Will you continue to Support CCA?

["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

[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 ...

[Spunt Drag]

Duck butter is drunker than Cooter Brown from the Kool-Aid I don't even know where to begin.

[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

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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

Now we just need to fit in rule 34 somehow and we will have covered the entire purpose of the internets

And i do think some minds have been changed... It's gone from a straight reactionary pose of don't support CCA anymore, to a group effort to make some changes. That's a heck of lot right there DB.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Yes, but lead shot being ingested is not the same as hunting mortality. Its indirect mortality and lead never leaves the ecosystem.

OK. There is an indirect non-hunting mortality to migratory waterfowl from wind mills and airplanes. Should we ban them because of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act? Or should we ask for good data providing reasonable estimates so that we can weigh the trade-offs before demanding a ban because birds are dying and there is a Migratory Birds Treaty Act?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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

Has the explosive removal of oil platforms been banned yet? That causes mass die-offs at one time. I do not think explosive well removal should be banned, but I think the fish kill should be quantified and the companies removing the well should be forced to make some remediation and that the red snapper kill should count against the commercial quota. If there is not room in the commercial quota to kill the red snapper with the blast, then an alternate removal approach should be required. Is this unreasonable?

Also, there is a lot of scientific evidence that nutrient loading in the Gulf of Mexico causes seasonal hypoxia that occasionally results in fish kills. Some are calling for severe restrictions on nitrogen fertilizers. My colleagues and I (in our published papers) are suggesting that the benefits and risks of nutrient loading be considered as a whole to weigh the trade offs rather than implement federal restrictions on fertilizer use that may actually reduce fishery production in the Gulf of Mexico.

Lots of things kill speckled trout. W and I both think that a lot more trout need to be killed annually in Big Lake. Our preferred method would be raising the limit back to 25, but we both think that the population needs to be kept under better control to produce bigger fish. If you can think of a selective way to kill a bunch of dink trout without killing their food supply, please float some ideas ...

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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

So when do the bans on windmills and airplanes go into effect?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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.

Referencing the MBTA is arguing what the law currently is to support what the law should be. It is an example of the circular fallacy. I do not believe the law should demand criminalizing activities that may inadvertently contribute to the untimely demise of numbers of individual specimens but does not have a significant impact on the entire population.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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.

This was an unpublished, unreviewed study from another state. Neither the data nor the methods are available, nor is it known what other game fish are used for comparison. The statement was presented as hearsay at a meeting and cannot even be attributed to a specific scientist, just a vague connection with a Mississippi study. Is this what fish and game laws should be based on in Louisiana?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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'.

Is the proposal a temporary or emergency measure while more data is gathered? No the tripletail proposal is for a permanent change to the harvest regulations. No real science needed. Just hearsay and pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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

Ok, then you are welcome not to use lead shot or lead bullets or lead sinkers. Free country.

If sustainability is admittedly not the issue, then the issue should be considered in a cost-benefit or risk-reward. Sound scientific data should inform the cost-benefit or risk-reward, and there should be criminal penalties for parties misrepresenting scientific findings to influence public policy.

And a lot of the federal laws regarding lead shot shells have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead. Why is possession of lead ammunition banned while hunting ducks? If I was hunting coyote and deer, I could possess lead slugs and buckshot. But if I was goose hunting (or wanted to take advantage of a target of opportunity), I had to be sure there were no lead ammo in my pockets or on the tractor. How much sense does this make for a farmer hunting in his own corn field in the midwest?

[AceArcher]

ps..... if you need to ask what rule 34 is.... don't ... and don't google it and follow any links either.....

just don't.

[Duck Butter]

[QUOTE=MathGeek;615535]OK. There is an indirect non-hunting mortality to migratory waterfowl from wind mills and airplanes. Should we ban them because of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act? Or should we ask for good data providing reasonable estimates so that we can weigh the trade-offs before demanding a ban because birds are dying and there is a Migratory Birds Treaty Act?

You have to weigh the good vs the bad. Human NEEDS will always trump wildlife needs (especially with this POTUS)

Has the explosive removal of oil platforms been banned yet? That causes mass die-offs at one time.

