Triple tail limit coming

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

that shows ties to TRIPLETAIL, no kidding man I said trout and Big Lake specificially


Its not a big conspiracy that CCA is trying to hide from, they have made it abundantly clear that they are in favor of tripletail regulations It fits right in their mission statement and its a GOOD thing to manage our fisheries for future generations, what is bad about that

[cgoods17]

well thanks guys, yall have entertained the first half of my work day... keep it up, i will need this 2nd half to go by just as quick!

Oh, and tell will drost i said hi

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

So do sheephead need a limit too?????

If people in Louisiana start to specifically target sheephead at a much broader scale then YES, but as of now that isn't the case.

Tripletail on the other hand are really starting to be specifically targeted at a much broader scale, so regulations are being LOOKED into. Nothing has been set as of yet.


We must all remember that the same thing happened to redfish, they took some serious hits when the blackened redfish 'craze' swept through. Regs had to be set to keep the species in balance (and I am very thankful for that).

Yellowfin tuna stocks had to be assessed as well as they are at an all-time popularity right now. They once were rarely targeted, and were considered nuisance fish when trolling for other 'more desirable' species. My have things changed, and fisheries managament has to change with it as well as regulations

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

You have officially given up when you start posting that crap I am outta here

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You have officially given up when you start posting that crap I am outta here

You are trying to make a "FEEL GOOD" story for the CCA. Neither you nor they can justify a limit on triple tail that would show and prove that rod n reel is hurting the population!
WL&F visit marinas every day and take fish counts; we had them this Sunday at Hebert’s taking fish counts and measurements with weights. Do they show a great number of 3tail taken on these visits?
If you don’t have data to back up your creel limit your looking to establish (5 fish 18inchs long) How about start with a greater span like 20? Once you spend a few years with more study and if you then find you need to move down the limit, then so be it.
Lets not give the fisherman "BECAUSE ITS THE SMART THING TO DO"

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

If people in Louisiana start to specifically target sheephead at a much broader scale then YES, but as of now that isn't the case.

Tripletail on the other hand are really starting to be specifically targeted at a much broader scale, so regulations are being LOOKED into. Nothing has been set as of yet.


We must all remember that the same thing happened to redfish, they took some serious hits when the blackened redfish 'craze' swept through. Regs had to be set to keep the species in balance (and I am very thankful for that).

Yellowfin tuna stocks had to be assessed as well as they are at an all-time popularity right now. They once were rarely targeted, and were considered nuisance fish when trolling for other 'more desirable' species. My have things changed, and fisheries managament has to change with it as well as regulations

The burden to provide sound scientific support should always be on those suggesting increased regulation.

A Constitutional Republic is based on the idea that the liberty of individuals should only be restricted in cases of demonstrated necessity. The position that tighter limits are always good conservation is not only bad science, it is contrary to the ideas of liberty that the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve.

Copying other states is rarely sound science based wildlife management. Asserting the sexual maturity of a fish as the basis for a minimum length limit is not scientific management. For example, it has been shown and is well known that the sexual maturity of redfish is actually a good cause to restrict harvest of sexually mature fish.

Restrictions on liberty (tighter limits) that carry criminal penalties should be supported with good science, including stock assessments, condition indices, and understanding the role of the species in the overall food web.

The debacle with red snapper is actually endangering other species because the Draconian restrictions on red snapper are allowing them to become overpopulated in some areas to the detriment of their food sources and to the harm of other species that red snapper compete with for food and habitat.

Overly restrictive harvest limits is not good conservation. Good conservation allows sustainable harvests to prevent overpopulation for the benefit of the overall habitat and food web.

You need more than anecdotal evidence that a given species is being targeted to justify making current practices a crime. You need valid scientific data showing that current harvest levels are not sustainable. This requirement has two components:

1. You need to accurately determine what current harvest levels actually are.

2. You need to accurately assess current population levels and food web dynamics to show that the current harvest levels are not sustainable and would lead to a long term decline in the resource.

