Duck Butter

[MathGeek]

Ha, Ha. I actually injured my foot trying to kick my daughter's punching bag last night.

The winners and losers in science and policy debates are not the participants, but rather the general public and those who will be most strongly impacted by good or repressive public policy.

Duck Butter has made some good points, as have many other contributors to the discussion. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

Our hunting, fishing, and 2nd amendment rights are under attack from all angles. Bad conservation science is one angle. Dislike of lead projectiles is another angle, and the banning of lead bullets (where there is not a need demonstrated by sound science) is a back door to driving up the cost of hunting while at the same time reducing performance and ammo availability. Some states are even banning lead fishing sinkers. PETA type demands for "humanitarian" harvest is yet another angle. Requirements for circle hooks is another approach. There have also been proposals to require magnetic hooks in fisheries with elasmobranch by catch (sharks and rays).

When you look at the totality of the hunting and fishing regulations of most states (esp if you include federal laws, gun laws, and boating laws that must be adhered to), you should see a burdensome maze of bureaucracy that presents a significant barrier to participation.

Louisiana's laws for recreational angling and hunting are not nearly as burdensome and convoluted as many states, but take a peek at the commercial fishing regulations and assess the bureaucratic barriers needed to sell a few crabs or shrimp or crawfish a few weekends each year at a roadside stand. Are all those regulatory barriers really needed?