[Smalls]

Sure, one can always make a case that the management of a given species needs to be managed at a smaller geographical level. Louisiana currently has 10 different deer zones with varying regulations in each. It might be better for the herd or the hunters to have 20 zones or 100 zones, but the data and science required to quantify what is happening in the herd on that fine a scale is prohibitively expensive, and enforcement when the regulations are changing in 20 or 100 zones also becomes problematic. We certainly don't want 50 different zones and the legal requirement to apply for and pay for tags in each of four or five different firearms seasons that Colorado has.

So how do you think they set the hunting days in each zone? Are you admitting that there is no science behind the management? It sounds like it, which proves my point. I am not suggesting 20 or 50 different zones. What I am suggesting is that the limits in certain areas could be tweaked. Have a state wide of 6, but an area like area 10 may only have 4. What does limiting either sex days do if you get 10x the pressure on those days? Trust me, I've made hunts on public land during either sex season. Its ridiculous.

Whitetail deer are in no danger of becoming extinct in Louisiana.

Missed my point again. I was not suggesting that they are. My point was merely that you could hunt them out of an area. I've heard of it happening. That can happen with anything. Pressure drives animals out.

And there are 10 different deer zones in Louisiana. The state does not just consider possible benefits, but also associated costs and challenges of smaller geographic divisions.

So why did they break up the state this past season? Didn't they add an area or 2? I'm not getting your point of the "challenges of smaller geographic divisions". You aren't making more land for a game warden to cover. You are simply changing a rule. What costs? I'm really not seeing what you are arguing here.