Will you continue to Support CCA?

[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.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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

But I do And until that meeting coming up I am going to withhold judgement because all this is speculation until we hear their side of the argument.


And I thought this thread died a week ago, but what in the world is this?

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.

The right to bear arms includes lead projectiles? I don't think it does, but the original discussion was about pellets not bullets, so I will stay on that subject. BUT, there was a study at Fort Polk looking at deer stomach contents and a large majority of them contained lead projectiles. This was a study by a student under my major professor. Deer can feed by sight, so they know what they are picking up, and it appeared by the stomach contents that some of these deer were actively seeking out the lead projectiles I am not a chemist but it has something to do about oxidation of lead, etc. You will not find this study published because it wasn't and will not be, DoD shut it down

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?

Again, this is where the lines are a little blurred and depends on what you consider 'acceptable mortality'. Waterfowl to this very day 20+ years after banning of lead shot, still die due to lead shot on Catahoula Lake. There are gizzard studies that are ongoing from Catahoula Lake waterfowl and many of them contain lead shot.
There are also studies with doves and lead shot, think this is at Sandy Hollow WMA.
Doves are short-lived birds so you could assume that the lead that they pick up in their relatively short lifespan probably does not do too much negative on them. However, the critters that feed upon them....
And the big 'elephant in the room' are the other songbirds that are picking up this lead. They are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, so now there are big ramifications. If there are in fact songbirds or other non-target birds dying from lead, then how many dying is to much? I don't know, but when its a big 'warm and fuzzy' species or a well known symbolic species dying such as a bald eagle, people get up in arms. OR, the California condor, then you have endangered species act coming into play.

Here is a scenario:

20 people are hunting a dove field and they all shoot 4 boxes of shells (not unreasonable)

And for each box of shells, there are 2 lbs of lead in each box
(I have no idea how much lead is in a box of shells, but I know lead is the bulk of the weight and lets just say a box of shells weighs 3 lbs, seems reasonable)
So basically, each hunter just scattered 8 POUNDS of lead pellets on the field. Multiply that by 20 and you have 160 pounds of lead pellets scattered in that field on opening day of dove season. You see where this is going? It adds up quick.
Imagine if you went up to someone with 160 lbs of lead pellets and told them you were going to spread them across his land You would get shot.

Lead never goes away, and lets call it what it is - POISON. It was outlawed in paint because of this as well.

So Cliff's notes - lead is bad, birds die from it 20+ years out, it doesn't go away, and I am not advocating a ban on lead shot but if it did come around I can definitely understand why it did and will gladly shoot steel at doves, woodcock, etc.

and YES I will continue to support CCA and other conservation organizations because they are on our side