- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 2012 Louisiana Waterfowl Hunter Survey
Posted on 3/13/12 at 11:13 am to mylsuhat
Posted on 3/13/12 at 11:13 am to mylsuhat
quote:
For many years we have had 60 day seasons, but it is conceivable that drought and other changes in northern production regions will reduce duck populations so that seasons are reduced to as few as 30 days.
Here is some perspective on Louisiana duck season lengths:
1970-74: 50 days.
1975-1984: West Zone - 55 days; East Zone 50 days.
1985-1987: West Zone - 45 days; East Zone 40 days.
1988-1993: Both Zones - 30 days.
1994: Both Zones - 40 days.
1995-1996: Both Zones - 50 days.
1997-currently: Both Zones - 60 days.
If we go back to 1961 and 1962, we had only 20-day seasons, so the last 15 years have been the longest seasons we have had during the past 50-plus years. Under the current AHM process, potential season lengths are 60, 45, and 30 days. That is why we are asking if your preferences for zones under both 60 and 30-day seasons.
0
Posted on 3/13/12 at 11:31 am to TigerTreyjpg
quote:
TigerTreyjpg
You sir, took the words right out of my own mouth.
Posted on 3/13/12 at 11:43 pm to tigah headache
This is the longest streTch of 60 day seasons we have ever had...it wont last forever....
Blaming conservations for migration problems is just wrong
I have been as far north as the Dakotas. And every field I saw that was flooded was paid for by hunters...the economics of agbusiness and what hunters will pay to improve their lie..combined with no till farming. Are game changers. And then add a twenty fold or more increase in hunting pressure way up there...is the clincher
Blaming conservations for migration problems is just wrong
I have been as far north as the Dakotas. And every field I saw that was flooded was paid for by hunters...the economics of agbusiness and what hunters will pay to improve their lie..combined with no till farming. Are game changers. And then add a twenty fold or more increase in hunting pressure way up there...is the clincher
Posted on 3/14/12 at 6:47 am to choupiquesushi
To whom it may concern:
The problem(s) of which I speak are not being pinned on DU - at least not so by me. In fact, the only northern DU land that I've ever personally seen that was created to enhance duck habitit did just that, as I was in Nebraska years ago, walked up to a field that had a sign thereon reading "Your DU Dollars at Work". This sign overlooked about a ten acre pothole, and it was open to public hunting; thus, it enhanced not only duck habitat, but duck hunting habitat.
The problems are being created by the federal government, and rest assured, it is (they are) in fact a problem(s), if one considers not being able to kill ducks a problem.
This problem is a refuge system (and specifically, on the Mississipi Flyway), the result of which allows a duck to leave a staging ground on the prarie's of some place like South Dakota, and wind up just outside of Venice without ever having a shot fired at him in anger.
Along the way, he gets to stop in the most pristine, food rich environments known to mankind. While he stops there, someone messing with him does so at the risk of being a convicted federal criminal.
Take a look at the Missippi flyway, and the refuge's located thereon, and ask yourself this. What were these places before they were federal refuge's? I can only speak of two from a first hand sense, but I'll tell you what they were - two of the hottest holes in the country. The federal government decided they were in fact so hot that we shouldn't allow people to hunt them at all. THAT mentallity is what aggravates me, because it makes no sense.
"Here is a GREAT freaking place to hunt ducks. Let's not let people hunt it."
The result of these particular refuges can best be demonstrated by an event that took place really close to one of them about 8 or 10 years ago.
Me and a friend or two were hunting, as the duck flies, approximatley 2 miles from the refuge formerly known as one of the hottest holes in the country. We saw 11 ducks that day, and killed 7 of those. While leaving our spot, we saw a running ton of game warden trucks, and we stopped to talk to them, and asked them what they were up to. They were counting ducks on their spot that day. We asked how many were out there, and they said that the best they could tell, somewhere around 120,000 - 150,000. Two miles from us. We saw 11.
