View Single Post
  #9  
Old 10-06-2015, 08:53 AM
Cjleger337 Cjleger337 is offline
Flounder
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Scott,LA
Posts: 72
Cash: 533
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smalls View Post
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."
Reply With Quote