Triple tail limit coming

["W"]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

you go fishing, you have 3-guys in the boat. Thats 15 triple tail.... how many times have you gone out and caught more than that?? When the grass comes in close I know you can catch 40 to 80, i have been there for this.. im not taking sides on this, but what exactly the problem with a 5-fish limit? Most people are happy to run the bouy line and pick up 3 or 4 triple tail. Also what science do we have to say we don't need a limit. I know when the grass is thick and close i could rape the heck out of some triple tail......

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

[T-TOP]

i got it, i would have a problem with that...

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Here is the CCA

David Cresson, executive director of the Coastal Conservation Association-Louisiana, told the commission his organization supports the implementation of regulations on tripletail.
"There is limited information in general on tripletail, but it's extensive in other parts of the country," he said. "We've been visiting with scientists, and the information is undeniable: Eighteen inches is where they become sexually mature."
Cresson said CCA would like to see a five-fish creel limit placed on the fish as well as an 18-inch minimum-length limit.
"It just seems like it's smart, common sense and forward-looking to have some management of these fish," he said.
Cresson told commissioners the recapture rate of tagged tripletail is 2 1/2 times higher than with other game fish, which, he said, is an indication of how vulnerable the fish are to over-harvest.

"W", you are like a politician only including certain parts When you copy and pasted you deleted out on this very important part


Louisiana is currently the only Gulf state that doesn't limit the recreational take of tripletail. Texas, Mississippi and Alabama allow three fish per angler per day, while Florida allows two.
Each state has a different size-minimum requirement, ranging from 15 to 18 inches.

We are behind the times bro

[cgoods17]

sounds to me there are some people with a hard on for will drost... jealousy is an ugly thing..

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Page 6...CCA ties

http://www.ccalouisiana.com/cca11/im...09/fw09otl.pdf

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

["W"]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

i got it, i would have a problem with that...

If they said: Look we have done research and we are seeing that overfishing is taken place on these fish so we need to place a limit
I would be 100% for that...
But the answer to this is like CCA said

"its the smart thing to do"


I guess 15 trout limit to make big lake a trophy lake was a smart thing to do also

["W"]

Sheephead need a limit too..........WE ARE THE ONLY STATE THAT DOES NOT HAVE ONE


CCA said it is a smart thing to do!!!

[Reefman]

It's far better to have sport anglers to initiate a conservation measure than to wait when the resource hits devcon 5, letting the Restaurant Assoc and commercial interests dictate policy. Note the fight for Snapper limits recently. (BTW, CCA has been on the forefront to help bring in a second season for sport fishermen.)

By allowing research and applied scientific data to be presented from the sportsman's point of view..not that of commercial interests, we stand to have a more favorable outcome.

I do not serve on any type of committees for CCA at this time. However, I was a charter member of CCA helping start the Acadiana chapter here in Lafayette. There was a clarity of purpose at the beginning....Remove the gill nets and make red fish and specs a game fish along with accepting new state creel limits on both.

The fight went nowhere for the first 2 years. Success was only achieved by hiring a strong lobbying firm and support on a political front. CCA today is heavily involved in the political arena; this is where the fight is for our resources.

If CCA was to abandon the State today, you would see the start-up of commercial harvesting of reds and specs the next year in our waters. Every year in the legislature, CCA has to fight bills that are attached at the last minute with commercial interests trying to overturn what the sports have accomplished.

I do not agree 100% with issues CCA takes up these days but for the overall good of our resources I still and will support the effort.

BTW, great thread Meaux. These issues need to be discussed by fellow sportsmen. Perhaps a more clear objective from our view point can be achieved and presented to the State CCA board.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

If they said: Look we have done research and we are seeing that overfishing is taken place on these fish so we need to place a limit
I would be 100% for that...
But the answer to this is like CCA said

"its the smart thing to do"


I guess 15 trout limit to make big lake a trophy lake was a smart thing to do also

You are again tying CCA as an organization to the Big Lake trout limit argument, and its not fair because it did NOT happen. You can go off all you want on Wil Drost's influence or whatever he had on the issue, but don't put it on CCA. Hell, blame Bush

[Clampy]

This is basically the NRA argument. Don't let go of assault rifles cuz next its our pistols. I can see both sides.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Reefman

It's far better to have sport anglers to initiate a conservation measure than to wait when the resource hits devcon 5, letting the Restaurant Assoc and commercial interests dictate policy. Note the fight for Snapper limits recently. (BTW, CCA has been on the forefront to help bring in a second season for sport fishermen.)