Consider if you will the Canadian goose.....
He runs all over golfcourses in the Northeast, eats the greens, craps everywhere, and actually attacks golfers in zombie like numbers and fashion. Why does he do this? He knows that golfglubs are not shotguns, and at most, he'll be struck, but not shot. He is no longer wild. Should a man go to South Central Nebraska and hunt geese, he's doing so in fields that are being used by geese that, by night, sleep behind a pretty decent steak joint in Kearney, NE - in a pond - behind a dang steak joint.
Consider the Canadian goose again....that's where the mallard duck is headed.
Is that the worst thing in the world? Probably not. But that said, the federal government needs to understand that hunter's dollars - not birdwatcher dollars - fund a portion of the dept of interior's budget. Hunters have generally been willing to pay their own way. Because hunting dollars are what (at least partially) funds the governments ability to acquire and service the land that in turn is being placed off limits to hunters, the government is at least to some degree proverbially pooping where they sleep.
Not a whole bunch needs to change. I've never personally seen things subject to freezing be articially kept wet, but I have personally seen the result of the government naming certain duck holes as gun free zone. The result is very simple - everyone kills fewer ducks. In the long run, that's a bad formula. Think back to when the season went to 30 days, and remember the relative lack of competition/lower lease prices that followed. Only the heathen diehard stuck to duck hunting during that time. Why? It made no sense to hunt ducks. By the same token, enhancing a refuge system such that there are no "huntable" ducks will do the same thing. It's a slower process - not nearly as acute - but the result will be the same.
What does need to change? Simply put, let the duck remain wild. Allow us to hunt him. Punish those that kill too many. But ultimately, control their population by telling us HOW MANY we can kill - NOT BY TELLING US WHERE WE CAN KILL THEM.
The end of rant.
The problem(s) of which I speak are not being pinned on DU - at least not so by me. In fact, the only northern DU land that I've ever personally seen that was created to enhance duck habitit did just that, as I was in Nebraska years ago, walked up to a field that had a sign thereon reading "Your DU Dollars at Work". This sign overlooked about a ten acre pothole, and it was open to public hunting; thus, it enhanced not only duck habitat, but duck hunting habitat.
The problems are being created by the federal government, and rest assured, it is (they are) in fact a problem(s), if one considers not being able to kill ducks a problem.
This problem is a refuge system (and specifically, on the Mississipi Flyway), the result of which allows a duck to leave a staging ground on the prarie's of some place like South Dakota, and wind up just outside of Venice without ever having a shot fired at him in anger.
Along the way, he gets to stop in the most pristine, food rich environments known to mankind. While he stops there, someone messing with him does so at the risk of being a convicted federal criminal.
Take a look at the Missippi flyway, and the refuge's located thereon, and ask yourself this. What were these places before they were federal refuge's? I can only speak of two from a first hand sense, but I'll tell you what they were - two of the hottest holes in the country. The federal government decided they were in fact so hot that we shouldn't allow people to hunt them at all. THAT mentallity is what aggravates me, because it makes no sense.
"Here is a GREAT freaking place to hunt ducks. Let's not let people hunt it."
The result of these particular refuges can best be demonstrated by an event that took place really close to one of them about 8 or 10 years ago.
Me and a friend or two were hunting, as the duck flies, approximatley 2 miles from the refuge formerly known as one of the hottest holes in the country. We saw 11 ducks that day, and killed 7 of those. While leaving our spot, we saw a running ton of game warden trucks, and we stopped to talk to them, and asked them what they were up to. They were counting ducks on their spot that day. We asked how many were out there, and they said that the best they could tell, somewhere around 120,000 - 150,000. Two miles from us. We saw 11.
Consider if you will the Canadian goose.....
