[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You are going to have to take that up with the oil companies, they are doing what is cheapest to fulfill their legal obligations

So you want MORE gov't overreach? Because this is what it sounds like in this sentence

I'm not asking for new laws, just that the existing laws on red snapper quota be applied to oil companies when they kill red snapper in explosive well removals. The Constitution requires "equal treatment under the law" and the fishing regs do not allow game species to be killed by use of explosives. Why are the oil companies getting a pass for explosive well removals when those explosive removals kill thousands of fish whose harvest is tightly regulated because they are in danger at the population level?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Run for Senate and get the law changed or contact Mary Landrieu and/or David Vitter (their phones are surely blowing up already due to this), they are simply doing what is defined in the law and what is cheapest.

This is not a legislative issue, it is an enforcement issue that can and should be handled within the executive branch.

I'm not proposing changing it, but with 20+ years of hindsight, we can prevent repeating some of the mistakes by limiting restrictions of new laws to those demonstrated to be necessary by sound
science.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

What mistake? Banning lead was/is far from a mistake in my opinion and there are numerous publications out there to show that lead kills birds long after it comes out that shotgun shell (see my reference to Catahoula Lake)

My point is not that lead should not have been banned in some areas, my point was that the lead ban went far beyond the need that was demonstrated by sound science. The sound science in the 1980s did not support banning lead in all areas where migratory waterfowl are hunted, but only in areas where it was likely to be ingested by waterfowl: wetlands. Banning lead shot in midwestern cornfields was an overreach not supported by the science. Banning the possession of lead shot was also an overreach.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Regulations can always be changed once science supports it. It happens every year with waterfowl. Limits are established every single year depending upon the waterfowl counts (these are estimates by the way). Commercial quotas of fish change every year as well. Many things we thought in the past change and that is what makes science have rigor, the more you learn from 'mistakes' (as you put it), the more you can add to the future. One of the gurus of wild turkeys is a professor from Georgia. I heard him talk last week about a study they did with radio transmitters on turkeys in the Morganza Spillway when they opened the floodgates and one of the questions that was asked after the talk was 'what have radio transmitters taught you?'. Dr. Chamberlain said that he realizes now that many of his former publications were not correct. All his assumptions have been falsified by the data he collects from radio-transmitted turkeys. Thats just how things work, we once thought the earth was flat

Thinking the earth was flat was the result of pseudoscience. There should be sound science in place before criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties. Science needs to demonstrate the necessity of new laws before adding to the list of actions that carry criminal penalties, especially if the regulations are put into place by the executive branch (thus bypassing legislative due process and separation of powers). The call for tighter limits on tripletail, as well as the limit reduction on specks down to 15 in big lake in 2005, are based on unsubstantiated fears and not on sound science. Your approach seems to be:

"Tighten the regs before there is sound science, just in case. If it is a wrong move, it can be fixed later, once the science shows it was an unneeded regulation."


The Constitutional approach is closer to:

"The legislative branch has empowered the executive branch to implement regulations when shown to be necessary by sound science. Bypassing separation of powers and criminalizing activities without legislative approval requires a scientific burden of proof to be met."

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

That whole red snapper venting thing is crap I agree. That is all federal junk there. The common sense thing to do (in my opinion) would be to make the regs where the angler has to keep the every fish he catches (no catch and release, most are going to die anyways when they return to the water so why not keep them) this would also be an incentive for people to use larger baits to target larger fish

I agree.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) are one exception, they have been shown to work

Wasn't awarer of a steel shot requirement to shoot blackbirds
But it makes sense to me, because much of the areas blackbirds inhabit are wetlands or can be wetlands (flooded corn, flooded rice) and it ties in with waterfowl ingestion of lead

The requirement for non-toxic shot should depend on the location (wetlands or not), not on the target species. This is supported by the science. Banning lead shot for shooting blackbirds in the same farm fields where clay pigeons can be shot with lead is silly.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Tripletail could very well be a similar issue as they are found in federal waters most of the year, so an argument could be made that this falls under federal regs (redfish caught out past so many miles fall under this category as well).

What IF LDWF is being proactive in management of tripletail BEFORE the feds get in here and try and do it? We all saw what happened with red snapper, maybe LDWF is getting ahead of this? Thats a point to ponder.

There are two issues here: state vs. fed and science vs. fear. Regardless of whether the state or feds are imposing the regulations, tighter restrictions should not be imposed until they are demonstrated to be necessary by sound science showing likely damage at the population level. If (and only if) the science shows current harvest levels are unsustainable, then tighter limits should be imposed. Suggesting that the state needs to impose unsupported and draconian limits so the feds don't jump in and do that is silly.