[I make oil]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

Excellent post. Two thumbs up.