He runs all over golfcourses in the Northeast, eats the greens, craps everywhere, and actually attacks golfers in zombie like numbers and fashion. Why does he do this? He knows that golfglubs are not shotguns, and at most, he'll be struck, but not shot. He is no longer wild. Should a man go to South Central Nebraska and hunt geese, he's doing so in fields that are being used by geese that, by night, sleep behind a pretty decent steak joint in Kearney, NE - in a pond - behind a dang steak joint.
Consider the Canadian goose again....that's where the mallard duck is headed.
Is that the worst thing in the world? Probably not. But that said, the federal government needs to understand that hunter's dollars - not birdwatcher dollars - fund a portion of the dept of interior's budget. Hunters have generally been willing to pay their own way. Because hunting dollars are what (at least partially) funds the governments ability to acquire and service the land that in turn is being placed off limits to hunters, the government is at least to some degree proverbially pooping where they sleep.
Not a whole bunch needs to change. I've never personally seen things subject to freezing be articially kept wet, but I have personally seen the result of the government naming certain duck holes as gun free zone. The result is very simple - everyone kills fewer ducks. In the long run, that's a bad formula. Think back to when the season went to 30 days, and remember the relative lack of competition/lower lease prices that followed. Only the heathen diehard stuck to duck hunting during that time. Why? It made no sense to hunt ducks. By the same token, enhancing a refuge system such that there are no "huntable" ducks will do the same thing. It's a slower process - not nearly as acute - but the result will be the same.
What does need to change? Simply put, let the duck remain wild. Allow us to hunt him. Punish those that kill too many. But ultimately, control their population by telling us HOW MANY we can kill - NOT BY TELLING US WHERE WE CAN KILL THEM.
The end of rant.
Posted on 3/14/12 at 6:59 am to TigerTreyjpg
quote:I'd cast my vote for you to replace that geubert in oak ridge.
TigerTreyjpg
If i had a vote..
Posted on 3/14/12 at 2:40 pm to TigerTreyjpg
In the early 1990s we captured and radio-marked a bunch of pintails on those pristine, food-rich Refuges that you speak of. Lacassine was a NWR but Amoco Pool was no less an off-limits preserve put out to keep ducks safe.
Somehow, Louisiana hunters were able to kill 19% of them.
In the mid-2000s, we did the same thing with mallards: 1 study in SW Louisiana and another in NE Louisiana. Again, those ducks had made it down the Flyway and had set up shop on one of those Bed-n-Breakfasts set up by the Federal government to keep ducks safe.
Somehow, Louisiana hunters were able to kill over 15% of those in SW Louisiana and over 20% of those in NE Louisiana.
When you consider that average harvest rate for the entire season, north to south, for greenheads is about 13% and hens is about 8% from banding data, that harvest rate after they reach a REFUGE in Louisiana tells us something, especially when we compare it to similar radio-marked studies in the Texas panhandle or Missouri/Arkansas or California where harvest of similar radio-marked birds was much lower.
And then consider that we've been collecting harvest data in a relatively consistent manner since about 1960, and you can go to places like LINK and wear yourself out looking at trends in harvest data however you want to summarize it. Take a look at it.
The clear and obvious conclusion is that if National Wildlife Refuges are keeping hunters from killing ducks ....... they are doing a piss-poor job of it!
Maybe that is why most well-managed, high-dollar duck clubs have REFUGE areas. They may well attract and hold ducks in an area as much or more as they keep ducks from hunters. More importantly for me, NWRs often provide hunting opportunity for many of us without the means to own or lease hunting ground.
I don't know what the "ultimate truth" is, or if it even exists ...... but there is always a flip-side to a rant.
Somehow, Louisiana hunters were able to kill 19% of them.
In the mid-2000s, we did the same thing with mallards: 1 study in SW Louisiana and another in NE Louisiana. Again, those ducks had made it down the Flyway and had set up shop on one of those Bed-n-Breakfasts set up by the Federal government to keep ducks safe.
