Will you continue to Support CCA?

[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