[QUOTE=MathGeek;615535]
OK. There is an indirect non-hunting mortality to migratory waterfowl from wind mills and airplanes. Should we ban them because of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act? Or should we ask for good data providing reasonable estimates so that we can weigh the trade-offs before demanding a ban because birds are dying and there is a Migratory Birds Treaty Act?
You have to weigh the good vs the bad. Human NEEDS will always trump wildlife needs (especially with this POTUS
)
Has the explosive removal of oil platforms been banned yet? That causes mass die-offs at one time.
The oil companies are doing what is required by law, it is coming out of their pockets to have rigs removed. I already stated that this is a big time liability issue and a legal nightmare. First off, the Rigs to Reefs fund was raided by our very own. Oil companies actually donated money to this fund and the fund was very large. Then you have lobbying groups like the shrimpers who are against leaving idle iron behind (and I can see their point) because it tears their nets. After that, you get to the liability issue - what if someone runs into this structure and dies, or if this structure rusts and falls down (it will eventually fall down) someone is getting paid, so who is going to pay? The state, since it is their rig now? or the oil company since it was their rig at one point? Its a slippery slope. Well, you can put lights on these structures but that costs a ton of money (money that was in the Rigs to Reef Fund but Bobby J funded other things with that money
) but then you have to change the lights and lights have to be ran by some sort of electrical source (there aren't power lines out there, and generators run outta fuel, so someone has to refuel em and maintain them, see where this is going)
I do not think explosive well removal should be banned, but I think the fish kill should be quantified and the companies removing the well should be forced to make some remediation and that the red snapper kill should count against the commercial quota.
The oil companies are actually willingly donating their rigs to the Rigs to Reefs program, I don't think they should have to make any remediation. They shouldn't have to pay for what the gov't is forcing them to do. They are simply following instructions.
If there is not room in the commercial quota to kill the red snapper with the blast, then an alternate removal approach should be required. Is this unreasonable?
Not unreasonable, if you can come up with a better way, then the oil companies would probably shake your hand
Also, there is a lot of scientific evidence that nutrient loading in the Gulf of Mexico causes seasonal hypoxia that occasionally results in fish kills. Some are calling for severe restrictions on nitrogen fertilizers. My colleagues and I (in our published papers) are suggesting that the benefits and risks of nutrient loading be considered as a whole to weigh the trade offs rather than implement federal restrictions on fertilizer use that may actually reduce fishery production in the Gulf of Mexico.
There are other programs that are available right now for this very thing, but as of now they are all voluntary but cost-share programs are there. The NRCS promotes buffers along ditches. As of now, most farmers will farm 'ditch to ditch' and there is nothing to slow the flow of chemical runoffs. With just a 10' strip of native grasses to pick up the runoff, erosion is slowed down tremendously and the amounts of nitrogenous 'waste' coming downstream is lowered (not to mention the wildlife benefits of having small buffers of native grasses - quail!). I hate to say this but our use of chemicals is outrageous, and farmers especially. They are exempt from many of the tests to become certified for pesticide applications. We are creating 'superbugs' that are pesticide resistant by all the pesticides we use, and nevermind thats enough for that subject
Lots of things kill speckled trout. W and I both think that a lot more trout need to be killed annually in Big Lake. Our preferred method would be raising the limit back to 25, but we both think that the population needs to be kept under better control to produce bigger fish. If you can think of a selective way to kill a bunch of dink trout without killing their food supply, please float some ideas ...
Whatever W thinks, I will think the exact opposite
So when do the bans on windmills and airplanes go into effect?
Referencing the MBTA is arguing what the law currently is to support what the law should be. It is an example of the circular fallacy. I do not believe the law should demand criminalizing activities that may inadvertently contribute to the untimely demise of numbers of individual specimens but does not have a significant impact on the entire population.
This is a long standing law, just like the ban on lead shot, waaaaaay long time ago. Too late to jump on this train
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?
How do you know it was unpublished? I honestly have not seen the study in reference and do not know if it was published or if it came out of someone's butt, but to answer the question, NO - fish and game laws should be based upon science (in mine and your opinion as well,) but we should also 'err on the side of caution' when science isn't readily available, this is where common sense comes into play. There ARE tripletail studies out there for other states and like I said there is no such thing as a Louisiana tripletail, they are all the same species and all the same population.
Is the proposal a temporary or emergency measure while more data is gathered? No the tripletail proposal is for a permanent change to the harvest regulations. No real science needed. Just hearsay and pseudoscience.
Ok, then you are welcome not to use lead shot or lead bullets or lead sinkers. Free country.
I am also 'free' to shoot ducks with lead if I please, but its not going to work out well
I don't like seeing an animal die that I can not eat, and animals dying from poisoning is not very cool
If sustainability is admittedly not the issue, then the issue should be considered in a cost-benefit or risk-reward. Sound scientific data should inform the cost-benefit or risk-reward, and there should be criminal penalties for parties misrepresenting scientific findings to influence public policy.
Another mission statement right there, but I agree
And a lot of the federal laws regarding lead shot shells have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead.
There may be 'a lot' that have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead but the main reasoning is just that
Why is possession of lead ammunition banned while hunting ducks?
I really do not know. I also do not know what the reasoning is that a person can only have 2 limits of ducks in their freezer but if I did some digging I could probably find out.
If I was hunting coyote and deer, I could possess lead slugs and buckshot. But if I was goose hunting (or wanted to take advantage of a target of opportunity), I had to be sure there were no lead ammo in my pockets or on the tractor. How much sense does this make for a farmer hunting in his own corn field in the midwest?
I haven't a clue but this is something that has been in effect for decades. There are many other laws I think need to be re-evaluated as well and are much more important - welfare is one, Obamacare is another