Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogface
Do you think the dates are wrong or the zones are wrong? Honest question.
|
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?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickt87
Sooooo who is on the commission??? Would like to hear the names from that gaggle.
|
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.