Will you continue to Support CCA?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I find it ironic that groups with names like "Trout Unlimited" and "Ducks Unlimited" are the some of the biggest pushers of harvest and access restrictions.

I'm still coming up the learning curve regarding CCA, but Trout Unlimited promoted an elitist agenda that actually opposed many state and federal stocking efforts in trout streams.

Dividing sportsmen and micromanaging details about how the natural resource pie is divided is bad conservation! Preserving our hunting and fishing rights for the next generation is as important as ensuring there will still be resources and habitat to hunt and fish.

You are about to give me a stroke man, this is simply not true
Restricting harvest and access? No sir! No sir! No sir! I am not going to try and defend Ducks Unlimited because its pointless (just like trying to explain tripletail limits and basic wildlife management principles).

You need to start another thread where everyone can bash all the conservation organizations

Ducks Unlimited restricting access

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Ducks Unlimited restricting access

Correct me if I am in need of a history lesson, but didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?

Didn't this have the effect of driving up the price of duck hunting and effectively restricting access to the more affluent? Duck hunting is surely much more of a rich man's sport in 2013 than when my dad introduced me to duck hunting in 1978.

Don't get me wrong, the science showed a genuine need to reduce the use of lead shot in areas where it was being ingested by waterfowl. But the global ban for waterfowl hunting that was put in place was overreaching and is serving as a template for current efforts to expand lead bans to include upland game and rifle ammunition as well. RKBA advocates recognize current efforts to bad lead ammunition as aimed at 2nd amendment rights by driving up prices and restricting access. The 1991 waterfowl ban was the camel's nose in the tent.

Why is DU silent on the current issue of banning lead for upland game and rifle ammunition? (Feel free to correct me if my assertion of DU's silence is incorrect.)

Also, wasn't DU a player in a lot of the wetland preservation regulations in the 1980s and 1990s that amounted to a major governmental intrusion on private property rights requiring private landowners to jump through hoops to develop their own property?

The parallel between DU and CCA is this: supporting restrictive regulations that restrict access beyond the needs supported by sound science sets bad precedents that will be copied and exploited to further restrict hunting and fishing rights in the future.

[Duck Butter]

I sure didn't want to get into this but this is wrong on so many levels, its like "W" has gotten into your brain or something

[QUOTE=MathGeek;615330]Correct me if I am in need of a history lesson, but didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?

Didn't this have the effect of driving up the price of duck hunting and effectively restricting access to the more affluent? Duck hunting is surely much more of a rich man's sport in 2013 than when my dad introduced me to duck hunting in 1978.

There are many many factors behind why leases are skyrocketing. One of them is because they can get it. If I was a farmer I would flood every bit of my land and lease it to the highest bidder, because people will pay it just to have a spot to sit. Duck hunting has become the 'cool thing' to do and a case of shells is the least expense for a duck hunter

Don't get me wrong, the science showed a genuine need to reduce the use of lead shot in areas where it was being ingested by waterfowl.

Then why did you say this "didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?" Aren't you adamately FOR science driven regulations, I mean the entire tripletail thread would show that you are. Seems to me that lead was killing ducks indirectly and a conservation organization for ducks stepped in and showed the science that lead does in fact kill ducks (and it does still to this day, there are studies on Catahoula Lake going on yearly that will show this)

But the global ban for waterfowl hunting (global ban) that was put in place was overreaching and is serving as a template for current efforts to expand lead bans to include upland game and rifle ammunition as well. RKBA advocates recognize current efforts to bad lead ammunition as aimed at 2nd amendment rights by driving up prices and restricting access. The 1991 waterfowl ban was the camel's nose in the tent.
You are really reaching here. Lead is bad for ducks, period, don't try and put the rest on Ducks Unlimited, they did it for the ducks (DUCKS unlimited). This sounds like that Nazi and Jew thing you posted on the tripletail thread

Why is DU silent on the current issue of banning lead for upland game and rifle ammunition? (Feel free to correct me if my assertion of DU's silence is incorrect.)

Remember that its DUCKS Unlimited, not upland game unlimited or pheasants forever or rifle ammunition unlimited. Their mission is for wetlands and waterfowl. No dog in that fight for them. And why do you want them to be, you just said they were 'overreaching' in the paragraph just above, which is it? Are the overreaching? or are they not doing enough? Can't have it both ways

Also, wasn't DU a player in a lot of the wetland preservation regulations in the 1980s and 1990s that amounted to a major governmental intrusion on private property rights requiring private landowners to jump through hoops to develop their own property?

Oh you mean when we FINALLY found out the real importance of wetlands and people had to actually apply for permits (what you call 'jump through hoops', I call permits, thank goodness this came about). Before this came around, a person could just do anything they wanted to with a wetland - develop it, dam it up, drain it, etc. This affects other people downstream. If you had property downstream of someone who altered their waterway, you could have been flooded downstream

The parallel between DU and CCA is this: supporting restrictive regulations that restrict access beyond the needs supported by sound science sets bad precedents that will be copied and exploited to further restrict hunting and fishing rights in the future.

