Getting neighbors onboard with big buck mgmt

[bgizzle]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

Make it legal to shoot trespassers and that stuff would stop in a hurry.

Amen!!


"Go ahead, share your opinion! I won't cry"

[Smalls]

You've got a serious "oppressed man" complex, MG, because if I feel like there's any government agency encroaching on our rights, it sure ain't wildlife and fisheries. Sure, I've got issues with the ways they set limits, but I don't feel they are doing anything unreasonable through the regs. I'm a conservationist.

What is with this "unlimited power" thing you keep bringing up? I've never suggested that. Take those crappy X-ray glasses off, because you're reading into what I'm saying too much, and you're wrong. Just because I am suggesting basing the regulations on a different methodology, doesn't mean I'm advocating big government.

There are some regulations that are confusing, but I don't feel something as simple as you can kill this many here and that many there is that confusing. Maybe the way it is done now is perfectly fine, but WLF has shown that they have a history of being influenced to set limits a certain way.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

You've got a serious "oppressed man" complex, MG, because if I feel like there's any government agency encroaching on our rights, it sure ain't wildlife and fisheries. Sure, I've got issues with the ways they set limits, but I don't feel they are doing anything unreasonable through the regs. I'm a conservationist.

I think the issues discussed on Salty Cajun in the past 6 months illustrate the reality of big government in wildlife management.

Big Gov't "Conservationists" tended to think closing federal lands was a reasonable step during the government shutdown. Us small government conservationists remember that the land belongs to the people and should be open to access even if some parts of the government remain closed.

Big gov't "Conservationists" tend to think lead shot should be banned in almost all hunting situations where it might land where a duck might one day ingest it. Us small government conservationists tend to think that lead falls under RKBA and can only reasonably be restricted when and where data has shown with a high degree of confidence that actual populations are threatened, beyond simply reducing numbers available for harvest.

Big gov't "Conservationists" tended to support the tripletail limit. Small gov't conservationists like myself wanted to see the hard data showing how existing stocks of tripletail would be threatened without the limit reduction.

Big gov't "Conservationists" tended to support reducing the limit of specks from 25 down to 15 in 2005, even though there was no data supporting the limit change. Us small gov't conservationists think restrictions on individual liberty should be based in data demonstrating a need for the more restrictive regulation.

I am concerned with what kind of state and what kind of country we're leaving to our grandchildren. Sure, just it may just be a few new "necessary" regulations each year, but 60 years down the line, there won't be much liberty to enjoy our Sportsman's Paradise anymore.

"Conservationists" that focus on the game are inherently shortsighted. The habitat is always the real issue in long term sustainability. The 20th century focus on game limits, limits, limits, regulations, regulations, regulations, allowed all the channel dredging and levee building that has lead to the erosion and saltwater intrusion that truly threatens our grandchildren's fishing.

[duckman1911]

Smalls why did you dig up a trolling thread that hadn't been commented on in a month? Couldn't find a wall to argue with? Have a drink, get a BJ, and lighten up dude.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

Smalls why did you dig up a trolling thread that hadn't been commented on in a month? Couldn't find a wall to argue with? Have a drink, get a BJ, and lighten up dude.

Ever seen those Snickers commercials? Instead of doing crazy things when I'm hungry, I do crazy things when I'm bored. Training that I've heard and done a thousand times already tends to do that to me.

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Ever seen those Snickers commercials? Instead of doing crazy things when I'm hungry, I do crazy things when I'm bored. Training that I've heard and done a thousand times already tends to do that to me.

I understand bro. I do crazy things on bourbon and coke night. Nights.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

I understand bro. I do crazy things on bourbon and coke night. Nights.

Lmao!! Root beer and Jack for me. Good stuff right there! Most people think I'm nuts...

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Lmao!! Root beer and Jack for me. Good stuff right there! Most people think I'm nuts...

Hell I know im nuts. I'll try it. I'll try almost anything once. Almost anything.lol

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

Smalls why did you dig up a trolling thread that hadn't been commented on in a month? Couldn't find a wall to argue with? Have a drink, get a BJ, and lighten up dude.

this thread was serious as a heart attack, matter of fact I took that biologists advice and went and planted some lime trees yesterday before the rain. He told me limes was good on that dirt I had.

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

this thread was serious as a heart attack, matter of fact I took that biologists advice and went and planted some lime trees yesterday before the rain. He told me limes was good on that dirt I had.

DB you bring the limes and I'll bring the coconut rum.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

DB you bring the limes and I'll bring the coconut rum.

he told me my dirt had acid all up in it and to put limes out, I been goin grocery store and gettin their old limes, and planted lime trees, when them limes get ripe on that tree we meet up and have us a little party brah!

