SaltyCajun.com - Triple tail limit coming

SaltyCajun.com (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/index.php)

- Inshore Saltwater Fishing Discussion (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Triple tail limit coming (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46700)

How wildlife management works

Long post here but bare with me and all this can be found in any wildlife management or ecology textbook, and probably google and wikipedia its all 101 stuff:

You can not get an exact population count on wildlife. You have to make estimations based on the data you have available, its just one of those things and is why statistics are used extensively for wildlife populations, because they are only estimates. One of these methods is called the 'mark-recapture method'. This is what was used in this study and where this statement came from and where the number came from:

"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."

So, its obvious that studies were done, there goes that notion that 'there are no studies':shaking: In this type of study, you catch all the individuals and mark them (tag in the ear of a deer, tag in the fish, clip the toe of a rat, color band a bird, etc.) then you go back and you 'trap' again. The numbers of recaptures is then plugged into a formula and you come out with a number which estimates the population. Its not that cut and dry for all species but these are the basics, and something that is migratory like a tripletail will be very hard to estimate the population, BUT what IS very very important here is that which is bolded above (2 2/2 times more susceptible to harvest):eek: And THAT is where the 'red flags' come up.

and to Spunt Drag and others who keep saying 'who cares about their minimum age at sexual maturity', that is one of the most important factors in setting regulations. You have to protect your stock. Its why there are minimum lenght requirements for game fish - plain and simple, a tripletail is not any different.

So just because they are 2-1/2 times susceptible of being caught they are being over fished? Have you ever caught a 3tail DB?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 614785)

So just because they are 2-1/2 times susceptible of being caught they are being over fished? Have you ever caught a 3tail DB?

Yes, one in Florida on a wooden crate and one in Big Lake on a crabtrap

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614794)

Yes, one in Florida on a wooden crate and one in Big Lake on a crabtrap

Over fished! ;)

Duck Butt
Let me clear up this tagging for you and make it simple as can be.......
I go to Lake Bourge (sp?) and hit 100 crab traps and tag 20 Triple tail on Weds
Come Saturday Joe Blow, Mo Hoe and Trapper Bob see triple tail ...they catch 7 of the 20 I tagged because they did not go anywhere and they are a site fish
As long as the water is warm and the fish have no reason to leave they will hang around the same set of crab traps for a few days up to a week..
So don’t buy into the CRAB TRAP TAG PROGRAM with Triple tail when you tag 100 in Lake B and catch 30 of them in Lake B

Lets also add....Tagged 3Tail are 100% easier to see in the water vs any other tag fish the CCA tags

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614799)

You are correct, that is exactly how it all happened, thanks for your insight it all makes 'cents' now:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 614797)

Over fished! ;)

I have caught every one I have ever seen:rotfl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614765)

"There needs to be scientific data that can be reviewed, assessed, and commented on by independent experts and stakeholders."

As you know MG, the sceintfic data IS accessible, all you have to do is ask. You have gotten fisheries data from LDWF before:) And

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614765)

"There needs to be scientific data that can be reviewed, assessed, and commented on by independent experts and stakeholders."

Well that is where the meetings I have been harping on come into play. You have a right to go and voice your opinion. A matter of fact, your opinion is welcomed at these forums. They ask for them. Not sure why everyone is not grasping this:confused:

Any data presented at the meetings is really not the kind or quantity that can be reviewed and assessed by independent experts and stakeholders. See below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614777)

"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."

This is junk science. First of all, there is no description of the study design, sample sizes, or actual data. There is just a comparison of recapture rates with "other game fish." Which "other game fish?" Were there comparable delays and comparable recapture efforts with the TT and the "other game fish?"

Furthermore, a relatively high recapture rate does not necessarily imply vulnerability to over fishing. It simply means that the specimens that are captured once are more likely to be captured again. This does not indicate that the entire population is subject to likely capture in the first place. There may be large parts of the population that are not subject to easy capture (due to habitat or feeding preferences).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614777)

So, its obvious that studies were done, there goes that notion that 'there are no studies'

The issue is not whether there are secret, unpublished studies that policy makers cite to support their exercise of power, but whether the data and methodologies are published with sufficient detail to allow review, assessment, and comment by independent scientists and stakeholders.

Citing unpublished studies or data is not scientifically based policy making. It is a recipe for any policy the power brokers wish to implement based on pseudoscience.

Cite a source for the published data. You should know that throwing out a single numerical conclusion (2.5 times the recapture rate of other species) is a conclusion, it is not the data or methodology needed to assess the validity of the conclusion or the inferences that are based on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 614777)

and to Spunt Drag and others who keep saying 'who cares about their minimum age at sexual maturity', that is one of the most important factors in setting regulations. You have to protect your stock. Its why there are minimum lenght requirements for game fish - plain and simple, a tripletail is not any different.

Then explain why the immature redfish and black drum support higher take limits than the sexually mature fish? Then why are there no length limits for many species of game fish? Where is the science to justify adding the tripletail to the list of more highly regulated species requiring a minimum length limit?

What is different about white trout, gafftops, channel catfish, croaker, freshwater drum, spanish mackerel, and jack cravelle that these species don't need the possession limit to be lowered to five?