That is your opinion and everyone is entitled to them, and you do not have to support anything they do

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Oh you mean when we FINALLY found out the real importance of wetlands and people had to actually apply for permits (what you call 'jump through hoops', I call permits, thank goodness this came about). Before this came around, a person could just do anything they wanted to with a wetland - develop it, dam it up, drain it, etc. This affects other people downstream. If you had property downstream of someone who altered their waterway, you could have been flooded downstream

Actually, a person had to OWN the wetland to do anything with it. After DU, they needed the federal government's permission to do what they wanted with their OWN property.

One can pass laws that reasonably restrict uses of land that might adversely impact neighbors without requiring landowners to obtain federal permission for just about any development or improvement. And how the congressional authority to "regulate interstate commerce" got twisted into the authority to require landowners in a given state to get permission from the federal government to develop their own property is beyond me. The regulation of private land to minimize negative impact on neighboring properties should have remained a state issue rather than a federal power grab.


Regarding lead shot, the science showed that ducks ingesting the lead shot in certain types of habitat was killing the ducks. Reasonable, science based regulation would have banned the use of lead shot for hunting in those kinds of habitat. Banning use of lead shot in midwestern corn fields was an overreach that did not have scientific support.

Criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties should be narrowly tailored to meet the scientific requirements that demonstrate the need without overreaching infringements that restrict liberties in ways that are not demonstrated with the scientific data.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Actually, a person had to OWN the wetland to do anything with it. After DU, they needed the federal government's permission to do what they wanted with their OWN property.

Because it is affecting people downstream! Its bigger than that little parcel of land, it affects all of us. I don't want someone upstream to be able to build a building and run the sewer directly into the stream on HIS property because it will affect all of us. Should he be able to get a 55 gallon drum of used diesel and pour it in HIS creek? No thank god.

One can pass laws that reasonably restrict uses of land that might adversely impact neighbors without requiring landowners to obtain federal permission for just about any development or improvement.

Then run for Congress or Senate and get this done, this is bigger than Ducks Unlimited or CCA

And how the congressional authority to "regulate interstate commerce" got twisted into the authority to require landowners in a given state to get permission from the federal government to develop their own property is beyond me.

Ask your Senator or Congressperson, this is definitely not an issue with DU or CCA

The regulation of private land to minimize negative impact on neighboring properties should have remained a state issue rather than a federal power grab.

Obviously Ducks Unlimited AND CCA were a HUGE part of this

Regarding lead shot, the science showed that ducks ingesting the lead shot in certain types of habitat was killing the ducks. Reasonable, science based regulation would have banned the use of lead shot for hunting in those kinds of habitat.

Banning use of lead shot in corn fields was an overreach that did not have scientific support.

Because no one floods corn fields and hunts waterfowl over them except the entire midwest and waterfowl will readily dry feed in a dry corn field, so there is that also

You can have study after study after study, but common sense takes over after a while. 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.

Criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties should be narrowly tailored to meet the scientific requirements that demonstrate the need without overreaching infringements that restrict liberties in ways that are not demonstrated with the scientific data.

You should put that as your mission statement on your non-profit organization you are starting

[MathGeek]

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 ...

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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 ...

Very nice way of painting the picture to differentiate between emotion based legislation and scientific data based legislation.

Well done sir.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

Yes, but lead shot being ingested is not the same as hunting mortality. Its indirect mortality and lead never leaves the ecosystem. It gets rolled around and around and may oxidize a little, but that lead that was shot back in the 1950s is still there and still toxic and has the same basic chemical properties as it did when it was made. You can contact the state waterfowl biologist and ask him about lead in Catahoula Lake. I spoke withe the technician at a symposium just last Thursday about this. He is the one checking the gizzards of the ducks. That is the hunting example, and as far as fishing and 'fish die from fishing' very true, but if something is indirectly killing gamefish you better believe people will get up in arms. If there was something causing a large speckled trout kill on Big Lake, you and "W' would form a coalition to find out what was killing them and would do whatever it took to ban whatever it was

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?"

That may be the question that YOU think is asked but in reality its not.
This is getting into Migratory Birds Treaty Act, loons fall under that provision, and if birds (non-game birds, migratory game birds) can be proven to be dying from lead ingestion (these studies can easily be found as well) then you can bet the government is going to come down. You are going to have to take that up with your Senator but Migratory Bird Treaty Act goes back a good ways

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"?

Again, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but with condors you are getting into the Endangered Species Act. Even ONE condor dying is hurting the population. Bald eagles, back to the MBTA.
One other thing that is important here is that lead goes up the food chain as well, it keeps on killing all the way up the chain.

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.

That can be found as well, the improvements in steel shot have been great, and this was so 1980s too


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?

