Triple tail limit coming

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You have officially given up when you start posting that crap I am outta here

You are trying to make a "FEEL GOOD" story for the CCA. Neither you nor they can justify a limit on triple tail that would show and prove that rod n reel is hurting the population!
WL&F visit marinas every day and take fish counts; we had them this Sunday at Hebert’s taking fish counts and measurements with weights. Do they show a great number of 3tail taken on these visits?
If you don’t have data to back up your creel limit your looking to establish (5 fish 18inchs long) How about start with a greater span like 20? Once you spend a few years with more study and if you then find you need to move down the limit, then so be it.
Lets not give the fisherman "BECAUSE ITS THE SMART THING TO DO"

[T-TOP]

i got it, i would have a problem with that...

["W"]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

i got it, i would have a problem with that...

If they said: Look we have done research and we are seeing that overfishing is taken place on these fish so we need to place a limit
I would be 100% for that...
But the answer to this is like CCA said

"its the smart thing to do"


I guess 15 trout limit to make big lake a trophy lake was a smart thing to do also

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

If they said: Look we have done research and we are seeing that overfishing is taken place on these fish so we need to place a limit
I would be 100% for that...
But the answer to this is like CCA said

"its the smart thing to do"


I guess 15 trout limit to make big lake a trophy lake was a smart thing to do also

You are again tying CCA as an organization to the Big Lake trout limit argument, and its not fair because it did NOT happen. You can go off all you want on Wil Drost's influence or whatever he had on the issue, but don't put it on CCA. Hell, blame Bush

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You are again tying CCA as an organization to the Big Lake trout limit argument, and its not fair because it did NOT happen. You can go off all you want on Wil Drost's influence or whatever he had on the issue, but don't put it on CCA. Hell, blame Bush

Well until CCA does some "house cleaning" I'm done. And it's funny. People say to go out and fight it. But who do you have to go talk to to fight it? Oh that's right the same people that are strong arming it. It makes me laugh.

[cgoods17]

sounds to me there are some people with a hard on for will drost... jealousy is an ugly thing..

["W"]

Sheephead need a limit too..........WE ARE THE ONLY STATE THAT DOES NOT HAVE ONE


CCA said it is a smart thing to do!!!

[Reefman]

It's far better to have sport anglers to initiate a conservation measure than to wait when the resource hits devcon 5, letting the Restaurant Assoc and commercial interests dictate policy. Note the fight for Snapper limits recently. (BTW, CCA has been on the forefront to help bring in a second season for sport fishermen.)

By allowing research and applied scientific data to be presented from the sportsman's point of view..not that of commercial interests, we stand to have a more favorable outcome.

I do not serve on any type of committees for CCA at this time. However, I was a charter member of CCA helping start the Acadiana chapter here in Lafayette. There was a clarity of purpose at the beginning....Remove the gill nets and make red fish and specs a game fish along with accepting new state creel limits on both.

The fight went nowhere for the first 2 years. Success was only achieved by hiring a strong lobbying firm and support on a political front. CCA today is heavily involved in the political arena; this is where the fight is for our resources.

If CCA was to abandon the State today, you would see the start-up of commercial harvesting of reds and specs the next year in our waters. Every year in the legislature, CCA has to fight bills that are attached at the last minute with commercial interests trying to overturn what the sports have accomplished.

I do not agree 100% with issues CCA takes up these days but for the overall good of our resources I still and will support the effort.

BTW, great thread Meaux. These issues need to be discussed by fellow sportsmen. Perhaps a more clear objective from our view point can be achieved and presented to the State CCA board.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Reefman

It's far better to have sport anglers to initiate a conservation measure than to wait when the resource hits devcon 5, letting the Restaurant Assoc and commercial interests dictate policy. Note the fight for Snapper limits recently. (BTW, CCA has been on the forefront to help bring in a second season for sport fishermen.)

By allowing research and applied scientific data to be presented from the sportsman's point of view..not that of commercial interests, we stand to have a more favorable outcome.