The oil companies are doing what is required by law, it is coming out of their pockets to have rigs removed. I already stated that this is a big time liability issue and a legal nightmare. First off, the Rigs to Reefs fund was raided by our very own. Oil companies actually donated money to this fund and the fund was very large. Then you have lobbying groups like the shrimpers who are against leaving idle iron behind (and I can see their point) because it tears their nets. After that, you get to the liability issue - what if someone runs into this structure and dies, or if this structure rusts and falls down (it will eventually fall down) someone is getting paid, so who is going to pay? The state, since it is their rig now? or the oil company since it was their rig at one point? Its a slippery slope. Well, you can put lights on these structures but that costs a ton of money (money that was in the Rigs to Reef Fund but Bobby J funded other things with that money) but then you have to change the lights and lights have to be ran by some sort of electrical source (there aren't power lines out there, and generators run outta fuel, so someone has to refuel em and maintain them, see where this is going)

I do not think explosive well removal should be banned, but I think the fish kill should be quantified and the companies removing the well should be forced to make some remediation and that the red snapper kill should count against the commercial quota.

The oil companies are actually willingly donating their rigs to the Rigs to Reefs program, I don't think they should have to make any remediation. They shouldn't have to pay for what the gov't is forcing them to do. They are simply following instructions.

If there is not room in the commercial quota to kill the red snapper with the blast, then an alternate removal approach should be required. Is this unreasonable?

Not unreasonable, if you can come up with a better way, then the oil companies would probably shake your hand

Also, there is a lot of scientific evidence that nutrient loading in the Gulf of Mexico causes seasonal hypoxia that occasionally results in fish kills. Some are calling for severe restrictions on nitrogen fertilizers. My colleagues and I (in our published papers) are suggesting that the benefits and risks of nutrient loading be considered as a whole to weigh the trade offs rather than implement federal restrictions on fertilizer use that may actually reduce fishery production in the Gulf of Mexico.

There are other programs that are available right now for this very thing, but as of now they are all voluntary but cost-share programs are there. The NRCS promotes buffers along ditches. As of now, most farmers will farm 'ditch to ditch' and there is nothing to slow the flow of chemical runoffs. With just a 10' strip of native grasses to pick up the runoff, erosion is slowed down tremendously and the amounts of nitrogenous 'waste' coming downstream is lowered (not to mention the wildlife benefits of having small buffers of native grasses - quail!). I hate to say this but our use of chemicals is outrageous, and farmers especially. They are exempt from many of the tests to become certified for pesticide applications. We are creating 'superbugs' that are pesticide resistant by all the pesticides we use, and nevermind thats enough for that subject

Lots of things kill speckled trout. W and I both think that a lot more trout need to be killed annually in Big Lake. Our preferred method would be raising the limit back to 25, but we both think that the population needs to be kept under better control to produce bigger fish. If you can think of a selective way to kill a bunch of dink trout without killing their food supply, please float some ideas ...


Whatever W thinks, I will think the exact opposite


So when do the bans on windmills and airplanes go into effect?


Referencing the MBTA is arguing what the law currently is to support what the law should be. It is an example of the circular fallacy. I do not believe the law should demand criminalizing activities that may inadvertently contribute to the untimely demise of numbers of individual specimens but does not have a significant impact on the entire population.

This is a long standing law, just like the ban on lead shot, waaaaaay long time ago. Too late to jump on this train


This was an unpublished, unreviewed study from another state. Neither the data nor the methods are available, nor is it known what other game fish are used for comparison. The statement was presented as hearsay at a meeting and cannot even be attributed to a specific scientist, just a vague connection with a Mississippi study. Is this what fish and game laws should be based on in Louisiana?

How do you know it was unpublished? I honestly have not seen the study in reference and do not know if it was published or if it came out of someone's butt, but to answer the question, NO - fish and game laws should be based upon science (in mine and your opinion as well,) but we should also 'err on the side of caution' when science isn't readily available, this is where common sense comes into play. There ARE tripletail studies out there for other states and like I said there is no such thing as a Louisiana tripletail, they are all the same species and all the same population.

Is the proposal a temporary or emergency measure while more data is gathered? No the tripletail proposal is for a permanent change to the harvest regulations. No real science needed. Just hearsay and pseudoscience.


Ok, then you are welcome not to use lead shot or lead bullets or lead sinkers. Free country.

I am also 'free' to shoot ducks with lead if I please, but its not going to work out well
I don't like seeing an animal die that I can not eat, and animals dying from poisoning is not very cool


If sustainability is admittedly not the issue, then the issue should be considered in a cost-benefit or risk-reward. Sound scientific data should inform the cost-benefit or risk-reward, and there should be criminal penalties for parties misrepresenting scientific findings to influence public policy.