Somehow, Louisiana hunters were able to kill over 15% of those in SW Louisiana and over 20% of those in NE Louisiana.
When you consider that average harvest rate for the entire season, north to south, for greenheads is about 13% and hens is about 8% from banding data, that harvest rate after they reach a REFUGE in Louisiana tells us something, especially when we compare it to similar radio-marked studies in the Texas panhandle or Missouri/Arkansas or California where harvest of similar radio-marked birds was much lower.
And then consider that we've been collecting harvest data in a relatively consistent manner since about 1960, and you can go to places like LINK and wear yourself out looking at trends in harvest data however you want to summarize it. Take a look at it.
The clear and obvious conclusion is that if National Wildlife Refuges are keeping hunters from killing ducks ....... they are doing a piss-poor job of it!
Maybe that is why most well-managed, high-dollar duck clubs have REFUGE areas. They may well attract and hold ducks in an area as much or more as they keep ducks from hunters. More importantly for me, NWRs often provide hunting opportunity for many of us without the means to own or lease hunting ground.
I don't know what the "ultimate truth" is, or if it even exists ...... but there is always a flip-side to a rant.
This post was edited on 3/14/12 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 3/14/12 at 2:43 pm to Lreynolds
Boom!
Posted on 3/14/12 at 2:43 pm to Lreynolds
I actually stopped by to say "THANKS" to everyone for participating in the survey. We are off to a good start with over 500 participants on the web-based survey since Friday. In 2010 we got just below 1,000, and I'd like to exceed that substantially.
Posted on 3/14/12 at 2:45 pm to Lreynolds
Our best hunting club was on the south border or Mandalay NWR. He would limit out on mallards every hunt. (1997-2004ish)
Then all of a sudden the mallards just stopped coming down. We would be lucky if we shot 10 mallards.
It sucked.
Then all of a sudden the mallards just stopped coming down. We would be lucky if we shot 10 mallards.
It sucked.
Posted on 3/14/12 at 2:45 pm to Lreynolds
I filled it out earlier this morning because this kind of survey is important.
Posted on 3/14/12 at 5:05 pm to Vol Fan in the Bayou
I'm "unboom" him before I get out of the office tonight, but don't have time to do it right this second.
And btw, I consider this healthy debate - not a be a dick contest. My opinions were well worded, and civil, as are his, and I appreciate that.
And btw, I consider this healthy debate - not a be a dick contest. My opinions were well worded, and civil, as are his, and I appreciate that.
Posted on 3/15/12 at 10:48 am to TigerTreyjpg
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.....
Seriously, I'd call no man a liar until I knew he was one, and I don't know that you are, so do not take this as an accusation of being one, but,on the subject of targeting specific ducks, and following them for data, here's a story going the other way.....
In the mid 1970's, I know a guy that killed one of those special ducks you're talking about. His wasn't a pintail, and it didn't have a radio. It was a canvasback that was dyed yellow and banded. He wrote the address (this was back before bands had a telephone number of them), and sometime later, he received a letter asking him for exact location of where that duck was killed.
He wrote them back, and said "thank you for your correspondence, but I wouldn't tell President Ford where that duck was killed."
Three years later - for whatever reason - maybe it was happenstance - the place where the duck was killed became a refuge - not a WMA - and remained that way for many, many years. It's my understanding a man can hunt it now. He lost a place where literally thousands of ducks were killed over a 6 - 8 year period. I don't know for sure why the government picked that place to buy, but I do know that land went from being a fabulous place to kill ducks to a place where the general public was not allowed to go. Again, it's my understanding a man can hunt it now.
I cannot dispute your statistics, nor can you dispute my experiences in the field. I would submit, however, that despite numbers, statistics, programs, good intentions, a bazillion dollars being spent - all of that - most every duck hunter will tell you the same story regarding certain attributes of their passion, and current state of their sport. The ducks are not here in the same numbers that they once were. While you could get me to agree that to some extent, everyone's revisionist history is filled w/exxagerated memories, I do believe that I saw more big bunches of big ducks back in the day. Granted, I was mainly hunting off of I-10 around Lutcher, and the salvania - not the refuge program - killed the hunting down there. But it's not just there (the dwindling numbers) - that seems to be the case everywhere.
