[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Yes, but lead shot being ingested is not the same as hunting mortality. Its indirect mortality and lead never leaves the ecosystem.

OK. There is an indirect non-hunting mortality to migratory waterfowl from wind mills and airplanes. Should we ban them because of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act? Or should we ask for good data providing reasonable estimates so that we can weigh the trade-offs before demanding a ban because birds are dying and there is a Migratory Birds Treaty Act?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

but if something is indirectly killing gamefish you better believe people will get up in arms. If there was something causing a large speckled trout kill on Big Lake, you and "W' would form a coalition to find out what was killing them and would do whatever it took to ban whatever it was

Has the explosive removal of oil platforms been banned yet? That causes mass die-offs at one time. I do not think explosive well removal should be banned, but I think the fish kill should be quantified and the companies removing the well should be forced to make some remediation and that the red snapper kill should count against the commercial quota. If there is not room in the commercial quota to kill the red snapper with the blast, then an alternate removal approach should be required. Is this unreasonable?

Also, there is a lot of scientific evidence that nutrient loading in the Gulf of Mexico causes seasonal hypoxia that occasionally results in fish kills. Some are calling for severe restrictions on nitrogen fertilizers. My colleagues and I (in our published papers) are suggesting that the benefits and risks of nutrient loading be considered as a whole to weigh the trade offs rather than implement federal restrictions on fertilizer use that may actually reduce fishery production in the Gulf of Mexico.

Lots of things kill speckled trout. W and I both think that a lot more trout need to be killed annually in Big Lake. Our preferred method would be raising the limit back to 25, but we both think that the population needs to be kept under better control to produce bigger fish. If you can think of a selective way to kill a bunch of dink trout without killing their food supply, please float some ideas ...

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

That may be the question that YOU think is asked but in reality its not.
This is getting into Migratory Birds Treaty Act, loons fall under that provision, and if birds (non-game birds, migratory game birds) can be proven to be dying from lead ingestion (these studies can easily be found as well) then you can bet the government is going to come down. You are going to have to take that up with your Senator but Migratory Bird Treaty Act goes back a good ways

So when do the bans on windmills and airplanes go into effect?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Again, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but with condors you are getting into the Endangered Species Act. Even ONE condor dying is hurting the population. Bald eagles, back to the MBTA.
One other thing that is important here is that lead goes up the food chain as well, it keeps on killing all the way up the chain.

Referencing the MBTA is arguing what the law currently is to support what the law should be. It is an example of the circular fallacy. I do not believe the law should demand criminalizing activities that may inadvertently contribute to the untimely demise of numbers of individual specimens but does not have a significant impact on the entire population.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This here is the whole basis of populatin biology/ecology. Is the harvest sustainable? As I said earlier, there is no way to count every single fish/rat/duck. You have to rely on methods such as the mark-recapture method to estimate the population. Well, it has already been stated that tripletail are 2.5x more likely to be caught than other game fish, and that is what threw a red flag.

This was an unpublished, unreviewed study from another state. Neither the data nor the methods are available, nor is it known what other game fish are used for comparison. The statement was presented as hearsay at a meeting and cannot even be attributed to a specific scientist, just a vague connection with a Mississippi study. Is this what fish and game laws should be based on in Louisiana?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

These things are not uncommon, LDWF can shut down a deer season if they 'think' the population is stressed or may take a big hit from something like a flood or hurricane, etc. Do you think they went out and counted all the deer prior to that decision? Its impossible to do that, but some things are common sense and this phrase is going to further your anger but its sometimes best to 'err on the side of caution'.

Is the proposal a temporary or emergency measure while more data is gathered? No the tripletail proposal is for a permanent change to the harvest regulations. No real science needed. Just hearsay and pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

It has nothing to do with sustainability. It would take millions of ducks to die from lead ingestion to actually get into the sustainability issue. Hunters kill millions of ducks yearly (directly with aid of shotguns) and yet that is not the biggest factor to ducks' 'sustainability'. How many ducks getting killed by ingestion of lead is too many? 5? 100? 10,000? If I can do my part by shooting steel so that I can keep a duck from dying from lead poisoning, so be it. I want to eat that duck, I don't want him to die and nothing get to eat it

Ok, then you are welcome not to use lead shot or lead bullets or lead sinkers. Free country.

If sustainability is admittedly not the issue, then the issue should be considered in a cost-benefit or risk-reward. Sound scientific data should inform the cost-benefit or risk-reward, and there should be criminal penalties for parties misrepresenting scientific findings to influence public policy.

And a lot of the federal laws regarding lead shot shells have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead. Why is possession of lead ammunition banned while hunting ducks? If I was hunting coyote and deer, I could possess lead slugs and buckshot. But if I was goose hunting (or wanted to take advantage of a target of opportunity), I had to be sure there were no lead ammo in my pockets or on the tractor. How much sense does this make for a farmer hunting in his own corn field in the midwest?