Triple tail limit coming

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This is the same mentality that just drove that entire ammo and gun craze we just experienced and not one thing happened but ammo and gun prices went thru the roof This is the LDWF for lord's sake, why in the world would they do anything to decrease the amount of fishermen - they won't. They work FOR us 100%, this isn't the federal gov't

Five 18"+ tripletail will last you a few fish frys, its not even law yet so go and catch 200 of em

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

How many did you catch on tournament day?
Seems people who don't fish near that amount on 'you're' lake didn't have a problem catching over there

That is a very cool story though bro, what does the amount of time you spend on Big Lake have to do with CCA and/or tripletail limits?

I think your frustration with the limits on Big Lake are finally narrowed down to Henry Mouton. He says it all in his letter that he was the 'soul' driving force between that, and then over 70% of folks were behind it, thats a vast majority, but of course none have as much expertise as you and your vote should count more though right?
#andherecomesthepostabouthowalltheguideswantedthel owerlimitsbecausetheycan'tfish
blahblahblahyadayadayada

Been fun w, til next time

tune in next week when we revisit how 'the weirs are killing the lake'

^^^^Yep he is defeated ...

Keep drinking the PURPLE DRANK

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

And probably way less have actually caught 5 in one trip

which is EXACTLY what is amazing to me that there are that many people concerned about a fish they never target

And why worry about the Nazi's killing the Jews if you are not a Jew?

They are proposing to convict people of crimes for keeping more than 5 tripletail. Should this be a crime any more than being a Jew should be a crime?

Prove it!!!

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I'm questioning their methods, not their motives.

Gotcha, its all in that paper I feel certain, I don't know I haven't seen it either, and would like to myself

Should the executive branch restrict liberties based on public opinion (by whatever sampling method) or by sound science?

The million dollar question my friend. Sound science says many things (for instance the freshwater diversions) but the public is standing in the way of sound science on that issue. I think wildlife and fisheries management should be based on sound science, BUT you also have to receive public input. Duck seasons for instance have a range of dates and LDWF could just as easily go in and say these are the dates without public input but instead they try and please as many people as possible (even though they still piss off a bunch of them so its catch22)

When LDWF or CCA or whoever supports a regulation change based on what they are hearing from anglers or their membership or whomever, then they are making decisions based on public opinion rather than science.

Its another catch22 (damned if you do, damned if you don't) with non-profit conservation organizations. You see what happened when they were neutral on the whole 'navigable waters' issue in SE LA, they got hammered on that (damned either way they went) and there wasn't near about 70% agreement on that issue. If 70% of their base wants a lower limit, they better listen or else it would have been just like Round 2 on the navigale waters issue. Its a slippery slope

In our democratic republic, public opinion should be allowed to influence the elected legislature. However, the elected legislature has delegated certain wildlife management regulatory powers to the executive branch with the understanding and expectation that these regulatory powers only infringe on the liberty of citizens when these restrictions are shown to be necessary by sound scientific methods.

I wish you could send this to everyone that has a fishing and hunting license, this is excellent

Sometimes being on the side of anglers and hunters means listening to the science and making data driven decisions and ignoring the momentary public opinion of those same anglers and hunters.

I agree 100%

We are all on the same team

and lookie here its almost 5:00

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

And why worry about the Nazi's killing the Jews if you are not a Jew?

They are proposing to convict people of crimes for keeping more than 5 tripletail. Should this be a crime any more than being a Jew should be a crime?

Prove it!!!

Never in the history of the world have these 3 words appeared in the same paragraph:


Nazis, Jews, and Tripletail


You win the internet today

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

^^^^Yep he is defeated ...

Keep drinking the PURPLE DRANK

don't be going all crazy and getting this in the Gill Net tonight, there are many more issues to talk about here before we have all the bases covered;
weirs specifically there has to be some connection with CCA putting in the weirs or weirs affecting tripletail or something along those lines

[meaux fishing]

Don't be getting too crazy on my tripletail thread now... There's lots of good info in here and I don't want it to disappear into the nether regions of the gillnet

[meaux fishing]

You can abuse the CCA thread all you want

[speck-chaser]

Well, all I know is that Ive never caught a 3 tail, so Im writing to Obama and complain about all them better fishermen out there that wont give me my fair share.

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag

I KNOW!!!!!

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by speck-chaser

Well, all I know is that Ive never caught a 3 tail, so Im writing to Obama and complain about all them better fishermen out there that wont give me my fair share.

Lol good one...that makes two of us

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by speck-chaser

Well, all I know is that Ive never caught a 3 tail, so Im writing to Obama and complain about all them better fishermen out there that wont give me my fair share.

I don't remember if I ever caught a tripletail as a child, certainly I haven't in my adult life. But the broader issue is whether or not it is wise for a few whiners peddling pseudoscience to criminalize harmless activities pursued by others.

And this business that sound science is not possible with a migratory species is bunk. Each year, the SEAMAP program takes icthyoplankton cruises sampling thorough out the continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico. The data on larval finfishes includes tripletail at least back to the early eighties. If the breeding size fish were recently imperiled by fishing, the data would show a pronounced decrease in larval specimens of this species.

["W"]

All you have to do is Google

Triple tail limit / or Will Drost
And they are together like white on rice!!


