Triple tail limit coming

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Actually, LDWF has rejected every request for data we have made of them. In contrast, other states like Colorado, have quickly provided reams of data (many megabytes in conveniently formatted spreadsheets) in response to every data request we have made. I think we have published three different papers on our detailed analysis and interpretation of fisheries data from Colorado Parks and Wildlife. But so far, LDWF has not been willing to share.

You can get the data, believe me. Didnt I offer you some oyster cultch data once and you said don't worry you had gotten it from LDWF? But yes, you have to keep on them about it and maybe go up there and introduce yourself and let them know why you are interested. These data are very very large files and they can't just stop what they are doing and email everyone gigabytes full of fish data.


Any data presented at the meetings is really not the kind or quantity that can be reviewed and assessed by independent experts and stakeholders. See below.

This is junk science. First of all, there is no description of the study design, sample sizes, or actual data. There is just a comparison of recapture rates with "other game fish." Which "other game fish?" Were there comparable delays and comparable recapture efforts with the TT and the "other game fish?"

You are going to have to get a link to these studies and that will answer your questions, I am sorry you were not in the loop of the peer review process, but neither were 99.9% of fishermen


Furthermore, a relatively high recapture rate does not necessarily imply vulnerability to over fishing. It simply means that the specimens that are captured once are more likely to be captured again. This does not indicate that the entire population is subject to likely capture in the first place. There may be large parts of the population that are not subject to easy capture (due to habitat or feeding preferences).

All speculation, you are going to have to speak with the publisher of the paper(s). He/she will probably tell you everything you want to hear. A high capture rate (ease of capture) is exactly what is raising concern.


The issue is not whether there are secret, unpublished studies that policy makers cite to support their exercise of power, but whether the data and methodologies are published with sufficient detail to allow review, assessment, and comment by independent scientists and stakeholders.

Find out what studies they are basing this off, and then go to the meeting and comment

Citing unpublished studies or data is not scientifically based policy making. It is a recipe for any policy the power brokers wish to implement based on pseudoscience.

Who says they are unpublished?

Cite a source for the published data. You should know that throwing out a single numerical conclusion (2.5 times the recapture rate of other species) is a conclusion, it is not the data or methodology needed to assess the validity of the conclusion or the inferences that are based on it.

You know that with the scientific process, you can not just throw out numbers. The article where those numbers came from was not a scientific journal article and I am sure there was limited space in that article to add their introduction, methods, and statistical analyses.

Then explain why the immature redfish and black drum support higher take limits than the sexually mature fish?
See below, and add that it really depends on the ecology of the fish - where it spends its time and its movements as a juvenile and as an adult.

Then why are there no length limits for many species of game fish?
It can be based on their age at sexual maturity, lifespan, how many are targeted each year, and a combination of some or all. For instance, red snapper take many years to reach sexual maturity so they have a different set of regs than say a mahi mahi which grows at an incredible rate and lives a short lifespan (they can reach 25 lbs in one year)

Where is the science to justify adding the tripletail to the list of more highly regulated species requiring a minimum length limit?
Hasn't this been discussed?


What is different about white trout, gafftops, channel catfish, croaker, freshwater drum, spanish mackerel, and jack cravelle that these species don't need the possession limit to be lowered to five?

If there was a real trend towards targeting these species on a broad scale, the limits would certainly be looked into, but as of now there are no concerns with that, whereas tripletail are gaining in popularity and their ease of capture is what is drawing concern

Arbitrary, unsupported harvest restrictions on tripletail raise valid concerns that fishing rights will gradually be whittled away by unsupported "conservation" concerns. Once this proposed restriction is accomplished, they will set their sights on the next area where they can restrict liberty without a soundly supported scientific need.

What? Really? Come on man, LDWF wouldn't even exist without fishermen and hunters, they are on our side. They are there solely to manage our wildlife, not restrict our liberties.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

What? Really? Come on man, LDWF wouldn't even exist without fishermen and hunters, they are on our side. They are there solely to manage our wildlife, not restrict our liberties.

I'm questioning their methods, not their motives.

Should the executive branch restrict liberties based on public opinion (by whatever sampling method) or by sound science?

When LDWF or CCA or whoever supports a regulation change based on what they are hearing from anglers or their membership or whomever, then they are making decisions based on public opinion rather than science.

