[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

"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

Actually, LDWF has rejected every request for data we have made of them. In contrast, other states like Colorado, have quickly provided reams of data (many megabytes in conveniently formatted spreadsheets) in response to every data request we have made. I think we have published three different papers on our detailed analysis and interpretation of fisheries data from Colorado Parks and Wildlife. But so far, LDWF has not been willing to share.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

"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

Any data presented at the meetings is really not the kind or quantity that can be reviewed and assessed by independent experts and stakeholders. See below.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

"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."

This is junk science. First of all, there is no description of the study design, sample sizes, or actual data. There is just a comparison of recapture rates with "other game fish." Which "other game fish?" Were there comparable delays and comparable recapture efforts with the TT and the "other game fish?"

Furthermore, a relatively high recapture rate does not necessarily imply vulnerability to over fishing. It simply means that the specimens that are captured once are more likely to be captured again. This does not indicate that the entire population is subject to likely capture in the first place. There may be large parts of the population that are not subject to easy capture (due to habitat or feeding preferences).

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

So, its obvious that studies were done, there goes that notion that 'there are no studies'

The issue is not whether there are secret, unpublished studies that policy makers cite to support their exercise of power, but whether the data and methodologies are published with sufficient detail to allow review, assessment, and comment by independent scientists and stakeholders.

Citing unpublished studies or data is not scientifically based policy making. It is a recipe for any policy the power brokers wish to implement based on pseudoscience.

Cite a source for the published data. You should know that throwing out a single numerical conclusion (2.5 times the recapture rate of other species) is a conclusion, it is not the data or methodology needed to assess the validity of the conclusion or the inferences that are based on it.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

and to Spunt Drag and others who keep saying 'who cares about their minimum age at sexual maturity', that is one of the most important factors in setting regulations. You have to protect your stock. Its why there are minimum lenght requirements for game fish - plain and simple, a tripletail is not any different.

Then explain why the immature redfish and black drum support higher take limits than the sexually mature fish? Then why are there no length limits for many species of game fish? Where is the science to justify adding the tripletail to the list of more highly regulated species requiring a minimum length limit?

What is different about white trout, gafftops, channel catfish, croaker, freshwater drum, spanish mackerel, and jack cravelle that these species don't need the possession limit to be lowered to five?

Arbitrary, unsupported harvest restrictions on tripletail raise valid concerns that fishing rights will gradually be whittled away by unsupported "conservation" concerns. Once this proposed restriction is accomplished, they will set their sights on the next area where they can restrict liberty without a soundly supported scientific need.