If you dont want to keep more than 5 then dont... if you dont want more than 5 trout then dont keep more than 5

If every state around us is regulated that should be more than enough to protect them

[AceArcher]

While it's certainly nice to find that MG and W are getting along so famously now, I still have failed to hear 1 answer to one very important question yet.

The purpose of this thread, and the Poll on such is to encourage people to remove their financial support from the CCA.

The question that has not been answered is what is going to take it's place?

Because reality is, if something doesn't very very quickly, then the commercial fishing lobby is going to be able to declare open season on red's, trout, triple tail .... you name it..

We all know what BL and the marsh is gonna look like after commercial operations gear up and get to work.

Think it won't happen if there is not a strong group fighting against it???? You better think again, The commercial fishing lobby has got plenty of money to bribe everyone from DC down.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

And why worry about the Nazi's killing the Jews if you are not a Jew?

They are proposing to convict people of crimes for keeping more than 5 tripletail. Should this be a crime any more than being a Jew should be a crime?

Prove it!!!

True,

But the purpose of this and the other thread is to first kill the support organization that ensured that the Jews were not hunted and persecuted, Thus leaving said Jew's without any protection. Sadly it's the Jew's and Jewish sympathizers who are leading the charge to kill this organization.

Perhaps if this thread were a discussion on what type of organization needs to succeed the CCA since they are becoming a bit wayward.....???

Instead of it just being a revolving anger door....

[slickfish]

Originally Posted by "W"

because next step its 10 trout...2 reds......2 flounder and so on so on

with ZERO study they keep moving limits down..

thats the problem

why are you complaining? just last weekend you couldn't even catch two trout on your home lake in a tournament. seems like whatever the limit is you wouldn't ever come close.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

Perhaps if this thread were a discussion on what type of organization needs to succeed the CCA since they are becoming a bit wayward.....???

Instead of it just being a revolving anger door....

I think that's the other thread mainly ... but this thread is also pointing out that a good conservation organization would steadfastly adhere to the principle that regulations need to have their necessity demonstrated by sound science.

A good conservation organization should be committed to the Constitutional principles of liberty such that sportsman's liberties in pursuing and harvesting game should only be restricted with there is sound and compelling scientific data demonstrating a true conservation need. Regulations should not be based on the fear that the resource might not remain for future generations; they should be based on sound scientific data showing the resource cannot be sustained for future generations under current management practices.

Sustainable harvests and use of the resources should always be allowed, and the burden of proof for those proposing new regulations should always be on those proposing to impose new criminal penalties for liberties which have been previously enjoyed and unregulated.

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I think that's the other thread mainly ... but this thread is also pointing out that a good conservation organization would steadfastly adhere to the principle that regulations need to have their necessity demonstrated by sound science.

A good conservation organization should be committed to the Constitutional principles of liberty such that sportsman's liberties in pursuing and harvesting game should only be restricted with there is sound and compelling scientific data demonstrating a true conservation need. Regulations should not be based on the fear that the resource might not remain for future generations; they should be based on sound scientific data showing the resource cannot be sustained for future generations under current management practices.

Sustainable harvests and use of the resources should always be allowed, and the burden of proof for those proposing new regulations should always be on those proposing to impose new criminal penalties for liberties which have been previously enjoyed and unregulated.

Once again,you hit the nail on the head!

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I think that's the other thread mainly ... but this thread is also pointing out that a good conservation organization would steadfastly adhere to the principle that regulations need to have their necessity demonstrated by sound science.

A good conservation organization should be committed to the Constitutional principles of liberty such that sportsman's liberties in pursuing and harvesting game should only be restricted with there is sound and compelling scientific data demonstrating a true conservation need. Regulations should not be based on the fear that the resource might not remain for future generations; they should be based on sound scientific data showing the resource cannot be sustained for future generations under current management practices.

Sustainable harvests and use of the resources should always be allowed, and the burden of proof for those proposing new regulations should always be on those proposing to impose new criminal penalties for liberties which have been previously enjoyed and unregulated.

Certainly can agree with all of that. Now we just either need to force / cajole CCA into the above role. Or create / find an organization to fill that need.

[biggun]

Guys I found this article from 2009..

Researchers Jim Franks and Read Hendon in the University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Lab's Center for Fisheries Research and Development have made new findings about tripletail as part of ongoing biological studies of this unique species.
They include:

-- The species occurs seasonally in northern Gulf waters.
-- They can be found in offshore, marine waters or in brackish, estuarine waters throughout the summer.
-- They appear to use estuarine waters as feeding grounds.

From a Franks study of fish in Mississippi waters of the Mississippi Sound, they discovered:
-- They spawn from June through August with a peak in July in Mississippi waters.
-- It is assumed they migrate offshore to spawn. No females collected within the Mississippi Sound during the study were in imminent spawning condition, which means they would spawn within the next 24 hours from the time observed.
-- 50 percent of all female tripletail collected were sexually mature at 17cm HALF inches total length.

-- 100 percent of females were sexually mature at 19cm TQTR inches total length.


-- It has been difficult to adequately age tripletail due to difficulties in "reading" annular rings on otoliths (ear bones) — the standard measure by which all fish with such bones are aged.



My question is what percentage of fish caught ARE females?

I have NO PROBLEM with a 5 fish limit..

But I would like to see say; (5 over 12") to start then go from there..

Or why not a slot limit???