Another mission statement right there, but I agree

And a lot of the federal laws regarding lead shot shells have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead.

There may be 'a lot' that have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead but the main reasoning is just that

Why is possession of lead ammunition banned while hunting ducks?

I really do not know. I also do not know what the reasoning is that a person can only have 2 limits of ducks in their freezer but if I did some digging I could probably find out.

If I was hunting coyote and deer, I could possess lead slugs and buckshot. But if I was goose hunting (or wanted to take advantage of a target of opportunity), I had to be sure there were no lead ammo in my pockets or on the tractor. How much sense does this make for a farmer hunting in his own corn field in the midwest?

I haven't a clue but this is something that has been in effect for decades. There are many other laws I think need to be re-evaluated as well and are much more important - welfare is one, Obamacare is another

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Has the explosive removal of oil platforms been banned yet? That causes mass die-offs at one time.

The oil companies are actually willingly donating their rigs to the Rigs to Reefs program, I don't think they should have to make any remediation. They shouldn't have to pay for what the gov't is forcing them to do. They are simply following instructions.

The government isn't forcing them to place the well and drill for oil in the first place, they are forcing them to remove the well after its useful life is over. I do not think the feds are forcing them to use explosive removals. Have the feds banned the alternate removal technologies, or are the oil companies just reluctant to adopt alternate methods because they are more expensive?

It comes down to money. Making sportsman pay more money for lead free ammunition and circle hooks, etc. is reasonable, but making oil companies pay more to remove wells with methods that don't cause massive fish kills is unreasonable?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Not unreasonable, if you can come up with a better way, then the oil companies would probably shake your hand

The oil companies define better as cheaper. I would define better as not having a negative impact on sustainable fisheries.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This is a long standing law, just like the ban on lead shot, waaaaaay long time ago. Too late to jump on this train

I'm not proposing changing it, but with 20+ years of hindsight, we can prevent repeating some of the mistakes by limiting restrictions of new laws to those demonstrated to be necessary by sound science.

This was an unpublished, unreviewed study from another state. Neither the data nor the methods are available, nor is it known what other game fish are used for comparison. The statement was presented as hearsay at a meeting and cannot even be attributed to a specific scientist, just a vague connection with a Mississippi study. Is this what fish and game laws should be based on in Louisiana?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

How do you know it (the referenced tag study) was unpublished?

After conducting extensive scholarly searches for all possible published tag studies in tripletail, I came up empty. I reviewed the CVs and publication lists of the authors in Gulf states who have published anything on tripletail in the last two decades - no published tag studies. A google search finally turned up a news report of a tag study in tripletail I emailed one of the scientists on the tag study earlier today, not published.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I honestly have not seen the study in reference and do not know if it was published or if it came out of someone's butt, but to answer the question, NO - fish and game laws should be based upon science (in mine and your opinion as well,) but we should also 'err on the side of caution' when science isn't readily available, this is where common sense comes into play. There ARE tripletail studies out there for other states and like I said there is no such thing as a Louisiana tripletail, they are all the same species and all the same population.

So what if we err on the side of caution and implement a law that stays in place for a number of years. Then science shows that some of the restrictions in the law were never necessary. By that point (your above argument), it's water under the bridge and established law "too late to jump on that train."

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I don't like seeing an animal die that I can not eat, and animals dying from poisoning is not very cool

Dying as a result of catch and release mortality isn't cool either, and many species of fish have release mortalities in the 20-80% range (even with circle hooks and vent tools). I hope no one figures out that sport anglers occasionally hook loggerhead turtles!

Those trumpeting the need for new restrictions to reduce mortality of non-target species mention the successes but seldom the failures. Remember a few years back when the shrimpers had to install the devices to reduce the mortality of juvenile red snapper? And then several years later, they figured out that the shrimp bycatch mortality was not hurting the population. Circle hooks decrease release mortality in some fisheries, but there are other fisheries where their benefits have been shown to be insignificant years after mandating them. And the LA requirement to use steel shot to kill nuisance blackbirds is laughable. I shot hundreds of blackbirds when I raised corn in Ohio, and lead shot is so much more effective, it's not even funny. Farmers should be allowed to use the effective tools in controlling nuisance species.

[Duck Butter]

Good morning MG, I am starting another thread as well after this

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The government isn't forcing them to place the well and drill for oil in the first place, they are forcing them to remove the well after its useful life is over. I do not think the feds are forcing them to use explosive removals. Have the feds banned the alternate removal technologies, or are the oil companies just reluctant to adopt alternate methods because they are more expensive?

