SaltyCajun.com

SaltyCajun.com (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/index.php)
-   Hunting Discussion (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Proposed new zones for 2016-2017 duck season (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61933)

AubreyLaHaye458 10-05-2015 08:46 PM

Proposed new zones for 2016-2017 duck season
 
1 Attachment(s)
Attachment 96023

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/39564


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Top Dawg 10-05-2015 08:54 PM

I really wish louisiana would get rid (shtican) the whole commission and let the biologist make the seasons and zones. Seems like everything used to tic along just find until duck hunting became a fad. Now all the new age facepainters barrel sticker "hunters" we have new zones and seasons every year cuz someone ain't Killin in their crawfish pond. Or someone saw 50 grayducks grass in their marsh blind week before Halloween. Let Larry do his work and set the seasons as he sees fit. No need in havin some rich politician that hunts the marsh dictate the whole states seasons.

AubreyLaHaye458 10-05-2015 09:17 PM

Exactly my thoughts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kibb 10-05-2015 09:38 PM

C'mon guys, how doesn't that look like a natural flyway to y'all?

Smalls 10-05-2015 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 774949)
I really wish louisiana would get rid (shtican) the whole commission and let the biologist make the seasons and zones. Seems like everything used to tic along just find until duck hunting became a fad. Now all the new age facepainters barrel sticker "hunters" we have new zones and seasons every year cuz someone ain't Killin in their crawfish pond. Or someone saw 50 grayducks grass in their marsh blind week before Halloween. Let Larry do his work and set the seasons as he sees fit. No need in havin some rich politician that hunts the marsh dictate the whole states seasons.

Unfortunately will not happen. There will always be a commission, because the public will always want a voice in the decisions. How well do you think it would go over if biologists had the sole voice is decision-making?

As a biologist myself, I'm with you. Let the expert do his job. But it never ceases to amaze me at the number of people that will second guess my scientifically based opinion just because they think they know it better. And as long as that mindset avails, biologists will never be allowed to do their job without political input. The issue is not that the public has an input via the commission. The issue is that the commission has the ability to completely ignore the biologists' suggestions, so long as they abide by the federal regulations.

Top Dawg 10-05-2015 09:54 PM

Welcome to louisiana.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

cgoods17 10-06-2015 08:23 AM

i would say, why not have a public vote on it every year...... buuuuuutttt, i see where that got us this year...

MathGeek 10-06-2015 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smalls (Post 774958)
Unfortunately will not happen. There will always be a commission, because the public will always want a voice in the decisions. How well do you think it would go over if biologists had the sole voice is decision-making?

As a biologist myself, I'm with you. Let the expert do his job. But it never ceases to amaze me at the number of people that will second guess my scientifically based opinion just because they think they know it better. And as long as that mindset avails, biologists will never be allowed to do their job without political input. The issue is not that the public has an input via the commission. The issue is that the commission has the ability to completely ignore the biologists' suggestions, so long as they abide by the federal regulations.

When you give the scientists too much power, they are tempted to bugger the science to suggest the rules that suit their own agenda.

Or have we forgotten the folly of federal management of red snapper?

We should remain committed to a republican process, as mandated by the US Constitution. If the scientists cannot convince the voters and their elected representatives (and the commission) that their suggested approach is necessary, then the republican approach SHOULD prevail.

If the biologists want more trust, they must be more open with their data and purported science.

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=8674

Cjleger337 10-06-2015 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smalls (Post 774958)
Unfortunately will not happen. There will always be a commission, because the public will always want a voice in the decisions. How well do you think it would go over if biologists had the sole voice is decision-making?

As a biologist myself, I'm with you. Let the expert do his job. But it never ceases to amaze me at the number of people that will second guess my scientifically based opinion just because they think they know it better. And as long as that mindset avails, biologists will never be allowed to do their job without political input. The issue is not that the public has an input via the commission. The issue is that the commission has the ability to completely ignore the biologists' suggestions, so long as they abide by the federal regulations.

From what Ive heard this proposed change was initiated by rice farmers who want more time to get their second crop out and many rice field hunters who are claiming more success in the later season. This quote was from someone on the Waterfowl study in response to an email I sent saying that I support any changes that are backed by empirical data and indisputable evidence backing the proposed changes instead of what may be a slighted public perception of a very localized area they hunt. In other words if theres no positive gain from it that can be proven by empirical data, then why is it even a discussion?

"There are no harvest data or bird habitat-use data or migration chronology data at such a small scale to validate the benefits of the proposed changes to hunters. Different hunters consider different things as "benefits" which is why hunters in the same place hunting at the same time often have different preferences. So although it sounds good to say that you will rely on sound, scientific data to make these decisions, it simply does not exist."

In response to me asking for their opinion if the changes would have a negative or positive impact.

"......Because the distribution of harvest among the weeks of the season 2001-2010 was very similar in the East zone and the SW and SE regions of the old west zone, I believe that a change in season dates of a week or 2 means virtually nothing to overall harvest over a series of years"......"Variation in weather patterns, habitat conditions both locally and to the north of us, and ration of juvenile/adult birds in the fall flight have much more impact on overall harvest than season dates moved a week earlier or later."


"I dont doubt there are differences in localized hunting success, but on larger scales, I think the focus on zone boundaries as a way to get season dates a week or 2 earlier or later is much ado about very little."

