cornfields?

Again, this is where the lines are a little blurred and depends on what you consider 'acceptable mortality'. Waterfowl to this very day 20+ years after banning of lead shot, still die due to lead shot on Catahoula Lake. There are gizzard studies that are ongoing from Catahoula Lake waterfowl and many of them contain lead shot.
There are also studies with doves and lead shot, think this is at Sandy Hollow WMA.
Doves are short-lived birds so you could assume that the lead that they pick up in their relatively short lifespan probably does not do too much negative on them. However, the critters that feed upon them....
And the big 'elephant in the room' are the other songbirds that are picking up this lead. They are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, so now there are big ramifications. If there are in fact songbirds or other non-target birds dying from lead, then how many dying is to much? I don't know, but when its a big 'warm and fuzzy' species or a well known symbolic species dying such as a bald eagle, people get up in arms. OR, the California condor, then you have endangered species act coming into play.

Here is a scenario:

20 people are hunting a dove field and they all shoot 4 boxes of shells (not unreasonable)

And for each box of shells, there are 2 lbs of lead in each box
(I have no idea how much lead is in a box of shells, but I know lead is the bulk of the weight and lets just say a box of shells weighs 3 lbs, seems reasonable)
So basically, each hunter just scattered 8 POUNDS of lead pellets on the field. Multiply that by 20 and you have 160 pounds of lead pellets scattered in that field on opening day of dove season. You see where this is going? It adds up quick.
Imagine if you went up to someone with 160 lbs of lead pellets and told them you were going to spread them across his land:shaking::rotfl: You would get shot.

Lead never goes away, and lets call it what it is - POISON. It was outlawed in paint because of this as well.

So Cliff's notes - lead is bad, birds die from it 20+ years out, it doesn't go away, and I am not advocating a ban on lead shot but if it did come around I can definitely understand why it did and will gladly shoot steel at doves, woodcock, etc.:rotfl:

and YES I will continue to support CCA and other conservation organizations because they are on our side