Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter
You have got to know that lead is an extremely toxic element, and it has been proven hundreds of times that birds die from lead ingestion.
|
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 ...