All of that said, there are certain indisputables....
1. The federal government is the only entity with the resources, ability, and desire to manifestly purchase any duck hole it wants.
2. Once they do that, they choose whether it's a looking hole or a shooting hole.
3. If they designate it a looking hole, ducks stay there and don't get shot it.
4. Looking holes are popping up everywhere (the last one with which I am personally familiar is that Bayou Sauvage deal (sp) down around Chef Pass).
5. These looking holes are holding a running ton of otherwise killable ducks.
6. Here's the kicker, and perhaps the greatest piece of proof that I have to back up my argument - Duck hunters still know where to go to see the big bunches...the central flyway. Whats the greatest similarity between the MS and Central Flyways?. Both have tons of grain for the ducks to fly over and eat. What's the biggest difference? The MS has a big river running north/south, and its dotted w/refuge's all the way up and down. The central does not. The central is about small holes that hold big ducks in huge numbers. They are still there.
Reynolds, I'm not trying to be a dick, and I'm not an anti government guy. I'm prior military service, a flag waiver, politically conservative, shave and shower every day, and unlike some folks, don't believe that the ultimate goal of the government is to "get your guns", so they'll start by "getting your duck hole". I do, however, believe that at times, the government gets a little aggressive when it comes to putting the hurt on hunters/fisherman (see red snapper season/limits).
If you truly believe that the establishment of the refuge system hasn't hurt hunters opportunities in the field, then you either have not hunted at all, or just started. Believe me, it has.
I know you've got your stats.....but ask yourself this.....
If you went out one night in baton rouge looking to run some wool (yeah, I know they shave now), and the wool police told you that wool was in season in all of Baton Rouge EXCEPT Bogie's and Fred's, and both Bogies and Fred's had ladies night going - where they drank for free - would your chances of harvesting said wool be increased or decreased?
The prosecution rests.
Seriously, I'd call no man a liar until I knew he was one, and I don't know that you are, so do not take this as an accusation of being one, but,on the subject of targeting specific ducks, and following them for data, here's a story going the other way.....
In the mid 1970's, I know a guy that killed one of those special ducks you're talking about. His wasn't a pintail, and it didn't have a radio. It was a canvasback that was dyed yellow and banded. He wrote the address (this was back before bands had a telephone number of them), and sometime later, he received a letter asking him for exact location of where that duck was killed.
He wrote them back, and said "thank you for your correspondence, but I wouldn't tell President Ford where that duck was killed."
Three years later - for whatever reason - maybe it was happenstance - the place where the duck was killed became a refuge - not a WMA - and remained that way for many, many years. It's my understanding a man can hunt it now. He lost a place where literally thousands of ducks were killed over a 6 - 8 year period. I don't know for sure why the government picked that place to buy, but I do know that land went from being a fabulous place to kill ducks to a place where the general public was not allowed to go. Again, it's my understanding a man can hunt it now.
I cannot dispute your statistics, nor can you dispute my experiences in the field. I would submit, however, that despite numbers, statistics, programs, good intentions, a bazillion dollars being spent - all of that - most every duck hunter will tell you the same story regarding certain attributes of their passion, and current state of their sport. The ducks are not here in the same numbers that they once were. While you could get me to agree that to some extent, everyone's revisionist history is filled w/exxagerated memories, I do believe that I saw more big bunches of big ducks back in the day. Granted, I was mainly hunting off of I-10 around Lutcher, and the salvania - not the refuge program - killed the hunting down there. But it's not just there (the dwindling numbers) - that seems to be the case everywhere.
All of that said, there are certain indisputables....