This here is the whole basis of populatin biology/ecology. Is the harvest sustainable? As I said earlier, there is no way to count every single fish/rat/duck. You have to rely on methods such as the mark-recapture method to estimate the population. Well, it has already been stated that tripletail are 2.5x more likely to be caught than other game fish, and that is what threw a red flag. These things are not uncommon, LDWF can shut down a deer season if they 'think' the population is stressed or may take a big hit from something like a flood or hurricane, etc. Do you think they went out and counted all the deer prior to that decision? Its impossible to do that, but some things are common sense and this phrase is going to further your anger but its sometimes best to 'err on the side of caution'.

If losses to eagles and condors from lead rifle bullets is sustainable in a given area, then they should remain legal in that area.

Tripletail and eagles and condors are not even apples to oranges, we are talking game fish vs a migratory (non-game bird) which has specific regulations regarding its population status.


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

It has nothing to do with sustainability. It would take millions of ducks to die from lead ingestion to actually get into the sustainability issue. Hunters kill millions of ducks yearly (directly with aid of shotguns) and yet that is not the biggest factor to ducks' 'sustainability'. How many ducks getting killed by ingestion of lead is too many? 5? 100? 10,000? If I can do my part by shooting steel so that I can keep a duck from dying from lead poisoning, so be it. I want to eat that duck, I don't want him to die and nothing get to eat it

...

I wasn't around when lead shot was legal for waterfowl, and I have done just fine with steel shot.

Now we have run the entire gamut, we have covered tripletail, Nazis, Jews, condors, and eagles, and no one has changed their mind. Its been a good discussion

["W"]

[quote=Duck Butter;615390]I sure didn't want to get into this but this is wrong on so many levels, its like "W" has gotten into your brain or something

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Correct me if I am in need of a history lesson, but didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?

Didn't this have the effect of driving up the price of duck hunting and effectively restricting access to the more affluent? Duck hunting is surely much more of a rich man's sport in 2013 than when my dad introduced me to duck hunting in 1978.

There are many many factors behind why leases are skyrocketing. One of them is because they can get it. If I was a farmer I would flood every bit of my land and lease it to the highest bidder, because people will pay it just to have a spot to sit. Duck hunting has become the 'cool thing' to do and a case of shells is the least expense for a duck hunter

Don't get me wrong, the science showed a genuine need to reduce the use of lead shot in areas where it was being ingested by waterfowl.

Then why did you say this "didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?" Aren't you adamately FOR science driven regulations, I mean the entire tripletail thread would show that you are. Seems to me that lead was killing ducks indirectly and a conservation organization for ducks stepped in and showed the science that lead does in fact kill ducks (and it does still to this day, there are studies on Catahoula Lake going on yearly that will show this)

But the global ban for waterfowl hunting (global ban) that was put in place was overreaching and is serving as a template for current efforts to expand lead bans to include upland game and rifle ammunition as well. RKBA advocates recognize current efforts to bad lead ammunition as aimed at 2nd amendment rights by driving up prices and restricting access. The 1991 waterfowl ban was the camel's nose in the tent.
You are really reaching here. Lead is bad for ducks, period, don't try and put the rest on Ducks Unlimited, they did it for the ducks (DUCKS unlimited). This sounds like that Nazi and Jew thing you posted on the tripletail thread

Why is DU silent on the current issue of banning lead for upland game and rifle ammunition? (Feel free to correct me if my assertion of DU's silence is incorrect.)

Remember that its DUCKS Unlimited, not upland game unlimited or pheasants forever or rifle ammunition unlimited. Their mission is for wetlands and waterfowl. No dog in that fight for them. And why do you want them to be, you just said they were 'overreaching' in the paragraph just above, which is it? Are the overreaching? or are they not doing enough? Can't have it both ways

Also, wasn't DU a player in a lot of the wetland preservation regulations in the 1980s and 1990s that amounted to a major governmental intrusion on private property rights requiring private landowners to jump through hoops to develop their own property?

Oh you mean when we FINALLY found out the real importance of wetlands and people had to actually apply for permits (what you call 'jump through hoops', I call permits, thank goodness this came about). Before this came around, a person could just do anything they wanted to with a wetland - develop it, dam it up, drain it, etc. This affects other people downstream. If you had property downstream of someone who altered their waterway, you could have been flooded downstream

The parallel between DU and CCA is this: supporting restrictive regulations that restrict access beyond the needs supported by sound science sets bad precedents that will be copied and exploited to further restrict hunting and fishing rights in the future.

That is your opinion and everyone is entitled to them, and you do not have to support anything they do

[Duck Butter]

[quote="W";615426]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I sure didn't want to get into this but this is wrong on so many levels, its like "W" has gotten into your brain or something

Its called a civil discussion W, you lost out about page 3 in both threads when you started posting gifs and pics

Tell me what part of what I said does not make perfect sense