You are going to have to take that up with the oil companies, they are doing what is cheapest to fulfill their legal obligations


It comes down to money. Making sportsman pay more money for lead free ammunition and circle hooks, etc. is reasonable,

So now its reasonable? You have been harping on how this is just big gov't coming in to takeour rights, even going so far to compare it to Nazis and the Jews

but making oil companies pay more to remove wells with methods that don't cause massive fish kills is unreasonable?

So you want MORE gov't overreach? Because this is what it sounds like in this sentence


The oil companies define better as cheaper. I would define better as not having a negative impact on sustainable fisheries.

Run for Senate and get the law changed or contact Mary Landrieu and/or David Vitter (their phones are surely blowing up already due to this), they are simply doing what is defined in the law and what is cheapest.


I'm not proposing changing it, but with 20+ years of hindsight, we can prevent repeating some of the mistakes by limiting restrictions of new laws to those demonstrated to be necessary by sound
science.

What mistake? Banning lead was/is far from a mistake in my opinion and there are numerous publications out there to show that lead kills birds long after it comes out that shotgun shell (see my reference to Catahoula Lake)

This was an unpublished, unreviewed study from another state. Neither the data nor the methods are available, nor is it known what other game fish are used for comparison. The statement was presented as hearsay at a meeting and cannot even be attributed to a specific scientist, just a vague connection with a Mississippi study. Is this what fish and game laws should be based on in Louisiana?
After conducting extensive scholarly searches for all possible published tag studies in tripletail, I came up empty. I reviewed the CVs and publication lists of the authors in Gulf states who have published anything on tripletail in the last two decades - no published tag studies. A google search finally turned up a news report of a tag study in tripletail I emailed one of the scientists on the tag study earlier today, not published.

I will see if I can track it down also.

So what if we err on the side of caution and implement a law that stays in place for a number of years. Then science shows that some of the restrictions in the law were never necessary. By that point (your above argument), it's water under the bridge and established law "too late to jump on that train."

Regulations can always be changed once science supports it. It happens every year with waterfowl. Limits are established every single year depending upon the waterfowl counts (these are estimates by the way). Commercial quotas of fish change every year as well. Many things we thought in the past change and that is what makes science have rigor, the more you learn from 'mistakes' (as you put it), the more you can add to the future. One of the gurus of wild turkeys is a professor from Georgia. I heard him talk last week about a study they did with radio transmitters on turkeys in the Morganza Spillway when they opened the floodgates and one of the questions that was asked after the talk was 'what have radio transmitters taught you?'. Dr. Chamberlain said that he realizes now that many of his former publications were not correct. All his assumptions have been falsified by the data he collects from radio-transmitted turkeys. Thats just how things work, we once thought the earth was flat


Dying as a result of catch and release mortality isn't cool either, and many species of fish have release mortalities in the 20-80% range (even with circle hooks and vent tools). I hope no one figures out that sport anglers occasionally hook loggerhead turtles!

That whole red snapper venting thing is crap I agree. That is all federal junk there. The common sense thing to do (in my opinion) would be to make the regs where the angler has to keep the every fish he catches (no catch and release, most are going to die anyways when they return to the water so why not keep them) this would also be an incentive for people to use larger baits to target larger fish

Those trumpeting the need for new restrictions to reduce mortality of non-target species mention the successes but seldom the failures. Remember a few years back when the shrimpers had to install the devices to reduce the mortality of juvenile red snapper? And then several years later, they figured out that the shrimp bycatch mortality was not hurting the population. Circle hooks decrease release mortality in some fisheries, but there are other fisheries where their benefits have been shown to be insignificant years after mandating them.

Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) are one exception, they have been shown to work

And the LA requirement to use steel shot to kill nuisance blackbirds is laughable. I shot hundreds of blackbirds when I raised corn in Ohio, and lead shot is so much more effective, it's not even funny. Farmers should be allowed to use the effective tools in controlling nuisance species.

Wasn't awarer of a steel shot requirement to shoot blackbirds
But it makes sense to me, because much of the areas blackbirds inhabit are wetlands or can be wetlands (flooded corn, flooded rice) and it ties in with waterfowl ingestion of lead

Remember the whole red snapper fiasco? Its still ongoing, but its basically states vs the feds on this issue. NOAA and the NMFS have their data and are trying to restrict harvest on what we think are OUR fish (red snapper). LDWF wants to take over the management and get the feds out of our hair. Tripletail could very well be a similar issue as they are found in federal waters most of the year, so an argument could be made that this falls under federal regs (redfish caught out past so many miles fall under this category as well).

