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.
You can get the data, believe me. Didnt I offer you some oyster cultch data once and you said don't worry you had gotten it from LDWF? But yes, you have to keep on them about it and maybe go up there and introduce yourself and let them know why you are interested. These data are very very large files and they can't just stop what they are doing and email everyone gigabytes full of fish data.
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?"
You are going to have to get a link to these studies and that will answer your questions, I am sorry you were not in the loop of the peer review process, but neither were 99.9% of fishermen
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).
All speculation, you are going to have to speak with the publisher of the paper(s). He/she will probably tell you everything you want to hear. A high capture rate (ease of capture) is exactly what is raising concern.
The issue is not whether there are secret, unpublished studies that policy makers cite to support their exercise of power, but whether the data and methodologies are published with sufficient detail to allow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.
Find out what studies they are basing this off, and then go to the meeting and comment
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.
Who says they are unpublished?
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.
You know that with the scientific process, you can not just throw out numbers. The article where those numbers came from was not a scientific journal article and I am sure there was limited space in that article to add their introduction, methods, and statistical analyses.
Then explain why the immature redfish and black drum support higher take limits than the sexually mature fish?
See below, and add that it really depends on the ecology of the fish - where it spends its time and its movements as a juvenile and as an adult.
Then why are there no length limits for many species of game fish?
It can be based on their age at sexual maturity, lifespan, how many are targeted each year, and a combination of some or all. For instance, red snapper take many years to reach sexual maturity so they have a different set of regs than say a mahi mahi which grows at an incredible rate and lives a short lifespan (they can reach 25 lbs in one year
)
Where is the science to justify adding the tripletail to the list of more highly regulated species requiring a minimum length limit?
Hasn't this been discussed?
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?
If there was a real trend towards targeting these species on a broad scale, the limits would certainly be looked into, but as of now there are no concerns with that, whereas tripletail are gaining in popularity and their ease of capture is what is drawing concern
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.