1. The federal government is the only entity with the resources, ability, and desire to manifestly purchase any duck hole it wants.
2. Once they do that, they choose whether it's a looking hole or a shooting hole.
3. If they designate it a looking hole, ducks stay there and don't get shot it.
4. Looking holes are popping up everywhere (the last one with which I am personally familiar is that Bayou Sauvage deal (sp) down around Chef Pass).
5. These looking holes are holding a running ton of otherwise killable ducks.
6. Here's the kicker, and perhaps the greatest piece of proof that I have to back up my argument - Duck hunters still know where to go to see the big bunches...the central flyway. Whats the greatest similarity between the MS and Central Flyways?. Both have tons of grain for the ducks to fly over and eat. What's the biggest difference? The MS has a big river running north/south, and its dotted w/refuge's all the way up and down. The central does not. The central is about small holes that hold big ducks in huge numbers. They are still there.
Reynolds, I'm not trying to be a dick, and I'm not an anti government guy. I'm prior military service, a flag waiver, politically conservative, shave and shower every day, and unlike some folks, don't believe that the ultimate goal of the government is to "get your guns", so they'll start by "getting your duck hole". I do, however, believe that at times, the government gets a little aggressive when it comes to putting the hurt on hunters/fisherman (see red snapper season/limits).
If you truly believe that the establishment of the refuge system hasn't hurt hunters opportunities in the field, then you either have not hunted at all, or just started. Believe me, it has.
I know you've got your stats.....but ask yourself this.....
If you went out one night in baton rouge looking to run some wool (yeah, I know they shave now), and the wool police told you that wool was in season in all of Baton Rouge EXCEPT Bogie's and Fred's, and both Bogies and Fred's had ladies night going - where they drank for free - would your chances of harvesting said wool be increased or decreased?
The prosecution rests.
Posted on 3/15/12 at 10:51 am to TigerTreyjpg
quote:
If they designate it a looking hole, ducks stay there and don't get shot it.
quote:Not only do I disagree with you on the above, I believe these have to exist, and are an overall positive.
These looking holes are holding a running ton of otherwise killable ducks.
Posted on 3/15/12 at 11:13 am to AlxTgr
Do you believe having too many of them would hurt your hunting chances?
Posted on 3/15/12 at 11:21 am to TigerTreyjpg
Yes, but where that % would be in total habitat, I could not even begin to guess. I do not think we are within sight of it though.
Posted on 3/15/12 at 12:00 pm to AlxTgr
If we could go back to a 30 day season with a 3 duck limit and get all of the high ballin, sky blasting wackos off the water it would help out alot. Then we can work on all the refuges. We need to try and find whoever it was that got the old crow field turned back into a shooting hole and see how they did it.
Posted on 3/15/12 at 12:44 pm to duckaholic25
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Alot of crying going on here. Look, duck hunting want be the same as it was 30 years ago. Everything changes, and duck hunting isn't immune to change. Hell when I was growing up, you could pull over anywhere in La. that was owned by timber companies and wale away at the deer. Now you can't. So why should duck hunting be any different. It's like someone read in some waterfowl mag, and it wasn't du or delta, was that Missouri is the new Arkansas. So hunters up there along with farmers have figured out way to kill ducks and make money. What a novel idea. Ducks will still migrate, we just want see the numbers of ducks that we saw growing up.
The only thing I would like to see changed as far as Louisiana's duck hunting is concerned is letting parishes that are not prevalent waterfowl areas, such as Vernon, Beauregard and other predominantly pine forest parishes with hardly any lakes, marshes, wetlands to speak of, and let their splits run straight thru. I don't care if we lose 15 days of the year in which somebody told me would happen if you ran the season straight thru. We kill 85 % of our ducks in the first split, the second sucks. Start the first weekend in Nov, and run 60 days straight would be my only change. That would kinda be like having your cake and eating it to. Not only would harvesting be aloud, but it also become a wma at the beginning of the year.