What IF LDWF is being proactive in management of tripletail BEFORE the feds get in here and try and do it? We all saw what happened with red snapper, maybe LDWF is getting ahead of this? Thats a point to ponder.

Good discussion but I am starting a new thread on conservation orgs in general

[biggun]

Well guys.. If you haven read this already.. The free landing permit has been extended to dolphin and cobia..

Also starting sept 5 no more venting tool..

[mr crab]

Originally Posted by biggun

Well guys.. If you haven read this already.. The free landing permit has been extended to dolphin and cobia..

Also starting sept 5 no more venting tool..

Thanks....makes me feel so much better about dropping $30 on the venter last year at bridge side.

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by mr crab

Thanks....makes me feel so much better about dropping $30 on the venter last year at bridge side.

lol... I keep a tony chachere's cajun injector on the boat as my venting tool

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You are going to have to take that up with the oil companies, they are doing what is cheapest to fulfill their legal obligations

So you want MORE gov't overreach? Because this is what it sounds like in this sentence

I'm not asking for new laws, just that the existing laws on red snapper quota be applied to oil companies when they kill red snapper in explosive well removals. The Constitution requires "equal treatment under the law" and the fishing regs do not allow game species to be killed by use of explosives. Why are the oil companies getting a pass for explosive well removals when those explosive removals kill thousands of fish whose harvest is tightly regulated because they are in danger at the population level?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Run for Senate and get the law changed or contact Mary Landrieu and/or David Vitter (their phones are surely blowing up already due to this), they are simply doing what is defined in the law and what is cheapest.

This is not a legislative issue, it is an enforcement issue that can and should be handled within the executive branch.

I'm not proposing changing it, but with 20+ years of hindsight, we can prevent repeating some of the mistakes by limiting restrictions of new laws to those demonstrated to be necessary by sound
science.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

What mistake? Banning lead was/is far from a mistake in my opinion and there are numerous publications out there to show that lead kills birds long after it comes out that shotgun shell (see my reference to Catahoula Lake)

My point is not that lead should not have been banned in some areas, my point was that the lead ban went far beyond the need that was demonstrated by sound science. The sound science in the 1980s did not support banning lead in all areas where migratory waterfowl are hunted, but only in areas where it was likely to be ingested by waterfowl: wetlands. Banning lead shot in midwestern cornfields was an overreach not supported by the science. Banning the possession of lead shot was also an overreach.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Regulations can always be changed once science supports it. It happens every year with waterfowl. Limits are established every single year depending upon the waterfowl counts (these are estimates by the way). Commercial quotas of fish change every year as well. Many things we thought in the past change and that is what makes science have rigor, the more you learn from 'mistakes' (as you put it), the more you can add to the future. One of the gurus of wild turkeys is a professor from Georgia. I heard him talk last week about a study they did with radio transmitters on turkeys in the Morganza Spillway when they opened the floodgates and one of the questions that was asked after the talk was 'what have radio transmitters taught you?'. Dr. Chamberlain said that he realizes now that many of his former publications were not correct. All his assumptions have been falsified by the data he collects from radio-transmitted turkeys. Thats just how things work, we once thought the earth was flat

Thinking the earth was flat was the result of pseudoscience. There should be sound science in place before criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties. Science needs to demonstrate the necessity of new laws before adding to the list of actions that carry criminal penalties, especially if the regulations are put into place by the executive branch (thus bypassing legislative due process and separation of powers). The call for tighter limits on tripletail, as well as the limit reduction on specks down to 15 in big lake in 2005, are based on unsubstantiated fears and not on sound science. Your approach seems to be:

"Tighten the regs before there is sound science, just in case. If it is a wrong move, it can be fixed later, once the science shows it was an unneeded regulation."


The Constitutional approach is closer to:

"The legislative branch has empowered the executive branch to implement regulations when shown to be necessary by sound science. Bypassing separation of powers and criminalizing activities without legislative approval requires a scientific burden of proof to be met."

