Getting neighbors onboard with big buck mgmt

[Smalls]

I've seen so many things wrong with this thread that I would take a week to point them out. This is a joke of a discussion in terms of management.

Can't even believe it was suggested that "brown and down" is management. That's not management. Just call it what it is, and that is hunting for meat. If you kid yourself that that is management, you don't know anything about wildlife management.

Also the idea of anything being "mine" is laughable. There is a court case that set the precident for wildlife as a public trust. Wildlife is public property (unless its "W"s big lake trout ).

Yes, managing deer on 40 acres is pretty much impossible. One deer wont call that home in most cases, much less a herd. I can't believe this thread has made it as long as it has.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2

["W"]

DB i think you should get a few of us one day and flush that 40 acres with guns!!

[bullcroaker]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

My cousin said that one of them magazines he gets they got food plots so we put them in. Some dude at the co-op store said we needed to put some limes out in our dirt or something but I ain't ever seen a deer eating a lime and ain't no dang lime trees in the woods so he was just trying to sell me some lime trees I think

He probably meant lime which is not a tree. It is an additive to stabilize soil and help plants grow in soil that lacks nutrients.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

shoulda brought this to lasportsman

It would be pretty funny on Bayou Bucks too... haha

[Duck Butter]

Dude sent me an email trying to sell me his special food plot mix


http://www.louisianasportsman.com/lp...st_reports&sid=

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

I've seen so many things wrong with this thread that I would take a week to point them out. This is a joke of a discussion in terms of management.

Can't even believe it was suggested that "brown and down" is management. That's not management. Just call it what it is, and that is hunting for meat. If you kid yourself that that is management, you don't know anything about wildlife management.

"Brown is down" is essentially the same as deciding that the rules imposed by the state are sufficient for managing the herd in a given location without imposing additional restrictions.

Saying that "brown is down" isn't management is equivalent to saying that the governing authorities who set the rules are incompetent and have not properly applied management principles in setting the rules the way they have.

Do we really need to have additional rules at the local property level to say we are managing the herd? Is there nowhere in Louisiana where the state's rules are sufficient management?

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

"Brown is down" is essentially the same as deciding that the rules imposed by the state are sufficient for managing the herd in a given location without imposing additional restrictions.

Saying that "brown is down" isn't management is equivalent to saying that the governing authorities who set the rules are incompetent and have not properly applied management principles in setting the rules the way they have.

Do we really need to have additional rules at the local property level to say we are managing the herd? Is there nowhere in Louisiana where the state's rules are sufficient management?

Sorry, but I'm going to be that guy that brings this back up. If you think for one second that even half of what LDWF does is defined by science, you need to climb down out of that tree you're living in. LDWF, just like many wildlife agencies, is driven by politics. The reason the turkey season is set as it is is because of politics. Heck, isn't that what "W" has been preaching on the trout situation on big lake for the past 1,000,000 years?!?!

Yes, there are parts of the state that cannot support the deer limit that is set. It's called carrying capacity. Some habitats do not have the same CC as others. I've had this discussion before, and the guy made a point that I still don't agree with. He said that if area A doesn't hold as many deer as Area B, you won't kill as many deer there. So, whether that area has a 6 deer limit or not, it doesn't make a difference.

I call bologne on that. If you have 2 hunters on a property, and you've only got 10 deer frequenting that property, you could theoretically kill all those deer off, assuming the sex ratios are right.

Even if you do not kill them all off, you could drop that population to a certain level that keeps it from coming back. That is why some species have gone extinct.

Also, if you continually kill young animals, eventually, you are going to skew the population to older individuals, and eventually you will not have a population.

That is all theory and principle, but its not out of the realm of possibility. So yes, to answer your question, in some areas state regulations may not be sufficient. But then again, look at Texas. They establish different limits for different parts of the state, and it is because of differences in the deer herd and habitat.

