Proposed new zones for 2016-2017 duck season

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

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.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

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

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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"

[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.

[Cjleger337]

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

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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

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.

[Cjleger337]

Originally Posted by Smalls

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."