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

That whole red snapper venting thing is crap I agree. That is all federal junk there. The common sense thing to do (in my opinion) would be to make the regs where the angler has to keep the every fish he catches (no catch and release, most are going to die anyways when they return to the water so why not keep them) this would also be an incentive for people to use larger baits to target larger fish

I agree.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) are one exception, they have been shown to work

Wasn't awarer of a steel shot requirement to shoot blackbirds
But it makes sense to me, because much of the areas blackbirds inhabit are wetlands or can be wetlands (flooded corn, flooded rice) and it ties in with waterfowl ingestion of lead

The requirement for non-toxic shot should depend on the location (wetlands or not), not on the target species. This is supported by the science. Banning lead shot for shooting blackbirds in the same farm fields where clay pigeons can be shot with lead is silly.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Tripletail could very well be a similar issue as they are found in federal waters most of the year, so an argument could be made that this falls under federal regs (redfish caught out past so many miles fall under this category as well).

What IF LDWF is being proactive in management of tripletail BEFORE the feds get in here and try and do it? We all saw what happened with red snapper, maybe LDWF is getting ahead of this? Thats a point to ponder.

There are two issues here: state vs. fed and science vs. fear. Regardless of whether the state or feds are imposing the regulations, tighter restrictions should not be imposed until they are demonstrated to be necessary by sound science showing likely damage at the population level. If (and only if) the science shows current harvest levels are unsustainable, then tighter limits should be imposed. Suggesting that the state needs to impose unsupported and draconian limits so the feds don't jump in and do that is silly.

[Duck Butter]

OK, this is my last post on this I am serious We are going over the same thing over and over again and it seems we are both hard-headed enough to keep going for some reason. I don't know how to multi-quote stuff so bear with me on the bolding stuff

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I'm not asking for new laws, just that the existing laws on red snapper quota be applied to oil companies when they kill red snapper in explosive well removals. The Constitution requires "equal treatment under the law" and the fishing regs do not allow game species to be killed by use of explosives. Why are the oil companies getting a pass for explosive well removals when those explosive removals kill thousands of fish whose harvest is tightly regulated because they are in danger at the population level?

If you can crack that nut MG, you will have saved Mary Landrieu and Vitter a lot of phone calls and emails about the subject


This is not a legislative issue, it is an enforcement issue that can and should be handled within the executive branch.

I don't have any Supreme Court Justices on my speed dial, this is involving federal fisheries in most cases. I agree with you though

I'm not proposing changing it, but with 20+ years of hindsight, we can prevent repeating some of the mistakes by limiting restrictions of new laws to those demonstrated to be necessary by sound
science. My point is not that lead should not have been banned in some areas, my point was that the lead ban went far beyond the need that was demonstrated by sound science.

The sound science in the 1980s did not support banning lead in all areas where migratory waterfowl are hunted, but only in areas where it was likely to be ingested by waterfowl: wetlands.

Yes, and now science has shown that even in non-wetlands that birds will in fact pick up lead and die from that. Think about dove fields hunted year in and year out, lead doesn't dissolve its their forever in its same elemental form. All birds are susceptible to that


Banning lead shot in midwestern cornfields was an overreach not supported by the science. Banning the possession of lead shot was also an overreach.

I disagree, midwestern cornfields are an extremely important waterfowl resource, and if lead is there they can and will pick it up. Its more of a common sense thing, and doesn't really need an extensive study to prove that

Thinking the earth was flat was the result of pseudoscience. There should be sound science in place before criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties.

It was the best 'science' they had at the time and we now can look at that and think it was silly because we can prove its not flat. Back then they didn't have the science we have now, because our knowledge is always increasing. Darwin theorized about evolution for many years and actually held out for many years before he came forward for fear of death.

Science needs to demonstrate the necessity of new laws before adding to the list of actions that carry criminal penalties, especially if the regulations are put into place by the executive branch (thus bypassing legislative due process and separation of powers). The call for tighter limits on tripletail, as well as the limit reduction on specks down to 15 in big lake in 2005, are based on unsubstantiated fears and not on sound science. Your approach seems to be:
"Tighten the regs before there is sound science, just in case. If it is a wrong move, it can be fixed later, once the science shows it was an unneeded regulation."

'err on the side of caution' I actually read this response in a report from the US Fish and Wildlife Service

The Constitutional approach is closer to:
"The legislative branch has empowered the executive branch to implement regulations when shown to be necessary by sound science. Bypassing separation of powers and criminalizing activities without legislative approval requires a scientific burden of proof to be met."I agree.

and I think you should run for Senate and make an amendment regarding our laws governing fish and game regs


The requirement for non-toxic shot should depend on the location (wetlands or not), not on the target species. This is supported by the science. Banning lead shot for shooting blackbirds in the same farm fields where clay pigeons can be shot with lead is silly.