I do not serve on any type of committees for CCA at this time. However, I was a charter member of CCA helping start the Acadiana chapter here in Lafayette. There was a clarity of purpose at the beginning....Remove the gill nets and make red fish and specs a game fish along with accepting new state creel limits on both.

The fight went nowhere for the first 2 years. Success was only achieved by hiring a strong lobbying firm and support on a political front. CCA today is heavily involved in the political arena; this is where the fight is for our resources.

If CCA was to abandon the State today, you would see the start-up of commercial harvesting of reds and specs the next year in our waters. Every year in the legislature, CCA has to fight bills that are attached at the last minute with commercial interests trying to overturn what the sports have accomplished.

I do not agree 100% with issues CCA takes up these days but for the overall good of our resources I still and will support the effort.

BTW, great thread Meaux. These issues need to be discussed by fellow sportsmen. Perhaps a more clear objective from our view point can be achieved and presented to the State CCA board.

Great post,

would like to add in the regs on redfish to the list of what they have achieved as well and thankfully so, because I sure like to catch and eat em and want them around for many years for my family

[Clampy]

This is basically the NRA argument. Don't let go of assault rifles cuz next its our pistols. I can see both sides.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Clampy

This is basically the NRA argument. Don't let go of assault rifles cuz next its our pistols. I can see both sides.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

"W", Clampy directed that at your argument

[Duck Butter]

Last post, maybe


CCA is not perfect, no organization can please everyone all the time, but they do far more good for us and its your decision to support them or not, but a few people are stating things that are simply NOT true and expect them to jump in all fights even when the fight has nothing to do with them.

ahh, screw it not typing anymore

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The burden to provide sound scientific support should always be on those suggesting increased regulation.

A Constitutional Republic is based on the idea that the liberty of individuals should only be restricted in cases of demonstrated necessity. The position that tighter limits are always good conservation is not only bad science, it is contrary to the ideas of liberty that the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve.

Copying other states is rarely sound science based wildlife management. Asserting the sexual maturity of a fish as the basis for a minimum length limit is not scientific management. For example, it has been shown and is well known that the sexual maturity of redfish is actually a good cause to restrict harvest of sexually mature fish.

Restrictions on liberty (tighter limits) that carry criminal penalties should be supported with good science, including stock assessments, condition indices, and understanding the role of the species in the overall food web.

The debacle with red snapper is actually endangering other species because the Draconian restrictions on red snapper are allowing them to become overpopulated in some areas to the detriment of their food sources and to the harm of other species that red snapper compete with for food and habitat.

Overly restrictive harvest limits is not good conservation. Good conservation allows sustainable harvests to prevent overpopulation for the benefit of the overall habitat and food web.

Here you go.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag

Here you go.

With all due respect to MG, that post may be what he envisions wildlife management to be in a perfect world, but that is far from what actually happens in this non-perfect, ever-changing world.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

With all due respect to MG, that post may be what he envisions wildlife management to be in a perfect world, but that is far from what actually happens in this non-perfect, ever-changing world.

So do sheephead need a limit too?????

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

So do sheephead need a limit too?????

If people in Louisiana start to specifically target sheephead at a much broader scale then YES, but as of now that isn't the case.

Tripletail on the other hand are really starting to be specifically targeted at a much broader scale, so regulations are being LOOKED into. Nothing has been set as of yet.


We must all remember that the same thing happened to redfish, they took some serious hits when the blackened redfish 'craze' swept through. Regs had to be set to keep the species in balance (and I am very thankful for that).

Yellowfin tuna stocks had to be assessed as well as they are at an all-time popularity right now. They once were rarely targeted, and were considered nuisance fish when trolling for other 'more desirable' species. My have things changed, and fisheries managament has to change with it as well as regulations

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

If people in Louisiana start to specifically target sheephead at a much broader scale then YES, but as of now that isn't the case.

Tripletail on the other hand are really starting to be specifically targeted at a much broader scale, so regulations are being LOOKED into. Nothing has been set as of yet.