Alot of crying going on here. Look, duck hunting want be the same as it was 30 years ago. Everything changes, and duck hunting isn't immune to change. Hell when I was growing up, you could pull over anywhere in La. that was owned by timber companies and wale away at the deer. Now you can't. So why should duck hunting be any different. It's like someone read in some waterfowl mag, and it wasn't du or delta, was that Missouri is the new Arkansas. So hunters up there along with farmers have figured out way to kill ducks and make money. What a novel idea. Ducks will still migrate, we just want see the numbers of ducks that we saw growing up.
The only thing I would like to see changed as far as Louisiana's duck hunting is concerned is letting parishes that are not prevalent waterfowl areas, such as Vernon, Beauregard and other predominantly pine forest parishes with hardly any lakes, marshes, wetlands to speak of, and let their splits run straight thru. I don't care if we lose 15 days of the year in which somebody told me would happen if you ran the season straight thru. We kill 85 % of our ducks in the first split, the second sucks. Start the first weekend in Nov, and run 60 days straight would be my only change. That would kinda be like having your cake and eating it to. Not only would harvesting be aloud, but it also become a wma at the beginning of the year.
Posted on 3/15/12 at 1:20 pm to VernonPLSUfan
quote:
If we could go back to a 30 day season with a 3 duck limit and get all of the high ballin, sky blasting wackos off the water it would help out alot. Then we can work on all the refuges. We need to try and find whoever it was that got the old crow field turned back into a shooting hole and see how they did it.
That was for sure an added benefit. When it was 3 ducks/30 days, and almost everyone quit, lease price got right, and there was hardly anyone one out on the public stuff hunting.
Nothing wrong w/four folks killing 12 real quick/hunt over/head to the camp.
Posted on 3/15/12 at 4:11 pm to TigerTreyjpg
standing by..Posted on 3/16/12 at 12:23 am to TigerTreyjpg
quote:
The prosecution rests.
How can the prosecution rest when it has presented no evidence but hearsay and anecdotal tales? It reminds me of the exact same discussion with Phil Robertson during the days when he and the late George Franklin were trying to establish a pen-reared mallard release program in NE Louisiana (yes, I was the LDWF NAWMP Coordinator at that time and was working with Mr. Robertson an Mr. Frankling), when Phil said, "Reynolds, I can't dispute the evidence from those studies, but it is clear that the duck hunting is not what it used to be; so if it's not refuges, then what is it?" As I hinted earlier, if we knew the "ultimate truth", this discussion would not be happening, but by objective processes we attempt to eliminate potential factors.
Indeed, the whole reason for the mallard studies by Bruce Davis (in NE LA) and Paul Link (in SW LA) was the extreme hunter dissatisfaction during the 2002-2003 duck seasons. Look at the power-point at: LINK
and you will see refuge use as the first regional issue of concern.
Further, the studies were designed using YOUR logic. These ducks had made it to Louisiana, picking up an education all the way down, and ended up on a NWR where we could get permission to bait and trap them shortly before or during the hunting season (that would be baiting anywhere else, but not on the non-hunting portion of a NWR). IF refuges were keeping ducks from hunters, THESE were the perfect ducks to show it ..... educated down the flyway and were using a true refuge.
But hunters still killed them at higher than average rates, and rates higher than similar radio'd ducks in other states. No lies, no statistics, just simply a dead duck legally killed AFTER it made the migration and found a refuge. In both NE and SW LA, your contention has to be rejected.
Bobby Cox's work on pintails in the early-90's has been published in peer-reviewed journals; so has Bruce Davis' in 2011; and Paul Link's was just recently accepted for publication. You can find all of their Theses and Dissertations in the LSU library to read about those studies yourself.
I've not said anything new from my last post. This is simply a body of evidence showing that refuges clearly did NOT keep these cohorts of birds away from hunters.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News