that third set of opening, split, and closing dates are just useless then.

My thoughts exactly. But now every Joe round the corner wants to either bounce a hen in october cuz that's when "their blind has birds" or someone else wants to bounce it in Feb cuz "they just getting here"

Sad thing about it all is there were 6 public meetings held all across the state and less than 100 people showed up. Anybody here go to one?

I've been to one before and it's about the same outcome as the survey. The commission is clearly the problem. Until they're gone we will have concurrent results.

Salty Cajun Super PAC? I volunteer to be your fearless leader.

You think I would go to one of those hot air conventions after I took the time to participate/submit the survey that they swore was so important some months ago, then was told by the surveyor that the main participants of the survey weren't the ones they wanted to hear from and then to add insult to injury they totally went against everyone's obvious opinions and preferences from the survey???? My parents are poor, I ain't rich, and I actually hunt waterfowl....a lot. With those 3 factors going against me it is clear that our opinion or input isn't wanted or worth a wooden nickel at those type of assemblies.


You know what I was doing during that meeting in LC. I was sweating my balls off, swatting mosquitos and trying to scratch out a few teal on an afternoon hunt. Just tell me the days I can hunt and I'll be there, don't lead me on and tell me my vote/opinion matters, it obviously doesn't.

How about when the scientists have already taken into account the public's opinion?

Because that was the case with Larry's recommendations. Public opinion was taken into account, and the Commission went against those recommendations. He's stated on more than one forum how he has received numerous questions about the purpose of the surveys after what happened. On numerous forums there have been issues with the way the seasons were set.

Plain and simple here MG, the Commission went against the better judgement of LDWF AND THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY!!

So who has too much power here?

You want to keep arguing your little constitutional BS? Explain to me how its "constitutional" for a small group of men to just up and change something that the general public had input on, and had stated their opinions on?

Please do explain. I really, REALLY, REEEAAALLLLYYY can't WAIT to hear this!

And that's not even the most idiotic thing you posted. NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!


You try and use this "article" to support your claim about scientists using data to support their own agendas. Robert J. Barham is a career politician/farmer that just so happens to have scientists working for him.

Put a real scientist in charge of a Wildlife agency, and then come talk to me about your issues with scientists. When you put a politician in charge of anything, things will be shady. That is just the nature of the beast.

Our land is literally ON the proposed coastal boundary. So the other side of the highway will be considered west zone, and ours coastal?

Same for the place I hunt....

I this the "Lacassine Flyway" needs its own season. The birds have their own flight patterns only found in the "Lacassine Flyway"

Sweet no split for you; burn em out!

No zones, 2 splits. Open as early as possible and close as late as possible. If we had 3-20 day splits we would have our 60 days. Those with early birds like the marsh would be happy and the timber hunters could hunt late. I think that's what Arkansas does. Most guys that are against this have leases in different zones and get to hunt more than 60 days. I have a lease in the coastal zone and the east zone but I would be in favor of no zones.

This.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only thing arkansas got right was the speck limit.

Maybe, but you can't hold them accountable for science they didn't see.

The science was presented to them in a very thorough set of recommendations by our states head waterfowl biologist.

Every time you post in this thread, you prove more and more that you don't know anything about this subject, and that you resort to the same cookie cutter argument every time a conversation involves LDWF.

The general consensus amongst duck hunters (you know, people that hold a stake in this debate, unlike you) is that the commission got this wrong. It was a selfish move by a handful of men that did not represent what hunters wanted. Most hunters were in agreement on the seasons that were proposed, it was viewed as a fair compromise. Some (southeast hunters) wanted later dates, while others (southwest) wanted earlier. Larry opted for what seemed like a reasonable compromise.

Do some research on the commission members and then try and convince me and everyone else here that things are as you suggest.

Do you think the dates are wrong or the zones are wrong? Honest question.

Sooooo who is on the commission??? Would like to hear the names from that gaggle.

I think the commission went against recommendations based on what the public (majority) wanted. I think there is this false idea that there are more ducks in early November that we aren't taking advantage of. While some may disagree with the effectiveness of the survey methods, going back to 2011 (which is a relatively short time period), the only decrease in total dabbler numbers (which is the only thing most guys are concerned with anyway) from November to December was in 2011.

If you look at last year, you had an estimate of nearly 100k more mallards in southwest Louisiana in December than in November. January numbers were always higher as well. Yet they wanted more November days. Even within a zone, ducks are not evenly distributed, but you can't change a season based on a small portion of a zone. That's not being a responsible manager or a good representative of what the public wants. These guys aren't elected by the public, but they should still keep the majority in mind when making decisions.

I believe the opposite is also true: there are those that believe that we are missing out on new ducks after the season has closed in January. Maybe there are some, but how anyone could believe that there are that many new ducks is beyond me. The same principle is working at both ends of the spectrum: hunting pressure. It seems like there are a lot of ducks early because there is no pressure, just like it seems as though there are a lot of new ducks at the end of the season because there is a lack of pressure.

The issue I could see this year is the above average temperature projections for the northern states and below average conditions down here. If you don't get freezing conditions early, or at all up north, the season down here will be good early and take a nose dive. Once you put pressure on the birds that are here, they are going to scatter, like they always do. The problem will arise when the migration is less than normal because of the warmer winter up north, and everything is freezing up down here.

I personally liked Larry's recommendations because it was based on what the scientists were seeing and public comment. Everyone might not have been happy, but it was based on public comment. What the commission did was based on a minority, just like what this proposed zone alignment appears to be based on. Look at the specklebelly season. They did it there as well. The majority wanted to go to 3 birds, but the commission cited hunting pressure as a reason for not doing that. So increasing the season by 7 days does not increase hunting pressure? :confused: Maybe by not being in the field as long every day, but come on. I wonder what the average time a field would be for a 3 bird limit vs a 2 bird limit. What would be the average time a field for the previous 74 day season vs the new 81 day season?

to make a long story short and answer your question: I think there is a lot left on the table with the zones. Under the current zone configuration, I think the seasons proposed by Larry gave everyone a fair shake. I think it's hard to make everyone happy under a 3 zone configuration, because each part of the state is different. The problem with the proposed zone configuration, in my book, is that it seems to be driven by special interest and not necessarily by biology. It may be fine now, but what happens when one of those interests changes their collective minds? Is a whole zone going to be bent to suit those?


http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/louisia...d-fisheries-co

You can read all about them here. I know a few of the guys, and they are good people. Just still can't get my head around that decision.