In our democratic republic, public opinion should be allowed to influence the elected legislature. However, the elected legislature has delegated certain wildlife management regulatory powers to the executive branch with the understanding and expectation that these regulatory powers only infringe on the liberty of citizens when these restrictions are shown to be necessary by sound scientific methods.

Sometimes being on the side of anglers and hunters means listening to the science and making data driven decisions and ignoring the momentary public opinion of those same anglers and hunters.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I'm questioning their methods, not their motives.

Gotcha, its all in that paper I feel certain, I don't know I haven't seen it either, and would like to myself

Should the executive branch restrict liberties based on public opinion (by whatever sampling method) or by sound science?

The million dollar question my friend. Sound science says many things (for instance the freshwater diversions) but the public is standing in the way of sound science on that issue. I think wildlife and fisheries management should be based on sound science, BUT you also have to receive public input. Duck seasons for instance have a range of dates and LDWF could just as easily go in and say these are the dates without public input but instead they try and please as many people as possible (even though they still piss off a bunch of them so its catch22)

When LDWF or CCA or whoever supports a regulation change based on what they are hearing from anglers or their membership or whomever, then they are making decisions based on public opinion rather than science.

Its another catch22 (damned if you do, damned if you don't) with non-profit conservation organizations. You see what happened when they were neutral on the whole 'navigable waters' issue in SE LA, they got hammered on that (damned either way they went) and there wasn't near about 70% agreement on that issue. If 70% of their base wants a lower limit, they better listen or else it would have been just like Round 2 on the navigale waters issue. Its a slippery slope

In our democratic republic, public opinion should be allowed to influence the elected legislature. However, the elected legislature has delegated certain wildlife management regulatory powers to the executive branch with the understanding and expectation that these regulatory powers only infringe on the liberty of citizens when these restrictions are shown to be necessary by sound scientific methods.

I wish you could send this to everyone that has a fishing and hunting license, this is excellent

Sometimes being on the side of anglers and hunters means listening to the science and making data driven decisions and ignoring the momentary public opinion of those same anglers and hunters.

I agree 100%

We are all on the same team

and lookie here its almost 5:00

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

MG:
This is junk science. First of all, there is no description of the study design, sample sizes, or actual data. There is just a comparison of recapture rates with "other game fish." Which "other game fish?" Were there comparable delays and comparable recapture efforts with the TT and the "other game fish?"

DB:
You are going to have to get a link to these studies and that will answer your questions, I am sorry you were not in the loop of the peer review process, but neither were 99.9% of fishermen

MG:
Furthermore, a relatively high recapture rate does not necessarily imply vulnerability to over fishing. It simply means that the specimens that are captured once are more likely to be captured again. This does not indicate that the entire population is subject to likely capture in the first place. There may be large parts of the population that are not subject to easy capture (due to habitat or feeding preferences).

DB:
All speculation, you are going to have to speak with the publisher of the paper(s). He/she will probably tell you everything you want to hear. A high capture rate (ease of capture) is exactly what is raising concern.

I've been working hard tracking down this purported tag study, finally contacting the scientists themselves that were mentioned by name in a newspaper article on tripletail tagging.

There are no published papers by these authors (or any other authors) in the scholarly literature on the tagging of tripletail in the last decade.

The data, methodology, results, and interpretation remain unpublished and unavailable for peer-review or open discussion. All we have is the hearsay report of a 2.5 the recapture rate of tagged tripletail compared with other game species.

The LWF Commission should not be implementing much more restrictive tripletail harvest regulations until the science is better understood, including publication and open review and discussion of purported data and scientific results that are cited in support of more restrictive regulations.

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I've been working hard tracking down this purported tag study, finally contacting the scientists themselves that were mentioned by name in a newspaper article on tripletail tagging.

There are no published papers by these authors (or any other authors) in the scholarly literature on the tagging of tripletail in the last decade.

The data, methodology, results, and interpretation remain unpublished and unavailable for peer-review or open discussion. All we have is the hearsay report of a 2.5 the recapture rate of tagged tripletail compared with other game species.

The LWF Commission should not be implementing much more restrictive tripletail harvest regulations until the science is better understood, including publication and open review and discussion of purported data and scientific results that are cited in support of more restrictive regulations.

Seems like that is the way of the world these days....just like they promised a transparent government yet we have the exact opposite.