I totall agree, and I commented on this earlier on how silly it is that we can shoot snipe with lead shot in the fields we just finished shooting ducks with steel. Its another 'elephant in the room', and no one wants to address it because it will be a sihtstorm. The day that lead is banned for dove or any upland game hunting or is even proposed for ban is going to be a firestorm (even though science can support it which is what you want right?)

There are two issues here: state vs. fed and science vs. fear. Regardless of whether the state or feds are imposing the regulations, tighter restrictions should not be imposed until they are demonstrated to be necessary by sound science showing likely damage at the population level.

The fear part about our federal government is sad but its true. We shouldn't fear them, they should fear us (Thomas Jefferson?) and that's cool to quote stuff like that but in essence, one can look at the fear of our gov't just this year with the gun and ammo craze. FEAR drove that, FEAR that the gov't was going to take our guns, sad but true (Metallica)

If (and only if) the science shows current harvest levels are unsustainable, then tighter limits should be imposed. Suggesting that the state needs to impose unsupported and draconian limits so the feds don't jump in and do that is silly.

We are going in circles, Draconian limits have been brought up several times. That would be a good name for the organization you should start and a good platform to run for office on

All these are issues that need to be brought up with the federal government. You can start an organization that will lobby on your behalf, but wouldn't that be doing exactly what the entire CCA bashing thread is about - being in bed with the politicians?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

MG:
My point is not that lead should not have been banned in some areas, my point was that the lead ban went far beyond the need that was demonstrated by sound science.

DB:
Yes, and now science has shown that even in non-wetlands that birds will in fact pick up lead and die from that. Think about dove fields hunted year in and year out, lead doesn't dissolve its their forever in its same elemental form. All birds are susceptible to that

MG:
Banning lead shot in midwestern cornfields was an overreach not supported by the science. Banning the possession of lead shot was also an overreach.

DB:
I disagree, midwestern cornfields are an extremely important waterfowl resource, and if lead is there they can and will pick it up. Its more of a common sense thing, and doesn't really need an extensive study to prove that

By your reasoning, lead shot should be banned, not just for hunting, in places where it might later be ingested, but lead should be banned on any outdoor range by it may later be ingested by a passing bird.

I disagree strongly on two counts:

1. Lead projectiles are protected by RKBA (2nd amendment). When the science demonstrates a sound need, lead projectiles can reasonably be regulated for hunting purposes, but non-hunting bans of lead projectiles has RKBA ramifications.
2. I guess it is a reasonable inference that lead shot might be ingested and create a non-zero mortality in game birds. But as I described previously, the science should be able to show significant population level effects from a given practice before that practice is criminalized. Have scientific studies been published showing significant population level effects of lead shot in midwestern cornfields?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

MG:
Thinking the earth was flat was the result of pseudoscience. There should be sound science in place before criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties.

DB:
It was the best 'science' they had at the time and we now can look at that and think it was silly because we can prove its not flat. Back then they didn't have the science we have now, because our knowledge is always increasing.

In modern usage, science implies employing a specific methodology (the scientific method) whereby results are based on repeatability, reproducibility, and due care to control for confounding factors that may be muddling the observations or leading to their misinterpretation.

Some foundations of the scientific method were laid by Roger Bacon in the 13th century, but the overall method was not worked out and well applied until Galileo in the 16th century. The flat earth and the geocentric model of the solar system were two of the early Aristotelian ideas quickly dismissed with the scientific method. Most of Aristotle's assertions about the natural world were based on philosophical methods that downplayed the importance of observation, experiment, and control of confounding factors, and no one who appreciates the differences between the modern scientific method and the ancient philosophical approach would describe Aristotelian "physics" as conforming to the scientific method.

Short-cutting the modern scientific method (control of confounding factors, repeatable experiments, peer-review) is the slippery slope that leads to arguments from authority (a scientist said so) rather than from published scientific data.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

"Tighten the regs before there is sound science, just in case. If it is a wrong move, it can be fixed later, once the science shows it was an unneeded regulation."