By allowing research and applied scientific data to be presented from the sportsman's point of view..not that of commercial interests, we stand to have a more favorable outcome.

I do not serve on any type of committees for CCA at this time. However, I was a charter member of CCA helping start the Acadiana chapter here in Lafayette. There was a clarity of purpose at the beginning....Remove the gill nets and make red fish and specs a game fish along with accepting new state creel limits on both.

The fight went nowhere for the first 2 years. Success was only achieved by hiring a strong lobbying firm and support on a political front. CCA today is heavily involved in the political arena; this is where the fight is for our resources.

If CCA was to abandon the State today, you would see the start-up of commercial harvesting of reds and specs the next year in our waters. Every year in the legislature, CCA has to fight bills that are attached at the last minute with commercial interests trying to overturn what the sports have accomplished.

I do not agree 100% with issues CCA takes up these days but for the overall good of our resources I still and will support the effort.

BTW, great thread Meaux. These issues need to be discussed by fellow sportsmen. Perhaps a more clear objective from our view point can be achieved and presented to the State CCA board.

Great post,

would like to add in the regs on redfish to the list of what they have achieved as well and thankfully so, because I sure like to catch and eat em and want them around for many years for my family

["W"]

Originally Posted by Clampy

This is basically the NRA argument. Don't let go of assault rifles cuz next its our pistols. I can see both sides.

[Spunt Drag]

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.

Here you go.

[AceArcher]

I think what's going on here is that some of the recent stupidity in regards to fish management (see red snapper, 15 trout limit for big lake (with most studies showing that this hurts more than helps) access rights to navigable waters.... etc.... As well as well thought out programs like idle iron etc.

People are very very distrust-full of anyone previously involved with some of those fisheries fiasco's.

With that said Duck is right on the money in one regard, If you just sit on the sideline's and *****.... well you then ain't doing nothing but sitting on the sidelines and *****ing....

If you give a ****, hitch up your damned pony, take a ride to the meeting and get some answers, Stand up and say that you can get behind a program of limits / size restricitions when someone can show a need for it. ie... get your opinion out.

Generally speaking there is greater fishing pressure today than there ever has been, With technology anglers are more able to consistently hit their goals, so it is absolutely important that a close eye is kept on the resource to ensure it's future viability. If restrictions are placed based on a need then its a good thing as far as i am concerned.

With that said, i don't know doodly crap about triple tail, other than i would really love to catch one some day.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag

Here you go.

With all due respect to MG, that post may be what he envisions wildlife management to be in a perfect world, but that is far from what actually happens in this non-perfect, ever-changing world.

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You are again tying CCA as an organization to the Big Lake trout limit argument, and its not fair because it did NOT happen. You can go off all you want on Wil Drost's influence or whatever he had on the issue, but don't put it on CCA. Hell, blame Bush

Well until CCA does some "house cleaning" I'm done. And it's funny. People say to go out and fight it. But who do you have to go talk to to fight it? Oh that's right the same people that are strong arming it. It makes me laugh.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

"W", Clampy directed that at your argument

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

With all due respect to MG, that post may be what he envisions wildlife management to be in a perfect world, but that is far from what actually happens in this non-perfect, ever-changing world.

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

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

I think what's going on here is that some of the recent stupidity in regards to fish management (see red snapper, 15 trout limit for big lake (with most studies showing that this hurts more than helps) access rights to navigable waters.... etc.... As well as well thought out programs like idle iron etc.

People are very very distrust-full of anyone previously involved with some of those fisheries fiasco's.

With that said Duck is right on the money in one regard, If you just sit on the sideline's and *****.... well you then ain't doing nothing but sitting on the sidelines and *****ing....

If you give a ****, hitch up your damned pony, take a ride to the meeting and get some answers, Stand up and say that you can get behind a program of limits / size restricitions when someone can show a need for it. ie... get your opinion out.

Generally speaking there is greater fishing pressure today than there ever has been, With technology anglers are more able to consistently hit their goals, so it is absolutely important that a close eye is kept on the resource to ensure it's future viability. If restrictions are placed based on a need then its a good thing as far as i am concerned.

With that said, i don't know doodly crap about triple tail, other than i would really love to catch one some day.

I have emailed several commission members with no response. I have also emailed Jason Adriance with WLF and he responded to me, but said he was out of the office and would get back to me.

[Duck Butter]

Last post, maybe


CCA is not perfect, no organization can please everyone all the time, but they do far more good for us and its your decision to support them or not, but a few people are stating things that are simply NOT true and expect them to jump in all fights even when the fight has nothing to do with them.

ahh, screw it not typing anymore