[I make oil]

This has one and the CCA thread have been the most entertaining, thoughtful and civil discussions I've seen on here. Most excellent.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

You are trying to make a "FEEL GOOD" story for the CCA. Neither you nor they can justify a limit on triple tail that would show and prove that rod n reel is hurting the population!
WL&F visit marinas every day and take fish counts; we had them this Sunday at Hebert’s taking fish counts and measurements with weights. Do they show a great number of 3tail taken on these visits?
If you don’t have data to back up your creel limit your looking to establish (5 fish 18inchs long) How about start with a greater span like 20? Once you spend a few years with more study and if you then find you need to move down the limit, then so be it.
Lets not give the fisherman "BECAUSE ITS THE SMART THING TO DO"

Why 20? Why not 15? Why not 21? See where this is going? First off the regs have NOT been established YET!


nevermind, I am really done now

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The burden to provide sound scientific support should always be on those suggesting increased regulation.

A Constitutional Republic is based on the idea that the liberty of individuals should only be restricted in cases of demonstrated necessity. The position that tighter limits are always good conservation is not only bad science, it is contrary to the ideas of liberty that the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve.

Copying other states is rarely sound science based wildlife management. Asserting the sexual maturity of a fish as the basis for a minimum length limit is not scientific management. For example, it has been shown and is well known that the sexual maturity of redfish is actually a good cause to restrict harvest of sexually mature fish.

Restrictions on liberty (tighter limits) that carry criminal penalties should be supported with good science, including stock assessments, condition indices, and understanding the role of the species in the overall food web.

The debacle with red snapper is actually endangering other species because the Draconian restrictions on red snapper are allowing them to become overpopulated in some areas to the detriment of their food sources and to the harm of other species that red snapper compete with for food and habitat.

Overly restrictive harvest limits is not good conservation. Good conservation allows sustainable harvests to prevent overpopulation for the benefit of the overall habitat and food web.

You need more than anecdotal evidence that a given species is being targeted to justify making current practices a crime. You need valid scientific data showing that current harvest levels are not sustainable. This requirement has two components:

1. You need to accurately determine what current harvest levels actually are.

2. You need to accurately assess current population levels and food web dynamics to show that the current harvest levels are not sustainable and would lead to a long term decline in the resource.

I read that and responded also, maybe in the other thread

In that response I said that all that makes sense in a perfect world, but wildlife managers do not live in a perfect world and the world is always changing and adpatations have to be made

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Why 20? Why not 15? Why not 21? See where this is going? First off the regs have NOT been established YET!


nevermind, I am really done now

BINGO.......You catching on now!!
SO why 5?? Why any??? If you’re going to set a limit you better have some reasoning behind it right besides "it’s the smart thing to do"

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I read that and responded also, maybe in the other thread

In that response I said that all that makes sense in a perfect world, but wildlife managers do not live in a perfect world and the world is always changing and adpatations have to be made

This is all you can say?? MG proves you wrong and you crawfish out of an answer

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

This is all you can say?? MG proves you wrong and you crawfish out of an answer

MG 'proved' nothing, he issued a statement from his point of view and I responded

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

MG 'proved' nothing, he issued a statement from his point of view and I responded

You even said it when you were talking about tuna "Yellowfin tuna stocks had to be assessed..."

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by meaux fishing

You even said it when you were talking about tuna "Yellowfin tuna stocks had to be assessed..."

as are tripletail stocks

Again, there are NO LIMITS on tripletail right now in Louisiana

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

as are tripletail stocks

Again, there are NO LIMITS on tripletail right now in Louisiana

You mean there are no infringements on Constitutional liberties by the executive branch upon properly licensed anglers.

If there is no scientific data supporting the necessity of infringements on Constitutional liberties, then why should the executive branch be empowered to act unilaterally to make certain harvest actions into criminal offenses?

To be sure, the legislative branch does not need sound science to support its laws, it is empowered by the Constitution to make stupid laws if it desires. But the legislative branch has given certain regulatory authority to the executive branch (LDWF) but only to enact scientifically sound and necessary restrictions on the Constitutional liberties of Louisiana citizens.