'err on the side of caution' I actually read this response in a report from the US Fish and Wildlife Service

Of course. The Federal bureaucracy will nearly always support a position that increases the power, funding, and scope of the Federal bureaucracy. How often does a Federal agency step away and promote an approach that expands individual liberty in a way that reduces their own power, funding, and scope?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

and I think you should run for Senate and make an amendment regarding our laws governing fish and game regs

Why make everything into a Federal issue? 17 states, including Louisiana already have Constitutional guarantees regarding hunting and fishing. These Constitutional guarantees require management to be based on needing to preserve the resources for the present and future use of the people of the state rather pandering to animal rights, anti-hunting, or anti-gun special interests.

Consider the Louisiana RKBA:

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Now, due process of law can certainly restrict ammunition used in hunting. But it seems to me that restricting ammunition used for non-hunting purposes is a restriction that "shall be subject to strict scrutiny."

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I totall agree, and I commented on this earlier on how silly it is that we can shoot snipe with lead shot in the fields we just finished shooting ducks with steel. Its another 'elephant in the room', and no one wants to address it because it will be a sihtstorm. The day that lead is banned for dove or any upland game hunting or is even proposed for ban is going to be a firestorm (even though science can support it which is what you want right?)

If the science shows that banning lead shot when hunting upland game is necessary to preserve whole populations, yes. But if it's a matter of a trade-off where no populations are really threatened, then science should inform the political process, and then the people decide how to address the trade-off through the normal political process. If there are tens or hundreds of millions in the population of a given species, banning lead shot for upland game is not necessarily the only right outcome if none of the species are really threatened and banning lead shot is likely only save a few thousand each year. Science is not a tool to be manipulated so that one group (dove hunters in this case) is disadvantaged so that another group (duck hunters) has more of its preferred game.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

The fear part about our federal government is sad but its true. We shouldn't fear them, they should fear us (Thomas Jefferson?) and that's cool to quote stuff like that but in essence, one can look at the fear of our gov't just this year with the gun and ammo craze. FEAR drove that, FEAR that the gov't was going to take our guns, sad but true (Metallica)

In a free country, individual citizens should be at liberty to act on their fears, whether or not they are reasonable. I think I'll likely to be the first to evacuate a low lying area when a hurricane is coming even though it might be 48 hours away from landfall and might change course. When a snowstorm was coming in the midwest, I was often the first to stock up on water, food, and batteries.

But the exercise of governmental power to restrict individual liberty is a different deal. It should be based on genuine, demonstrated need to exercise that power and not on "just in case." I'd hate to see the government mandating evacuations when a hurricane is coming as soon as the most prudent citizens (including me) decide to leave.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

That would be a good name for the organization you should start and a good platform to run for office on

All these are issues that need to be brought up with the federal government. You can start an organization that will lobby on your behalf, but wouldn't that be doing exactly what the entire CCA bashing thread is about - being in bed with the politicians?

I think citizens (like me) can be effective at the grass roots level without becoming politicians. I'm more of a scientist and an educator. I may be wrong, but I think educating the citizens is more powerful than lobbying the politicians.

And I strongly disagree with your emphasis on addressing things with "the federal government." The average Louisiana citizen needs less of the feds in his business.

[cgoods17]

Are we there yet?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Management of wildlife should be based upon SOUND scientific evidence, not politics. The resources on public water bodies and land is for everyone in the state, not a select few. . .

I also believe that the numbers of trout caught by rod n reel is not even 1% of what dies by dolphins, sharks, other trout, pelicans, and other natural factors, so the limit could be 100 and it would really not matter that much.

This limit change should have never happened, but it did, and it will likely be very very hard to get changed back. I have only fished there for 2 years so can't chime in on much about Big Lake but I know how wildlife populations work and think management of wildlife should be scientifically driven. LDWF has very competent biologists and if we are going to ignore their EXPERT opinions then what is the point of even having biologists? Anyone can go out and shock fish and measure them, but it takes someone with some knowledge to assess the numbers and look at the trends and figure what is happening and what needs to happen, they went to school for this very thing. Its a sad day when a few stakeholders can make decisions for everyone.

I would really really like to see something like the magnuson-stevens act be placed across the state for ALL our wildlife for the state. This act makes sure that the management is scientifically driven (although it is not perfect and has not reallly been enforced, but it is an excellent tool if used properly) and rules and regulation changes would be due to scientific evidence that supports the best management for OUR resources, not because a few people want to shoot big bucks or catch big bass


:sent from iphone while at the office!

Agreed. Too bad you don't want to apply the same scientific standards to tripletail that you wanted for trout.