Thank You

[ifsteve]

From a purely scientific perspective I will give you my opinion and I am sure it will go over like a turn in a punch bowl with the keep em all crowd.

YES I believe that there should be some kind of limit with every game fish species. Lacking better evidence it is safer for the future to put on some reasonable restrictions. Again for species defined as game fish.

If you kill a fish it will not contribute to the future biomass. At some point overfishing is a possibility.

[OnePunchRex]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

From a purely scientific perspective I will give you my opinion and I am sure it will go over like a turn in a punch bowl with the keep em all crowd.

YES I believe that there should be some kind of limit with every game fish species. Lacking better evidence it is safer for the future to put on some reasonable restrictions. Again for species defined as game fish.

If you kill a fish it will not contribute to the future biomass. At some point overfishing is a possibility.

Great post!

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

If you kill a fish it will not contribute to the future biomass. At some point overfishing is a possibility.

Right, but red snapper and other species are currently close to their maximum sustainable biomass. There is a quantity of fish that can be safely harvested from the ecosystem each year without significantly reducing future biomass.

Biomass is dominated by lower levels of the food chain (what fish eat) rather than by how many fish are available to harvest. Letting fish continue to multiply uncontrolled simply puts too much stress of forage sources and leads to lots of little, slow growing fish rather than more fat, happy, fast growing fish. Right now, black drum and red snapper are clearly over stressing their food sources, and there is some risk of real ecological damage if underfishing continues.

Only the ignorant ASSUME that every game species is on the brink of overfishing and in need of additional protections. Since populations of many larger predators (sharks, etc.) are far below historical levels, a high level of fishing pressure is necessary in many cases to maintain balanced populations and prevent too much stress of food sources. NOAA data show tripletail harvests have been steady over time (no over fishing) and ichthyoplankton surveys show that there had been no drop in reproductive rates (future biomass was safe). No limit was needed in Louisiana waters.

[ifsteve]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Right, but red snapper and other species are currently close to their maximum sustainable biomass. There is a quantity of fish that can be safely harvested from the ecosystem each year without significantly reducing future biomass.

Biomass is dominated by lower levels of the food chain (what fish eat) rather than by how many fish are available to harvest. Letting fish continue to multiply uncontrolled simply puts too much stress of forage sources and leads to lots of little, slow growing fish rather than more fat, happy, fast growing fish. Right now, black drum and red snapper are clearly over stressing their food sources, and there is some risk of real ecological damage if underfishing continues.

Only the ignorant ASSUME that every game species is on the brink of overfishing and in need of additional protections. Since populations of many larger predators (sharks, etc.) are far below historical levels, a high level of fishing pressure is necessary in many cases to maintain balanced populations and prevent too much stress of food sources. NOAA data show tripletail harvests have been steady over time (no over fishing) and ichthyoplankton surveys show that there had been no drop in reproductive rates (future biomass was safe). No limit was needed in Louisiana waters.

Ok then there is scientific evidence to support the current situation. Great.

W

No I aint' from TX....MS.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

Ok then there is scientific evidence to support the current situation. Great.

W

No I aint' from TX....MS.

I can tell you that Gafttop catches are substantial and all I use is artificial!!


So should we put a limit on them ???

What about sheepshead ? Or sand trout ? Or croaker caught 5 yesterday

[Natural Light Kid]

Can the overall well being of game be determined by the numbers that are caught/killed?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

Ok then there is scientific evidence to support the current situation. Great.

Uh, no. There is scientific evidence to support the former situation (no limit on tripletail).

There is no scientific evidence to support the current situation. (Newly imposed limit.)

How ignorant does one have to be to claim that data showing that everything was fine without a limit actually supports a newly imposed limit?

This is CCA-esque reasoning through and through.

[ifsteve]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Uh, no. There is scientific evidence to support the former situation (no limit on tripletail).

There is no scientific evidence to support the current situation. (Newly imposed limit.)

How ignorant does one have to be to claim that data showing that everything was fine without a limit actually supports a newly imposed limit?

This is CCA-esque reasoning through and through.

I didn't realize there was a recently put in place limit. Bottom line is that if there is data that showed the previous structure (no limit) is working fine then ok leave it alone.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

From a purely scientific perspective I will give you my opinion and I am sure it will go over like a turn in a punch bowl with the keep em all crowd.

YES I believe that there should be some kind of limit with every game fish species. Lacking better evidence it is safer for the future to put on some reasonable restrictions. Again for species defined as game fish.

If you kill a fish it will not contribute to the future biomass. At some point overfishing is a possibility.

You must be from Texas ?