LDWF making new regulations because LDWF scientists opine they are a good idea is a failure of separation of powers and a bad approach to wildlife managers. There needs to be scientific data that can be reviewed, assessed, and commented on by independent experts and stakeholders.

Making new regulations with criminal penalties without sound science is failure of due process.

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You mean there are no infringements on Constitutional liberties by the executive branch upon properly licensed anglers.

If there is no scientific data supporting the necessity of infringements on Constitutional liberties, then why should the executive branch be empowered to act unilaterally to make certain harvest actions into criminal offenses?

To be sure, the legislative branch does not need sound science to support its laws, it is empowered by the Constitution to make stupid laws if it desires. But the legislative branch has given certain regulatory authority to the executive branch (LDWF) but only to enact scientifically sound and necessary restrictions on the Constitutional liberties of Louisiana citizens.

LDWF making new regulations because LDWF scientists opine they are a good idea is a failure of separation of powers and a bad approach to wildlife managers. There needs to be scientific data that can be reviewed, assessed, and commented on by independent experts and stakeholders.

Making new regulations with criminal penalties without sound science is failure of due process.

I believe that's the best way it can be put. Thanks mathgeek.

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You mean there are no infringements on Constitutional liberties by the executive branch upon properly licensed anglers.

If there is no scientific data supporting the necessity of infringements on Constitutional liberties, then why should the executive branch be empowered to act unilaterally to make certain harvest actions into criminal offenses?

To be sure, the legislative branch does not need sound science to support its laws, it is empowered by the Constitution to make stupid laws if it desires. But the legislative branch has given certain regulatory authority to the executive branch (LDWF) but only to enact scientifically sound and necessary restrictions on the Constitutional liberties of Louisiana citizens.

LDWF making new regulations because LDWF scientists opine they are a good idea is a failure of separation of powers and a bad approach to wildlife managers. There needs to be scientific data that can be reviewed, assessed, and commented on by independent experts and stakeholders.

Making new regulations with criminal penalties without sound science is failure of due process.

The crazy part is that the LDWF has recommended no regulations, so that the sound science says it is not necessary. But for some reason the commission is still pushing it

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by meaux fishing

The crazy part is that the LDWF has recommended no regulations, so that the sound science says it is not necessary. But for some reason the commission is still pushing it

Ie. cca. "Fox in the hen house".

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You mean there are no infringements on Constitutional liberties by the executive branch upon properly licensed anglers.

If there is no scientific data supporting the necessity of infringements on Constitutional liberties, then why should the executive branch be empowered to act unilaterally to make certain harvest actions into criminal offenses?

To be sure, the legislative branch does not need sound science to support its laws, it is empowered by the Constitution to make stupid laws if it desires. But the legislative branch has given certain regulatory authority to the executive branch (LDWF) but only to enact scientifically sound and necessary restrictions on the Constitutional liberties of Louisiana citizens.

LDWF making new regulations because LDWF scientists opine they are a good idea is a failure of separation of powers and a bad approach to wildlife managers. There needs to be scientific data that can be reviewed, assessed, and commented on by independent experts and stakeholders.

Making new regulations with criminal penalties without sound science is failure of due process.

I will comment on this part because its what I know and what i do for a living, the other part above that is something that needs to be taken up with your congressperson or Rush Limbaugh I don't know, sounds like something that came off the NRA website

"There needs to be scientific data that can be reviewed, assessed, and commented on by independent experts and stakeholders."

As you know MG, the sceintfic data IS accessible, all you have to do is ask. You have gotten fisheries data from LDWF before And

"There needs to be scientific data that can be reviewed, assessed, and commented on by independent experts and stakeholders."

Well that is where the meetings I have been harping on come into play. You have a right to go and voice your opinion. A matter of fact, your opinion is welcomed at these forums. They ask for them. Not sure why everyone is not grasping this

[Top Dawg]

Our opinion goes about as far at those meetings as it does in this forum.