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

he told me my dirt had acid all up in it and to put limes out, I been goin grocery store and gettin their old limes, and planted lime trees, when them limes get ripe on that tree we meet up and have us a little party brah!

Sweeeeeet... Party on da beach. Who's bringin da chips and hot wings?

[MathGeek]

The Webster's dictionary defines a conservationist as:

: someone who works to protect animals, plants, and natural resources or to prevent the loss or waste of natural resources : a person who is involved in conservation

Note the definition of conservationist is focused on the goals, not the methods.

There are big gov't conservationists who thinks greater regulation is a necessary path to effective conservation. This thinking moves in an increasing way toward look more, touch less. Florida is imposing speed limits on boats in many public waters.

I am a small gov't conservationist who thinks that maintaining liberty of citizens to use and enjoy the natural resources to the maximal sustainable extent is key in maintaining public motivations toward preserving them for future generations. Anglers are more concerned with oyster reef destruction than teletubbies. Waterfowl hunters are more concerned with habitat destruction. Who cares more about the forests than those whose livelihoods depend on it?

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The Webster's dictionary defines a conservationist as:

: someone who works to protect animals, plants, and natural resources or to prevent the loss or waste of natural resources : a person who is involved in conservation

Note the definition of conservationist is focused on the goals, not the methods.

How do you read that and not get that methods are also part of that? You can't conserve anything if you aren't concerned with the methods. If you focus purely on goals, and not how to get to them, how you going to get there?

Why do you keep "talking about big government conservationists"? I describe myself just as you describe yourself. Difference is, I've actually worked in conservation. I've worked on both sides of it, actually. So don't preach to me about what is and isn't conservation, because I know full well what it is. I deal with that fine line every day now.

You want to complain about big government over regulating? Go read the proposed rule changes to the "waters of the united states", The Clean Water Act. That will get your blood boiling.

What do you do that the regulation of nautral resources affects your livelihood anyway? Because I know what I do, and trust me, it directly affects my livelihood. That's how I make a living.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

How do you read that and not get that methods are also part of that? You can't conserve anything if you aren't concerned with the methods. If you focus purely on goals, and not how to get to them, how you going to get there?

Of course, in the application of the science, there needs to be methods. But the methods do not need to emphasize governmental actions or regulations at every turn. A lot of private action can be important too, including only investing in companies that follow good conservationist practices, applying conservationist practices in one's own hunting, fishing, and agriculture, etc.

Originally Posted by Smalls

Why do you keep "talking about big government conservationists"? I describe myself just as you describe yourself.

Do you oppose additional restrictions on hunting with lead?

Do you oppose unnecessary restrictions on RKBA while hunting? (Like the ban on handguns while bow hunting, and the ban on even possessing lead shot while waterfowl hunting.)

Did you oppose the tripletail limit?

Do you think 15 pages of deer regs is way too much and think they should be reduced to five?

Did you think the big reward for the Whooping Crane was ridiculous?

Do you think the limit on specks in big lake should be changed back to 25 trout?

Originally Posted by Smalls

Difference is, I've actually worked in conservation.

My first conservation job was studying crawfish at LSU in 1985. I was also heavily involved in an urban deer management program in the midwest for a decade. I've been working actively in fisheries science since 2007. In total I've published over 20 related scholarly papers.

Originally Posted by Smalls

I've worked on both sides of it, actually. So don't preach to me about what is and isn't conservation, because I know full well what it is. I deal with that fine line every day now.

Don't kid yourself that I am trying to change your mind about anything. You are firmly attached to the teat. I'm trying to educate the other readers so they understand the difference between big gov't conservationists and small gov't conservationists. You prove my point when you dodge questions like the above list. Like gun grabbers who favor "reasonable restrictions" while claiming to support the 2nd amendment, big gov't conservationists claim to favor small gov't and be just like the little guy. You claim to be "just like I describe myself" but your actual policy preferences are much different.

Do you oppose additional restrictions on hunting with lead?

Do you oppose unnecessary restrictions on RKBA while hunting? (Like the ban on handguns while bow hunting, and the ban on even possessing lead shot while waterfowl hunting.)

Did you oppose the tripletail limit?

Do you think 15 pages of deer regs is way too much and think they should be reduced to five?

Did you think the big reward for the Whooping Crane was ridiculous?

Do you think the limit on specks in big lake should be changed back to 25 trout?

Originally Posted by Smalls

You want to complain about big government over regulating? Go read the proposed rule changes to the "waters of the united states", The Clean Water Act. That will get your blood boiling.

Good for you. There is an extreme of a gov't power grab you actually disagree with.

[Smalls]

Do you oppose additional restrictions on hunting with lead?