Duck Butter 10-06-2015 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 774983)
When you give the scientists too much power, they are tempted to bugger the science to suggest the rules that suit their own agenda.

Or have we forgotten the folly of federal management of red snapper?

We should remain committed to a republican process, as mandated by the US Constitution. If the scientists cannot convince the voters and their elected representatives (and the commission) that their suggested approach is necessary, then the republican approach SHOULD prevail.

If the biologists want more trust, they must be more open with their data and purported science.

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=8674


so the Big Lake 15 trout limit was a good one then? After all, "the scientists could not convince the voters and their elected representatives (and the commission) that their suggested approach is necessary"

Cjleger337 10-06-2015 09:03 AM

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=8674[/QUOTE]

This article probably should have said "We as citizens want to know the status of our wildlife in Louisiana so we can disagree with everything that comes out if its short of liberal limits and seasons." Because thats exactly what would happen. Kind of like when the proposed deer limit was going to be set at 4 but deer hunters threw a hissy fit and demanded 6 deer even though the data didnt back it. Annnnnnd now were seeing a decline in herd size. But thats another story for another time :)

MathGeek 10-06-2015 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 774987)
so the Big Lake 15 trout limit was a good one then? After all, "the scientists could not convince the voters and their elected representatives (and the commission) that their suggested approach is necessary"

The scientists did not try very hard in this case, and the policy makers listed more to the input from Texans than from their constituents. The LDWF scientists let Louisiana citizens down in this case, which has contrubuted to ongoing lack of trust.

Regardless of how much money they bring, lobbying groups from Texas should be ignored when setting policy in Louisiana.

Duck Butter 10-06-2015 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 774995)
The scientists did not try very hard in this case, and the policy makers listed more to the input from Texans than from their constituents. The LDWF scientists let Louisiana citizens down in this case, which has contrubuted to ongoing lack of trust.

Regardless of how much money they bring, lobbying groups from Texas should be ignored when setting policy in Louisiana.

Can't blame anyone but the commission. They were the deciding factor You can argue science until you are blue in the face but if those few members don't listen you can't do anything but throw your arms up in the air.

cgoods17 10-06-2015 11:20 AM

did everybody forget about the survey we all just took a couple months ago?

AubreyLaHaye458 10-06-2015 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgoods17 (Post 775007)
did everybody forget about the survey we all just took a couple months ago?


Yeah. But I can't imagine anyone with any sense voting For zones that look like this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

seachaser250 10-06-2015 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AubreyLaHaye458 (Post 775013)
Yeah. But I can't imagine anyone with any sense voting For zones that look like this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What exactly is wrong with them? Not being sarcastic. Serious question.

noodle creek 10-06-2015 12:59 PM

Commissioners need to go. They do not have public interest in mind. This could not be any more clear after the survey this year was completely ignored. Selfish individuals should not be in charge of making these decisions, especially when they go against recommendations of our head state waterfowl biologist and the general public. Makes me furious.

It is not unreasonable at all to have a vote every year taken by the general public. Everyone that buys a duck stamp the prior year should be able to vote on these issues. The state has all of the data on who buys stamps each year, so I don't know what would be so hard about going to some sort of system like that. Let Larry Reynolds do his job, make a few proposals each spring for the upcoming year, give us his recommendations in a little write up, and let the hunters vote. Politics should not play a role in these decisions, and that is all it is with the comissioners. Don't think there wasn't any "if you vote for this, then I'll vote for that" going on between commissioners this year.

The state is already spending money on surveys that are completely disregarded, so there is no reason why a statewide vote couldn't happen every year. Cost should not be an issue here.

Don't come back at me either with "seasons need to open earlier, look at the data." November 7th is the absolute earliest the coastal zone ever needs to open. Of course we will kill more birds early, they are uneducated. If we started hunting January first, we would still smash the ducks for the first 23-30 days. It's sad to think that there is a possibility that we would start on, lets say, November 1st on the years when the 1st is a Saturday.

I have hunted all 60 days of duck season for the last seven years, and I without a doubt see just as many birds in our marshes in January as I do in November. What months do our surveys show the highest numbers of waterfowl in Louisiana?

Let our head waterfowl biologist do his job. Take commissioners out of the picture, as there is absolutely no reason for them. Let the public vote, and if people still don't get their way, then they can at least live with the fact that politics and selfish individuals weren't involved.

cgoods17 10-06-2015 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seachaser250 (Post 775018)
What exactly is wrong with them? Not being sarcastic. Serious question.

the coastal zone boundary should not have anything to do with hwy 14, it should be all marsh south of the intercoastal canal... the east zone boundary should go no farther west than lafayette.



why should we even have a coastal zone? what in the heck was wrong with the old east and east zone?

cgoods17 10-06-2015 01:29 PM

i personally think the coastal zone is a load of bologna... we should just go back to the old east and west zone....


why do people always want to change s*** and make things complicated?

AubreyLaHaye458 10-06-2015 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seachaser250 (Post 775018)
What exactly is wrong with them? Not being sarcastic. Serious question.


In my opinion. With the east zone being the size it is, it almost eliminates the need for different zones when one zone is that size.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - [ARG:3 UNDEFINED], Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vB.Sponsors
All content, images, designs, and logos are Copyright © 2009-2012,
Salty Cajun, LLC
No unathorized use is permitted