Arbitrary, unsupported harvest restrictions on tripletail raise valid concerns that fishing rights will gradually be whittled away by unsupported "conservation" concerns. Once this proposed restriction is accomplished, they will set their sights on the next area where they can restrict liberty without a soundly supported scientific need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 614817)

Once this proposed restriction is accomplished, they will set their sights on the next area where they can restrict liberty without a soundly supported scientific need.

Once again. EXACTLY!

Perhaps i am missing something, But i think all of you are really missing DB's point. I have read everything on here, and in particular what DB is saying and nowhere am i reading that he is a staunch supporter of the CCA's actions and that we should all be too....

What i read him saying is that no one here, and no one outside of here, has proposed / created or started anything any better than what the CCA has done in the past. And since CCA has done some good, and also done some not good, we should involve ourselves in this process, and if need be shame the CCA / LDWF into conducting the appropriate studies, and / or sharing of the studies that have been conducted.

If the net resolution of this discussion is only to "stop" supporting the CCA and Star tourney. And nothing goes in to replace the work that they do to all our betterment........................................ ............... welp... there you go.

Not once do i read from DB or certainly not on my part, that there is a desire to just put restrictions into place just "because".

Like i said, perhaps i am missing something here..

I really wish we could get such a lively discussion going about the right's we are all losing due to the continued extention's of the patriot act and our domestic spying policys.... But apparently no one gives a hoot about rights unless it involves fish :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 614817)

Actually, LDWF has rejected every request for data we have made of them. In contrast, other states like Colorado, have quickly provided reams of data (many megabytes in conveniently formatted spreadsheets) in response to every data request we have made. I think we have published three different papers on our detailed analysis and interpretation of fisheries data from Colorado Parks and Wildlife. But so far, LDWF has not been willing to share.

Any data presented at the meetings is really not the kind or quantity that can be reviewed and assessed by independent experts and stakeholders. See below.

This is junk science. First of all, there is no description of the study design, sample sizes, or actual data. There is just a comparison of recapture rates with "other game fish." Which "other game fish?" Were there comparable delays and comparable recapture efforts with the TT and the "other game fish?"

Furthermore, a relatively high recapture rate does not necessarily imply vulnerability to over fishing. It simply means that the specimens that are captured once are more likely to be captured again. This does not indicate that the entire population is subject to likely capture in the first place. There may be large parts of the population that are not subject to easy capture (due to habitat or feeding preferences).

The issue is not whether there are secret, unpublished studies that policy makers cite to support their exercise of power, but whether the data and methodologies are published with sufficient detail to allow review, assessment, and comment by independent scientists and stakeholders.

Citing unpublished studies or data is not scientifically based policy making. It is a recipe for any policy the power brokers wish to implement based on pseudoscience.

Cite a source for the published data. You should know that throwing out a single numerical conclusion (2.5 times the recapture rate of other species) is a conclusion, it is not the data or methodology needed to assess the validity of the conclusion or the inferences that are based on it.

Then explain why the immature redfish and black drum support higher take limits than the sexually mature fish? Then why are there no length limits for many species of game fish? Where is the science to justify adding the tripletail to the list of more highly regulated species requiring a minimum length limit?

What is different about white trout, gafftops, channel catfish, croaker, freshwater drum, spanish mackerel, and jack cravelle that these species don't need the possession limit to be lowered to five?

Arbitrary, unsupported harvest restrictions on tripletail raise valid concerns that fishing rights will gradually be whittled away by unsupported "conservation" concerns. Once this proposed restriction is accomplished, they will set their sights on the next area where they can restrict liberty without a soundly supported scientific need.

On an unrelated side note MathGeek, I really need to introduce you to my Father. He has a master's degree in Nuclear Physics and another in Teaching, I do believe you two could quite possibly get along very well. :)

You are right CCA has done some good, but they need to do better and stop backing these uncalled for limits on fish they have ZERO info about!
Like MG said: Keep pushing these non-factors on fish and in 10 years were fishing for 3 trout 1 red and 1 flounder but can’t figure out why the biggest trout you catch in big lake is 2lbs

Here is a question I would love to ask in front of everyone who supported big lake 15trout limit:
"It was so called to preserve it as a trophy lake"
But before the limit change we were a trophy lake according to every CCA shootout, STAR event, and tournaments documented
With upper 8lbs 9lb and 10lb trout.
SO NOT BROKE, DO NOT FIX
But now when was the last time a true 7lb trout was weight in for the Trout Shootout??

Mathgeek with another right hook.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 614833)

Mathgeek with another right hook.

MG beat DUCK BUTT down like a Fat kid loves cake :rotfl::rotfl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614837)

MG beat DUCK BUTT down like a Fat kid loves cake :rotfl::rotfl:

I wish he'd just tapout already!

Yeah.. tapout duck butt... because having a opinion is UNAMURICAN!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 614830)

Then speak up in a public venue (read meeting) with them and shame them by stating exactly this!

As crazy as this might sound W... your not asking them to do anything unreasonable. And in politics the only things that matter are money and public opinion.

So unless your name is William Gates Jr., and you got all the cheese..... we might want to make some public waves eh.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by AceArcher (Post 614848)

If I did not have to work I would love to go to a meeting