Sure, it doesn't harm anything to deer hunt or squirrel hunt with lead. Last I checked, squirrels and deer don't forage in the same manner as ducks, where the real potential is for harm. I'm not going to get into the whole lead issue though.

Do you oppose unnecessary restrictions on RKBA while hunting? (Like the ban on handguns while bow hunting, and the ban on even possessing lead shot while waterfowl hunting.)

Yes. As for the lead comment, see above.

Did you oppose the tripletail limit?

In all honesty, It's not something I paid much attention to because I don't fish for them. I'm not going to give an answer on that, because I did not read up on it and I do not know the entire story behind it.

Do you think 15 pages of deer regs is way too much and think they should be reduced to five?

You just keep up with this one don't you? I just looked at the regs, and its only 8 pages long for deer hunting. Granted, you do have a good section on public lands, but each public land is managed differently, so that is warranted, in my opinion.

You want my opinion? Ok. You whine too much about deer hunting regulations.

Did you think the big reward for the Whooping Crane was ridiculous?

Yet again, you show ignorance to a subject. How many times has it been pointed out that that reward was largely private money? The original reward from Operation Game Thief was $1,000. Then private funds were added to that.

Do you think the limit on specks in big lake should be changed back to 25 trout?

If the science points that way, sure. Depends on the management objective.

You prove my point when you dodge questions like the above list. Like gun grabbers who favor "reasonable restrictions" while claiming to support the 2nd amendment, big gov't conservationists claim to favor small gov't and be just like the little guy. You claim to be "just like I describe myself" but your actual policy preferences are much different.

When have I dodged any questions? When have I suggested anything to the contrary of what I have said? You read more into what I've said that what I actually said.

Go back and find anything that suggests that I'm in favor of more restrictions. Stating that a harvest limit is too high for a certain area is not the same as saying "lead should be outlawed". Quit kidding yourself. It's not the same.

I've never suggested that I think LDWF policies are flawless. Quite the contrary actually, since I've repeated stated my displeasure with their methodology of setting seasons and bag limits.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Do you think the limit on specks in big lake should be changed back to 25 trout?

Originally Posted by Smalls

If the science points that way, sure. Depends on the management objective.

Thank you for making my point so beautifully. W and I have quoted reliable sources many times showing that there was no data supporting the 2005 limit change from 25 down to 15 trout.

So, big gov't conservationists tend to support downward limit changes "just in case" without supporting data.

But raising the limit back simply because the original change was not based in sound science is unreasonable.

The burden is higher on those supporting the decriminalization of keeping 25 trout on Big Lake compared with the burden on those supporting the ongoing criminalization of keeping those extra ten trout.

Similarly, I bet most big gov't conservationists favor ongoing federal control of the red snapper fishery. I would favor it being returned to the states, not just in state waters, but in the entire shelf adjacent to each state. I think the science shows that the shelf adjacent to Louisiana can easily support a harvest limit of 4 red snapper for a 90 day season, maybe longer. What about you, Smalls?

I also have noticed that most big gov't conservationists favor CO2 emission restrictions (carbon trading and so on) justified by the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. Personally, since the science is so weak, this seems to me more of a big gov't power grab in the guise of conservation. What about you, Smalls?

Most big gov't conservationists are also trying to impose growing gov't restrictions on fertilizer use throughout the Mississippi River watershed, claiming there is a huge "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico due to runoff of agricultural fertilizers. I'm more in the camp of C. Grimes who estimated that nutrients delivered by the Mississippi River actually increase the biomass and fishery production of affected Gulf waters by a factor of four, and that greatly reducing use agricultural fertilizers would reduce fishery production in Gulf waters enhanced by Mississippi River nutrient loading. Rather than increasing regulation on farmers, my view is that ending ethanol subsidies would sufficiently mitigate the risks of nutrient loading in the Gulf of Mexico. What about you, Smalls?

Probably the biggest need for increased gov't action in terms of applying hunting and fishering limits is in explosive well removals that kill hundreds of thousands of red snapper in the Gulf each year. If explosive well removals are allowed to continue, the companies that are responsible should pay mitigation costs for all the wildlife killed, and the dead snapper need to be applied against the allowed commercial harvest of snapper that year. Giving the oil industry a blank check to destroy marine wildlife is bad policy. What about you, Smalls?

[Duck Butter]

[CajunSteelsetter]

DuckButter....you have created something my friend. I feel like I've stumbled into an intellectual duel between the "Biology Bonaparte" and the duke of "Well I know math...so ha".

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by CajunSteelsetter

DuckButter....you have created something my friend. I feel like I've stumbled into an intellectual duel between the "Biology Bonaparte" and the duke of "Well I know math...so ha".

MG is oh so close to saying 'draconian sanctions' I can smell it He keeps hinting at it, just say it MG!