Proposed new zones for 2016-2017 duck season

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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.

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

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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

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.

[Dogface]

Originally Posted by Smalls

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.

[Smalls]

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?

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.

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by Dogface

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

Both, the season dates this year are wrong and the proposed zones are wrong...


why do we even have a coastal zone to begin with? why did we do away with the old east and west zones? why cant we open the second weekend in november like it has been forever? why did we have to change something that didnt really need to change? and why in the hell did the commission go against the majority votes?