We must all remember that the same thing happened to redfish, they took some serious hits when the blackened redfish 'craze' swept through. Regs had to be set to keep the species in balance (and I am very thankful for that).

Yellowfin tuna stocks had to be assessed as well as they are at an all-time popularity right now. They once were rarely targeted, and were considered nuisance fish when trolling for other 'more desirable' species. My have things changed, and fisheries managament has to change with it as well as regulations

The burden to provide sound scientific support should always be on those suggesting increased regulation.

A Constitutional Republic is based on the idea that the liberty of individuals should only be restricted in cases of demonstrated necessity. The position that tighter limits are always good conservation is not only bad science, it is contrary to the ideas of liberty that the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve.

Copying other states is rarely sound science based wildlife management. Asserting the sexual maturity of a fish as the basis for a minimum length limit is not scientific management. For example, it has been shown and is well known that the sexual maturity of redfish is actually a good cause to restrict harvest of sexually mature fish.

Restrictions on liberty (tighter limits) that carry criminal penalties should be supported with good science, including stock assessments, condition indices, and understanding the role of the species in the overall food web.

The debacle with red snapper is actually endangering other species because the Draconian restrictions on red snapper are allowing them to become overpopulated in some areas to the detriment of their food sources and to the harm of other species that red snapper compete with for food and habitat.

Overly restrictive harvest limits is not good conservation. Good conservation allows sustainable harvests to prevent overpopulation for the benefit of the overall habitat and food web.

You need more than anecdotal evidence that a given species is being targeted to justify making current practices a crime. You need valid scientific data showing that current harvest levels are not sustainable. This requirement has two components:

1. You need to accurately determine what current harvest levels actually are.

2. You need to accurately assess current population levels and food web dynamics to show that the current harvest levels are not sustainable and would lead to a long term decline in the resource.

[AceArcher]

I think what's going on here is that some of the recent stupidity in regards to fish management (see red snapper, 15 trout limit for big lake (with most studies showing that this hurts more than helps) access rights to navigable waters.... etc.... As well as well thought out programs like idle iron etc.

People are very very distrust-full of anyone previously involved with some of those fisheries fiasco's.

With that said Duck is right on the money in one regard, If you just sit on the sideline's and *****.... well you then ain't doing nothing but sitting on the sidelines and *****ing....

If you give a ****, hitch up your damned pony, take a ride to the meeting and get some answers, Stand up and say that you can get behind a program of limits / size restricitions when someone can show a need for it. ie... get your opinion out.

Generally speaking there is greater fishing pressure today than there ever has been, With technology anglers are more able to consistently hit their goals, so it is absolutely important that a close eye is kept on the resource to ensure it's future viability. If restrictions are placed based on a need then its a good thing as far as i am concerned.

With that said, i don't know doodly crap about triple tail, other than i would really love to catch one some day.

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

I think what's going on here is that some of the recent stupidity in regards to fish management (see red snapper, 15 trout limit for big lake (with most studies showing that this hurts more than helps) access rights to navigable waters.... etc.... As well as well thought out programs like idle iron etc.

People are very very distrust-full of anyone previously involved with some of those fisheries fiasco's.

With that said Duck is right on the money in one regard, If you just sit on the sideline's and *****.... well you then ain't doing nothing but sitting on the sidelines and *****ing....

If you give a ****, hitch up your damned pony, take a ride to the meeting and get some answers, Stand up and say that you can get behind a program of limits / size restricitions when someone can show a need for it. ie... get your opinion out.

Generally speaking there is greater fishing pressure today than there ever has been, With technology anglers are more able to consistently hit their goals, so it is absolutely important that a close eye is kept on the resource to ensure it's future viability. If restrictions are placed based on a need then its a good thing as far as i am concerned.

With that said, i don't know doodly crap about triple tail, other than i would really love to catch one some day.

I have emailed several commission members with no response. I have also emailed Jason Adriance with WLF and he responded to me, but said he was out of the office and would get back to me.