And it really isn't any one's place to tell someone else what they can or cannot do on their property anyway.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Yes, there are parts of the state that cannot support the deer limit that is set. It's called carrying capacity. Some habitats do not have the same CC as others. I've had this discussion before, and the guy made a point that I still don't agree with. He said that if area A doesn't hold as many deer as Area B, you won't kill as many deer there. So, whether that area has a 6 deer limit or not, it doesn't make a difference.

I call bologne on that. If you have 2 hunters on a property, and you've only got 10 deer frequenting that property, you could theoretically kill all those deer off, assuming the sex ratios are right.

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.

Originally Posted by Smalls

Even if you do not kill them all off, you could drop that population to a certain level that keeps it from coming back. That is why some species have gone extinct.

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

Originally Posted by Smalls

Also, if you continually kill young animals, eventually, you are going to skew the population to older individuals, and eventually you will not have a population.

Certainly a possibility in some species, but not really a valid risk for whitetail deer in Louisiana. The sky is not falling.

Originally Posted by Smalls

That is all theory and principle, but its not out of the realm of possibility. So yes, to answer your question, in some areas state regulations may not be sufficient. But then again, look at Texas. They establish different limits for different parts of the state, and it is because of differences in the deer herd and habitat.

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.

Originally Posted by Smalls

And it really isn't any one's place to tell someone else what they can or cannot do on their property anyway.

For once we agree. But many states are susceptible to pressure from QDM and big buck types and have imposed antler restrictions and other regulations whereby the state essential is doing this to many property owners.

There may be parts of the state where additional landowner restrictions are reasonable, but there are many areas where the current regulations by the state are sufficient. In these areas "brown is down" is sufficient management without additional rules.

[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.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

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.

I think there is science behind the management. The science estimates the number of deer and a desired range of harvest numbers for each sex. The regulations are designed to keep the actual harvest numbers within the range given whatever enforcement constraints and customer preferences are present.

You're nitpicking that you'd prefer a shift to controlling harvest numbers by reduced seasonal limits rather than reduced hunting days for a given zone compared with the rest of the state. You might be right. However, you might also consider that the state might have chosen to reduce the number of deer hunting days not just to reduce the harvest but to reduce conflicts with other types of hunting and not stretch enforcement personnel too thin in the coastal marsh and coastal prairie areas.

Originally Posted by Smalls

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.

You used the word "extinct". Your clarification suggests you intended "extirpated" instead. Yes, it is possible, but whitetail deer are fairly resilient to leaking back in quickly if only driven out of small areas. Do you really think the 75 deer killed in Cameron and the 326 killed in Calcasieu in 2012-2013 presents a risk of killing 'em all in those parishes? What would your estimates be for sustainable harvest numbers for these parishes?

Originally Posted by Smalls

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.

Depending on the regulations and season lengths, rule changes can either leave more or less land open for more or less days per year. Collecting and analyzing data separately for 20 zones is a lot more man hours than collecting and analyzing data for 10 zones. Effectively enforcing different rules in different areas is more expensive because complaints will multiply from citizens who are not sure which side of the boundary the event they think they saw was on, because hunters won't be sure which side they were on, and because law enforcement must now prove in court on which side of a boundary an alleged offense took place.

Lower limits are also harder to enforce (thus driving up costs or driving down effectiveness of enforcement). A shorter season in a given geography is easier to enforce because if you are found hunting or in the field in possession of a dead deer out of the given season, you are toast. If the limit is four rather than six per season, how does the game warden prove where the first five deer were killed when a hunter is found with his sixth deer in a zone that only allows four?

But all this is off in the weeds. You are venting about how the state needs to impose more restrictive regulations to protect the deer herd. Maybe, but consistent harvest numbers over 100,000 per year over many, many years suggest statewide sustainability.

[Smalls]

Other than the fact that you looked up a few numbers, you just proved that you know nothing about deer regulations in Louisiana. For one, the deer season already overlaps with the majority of hunting seasons in Louisiana. In fact, only Turkey season and spring squirrel season do no overlap with deer season.

Second, your statement about enforcement being expensive and difficult because of uncertainty in where an offense takes place is garbage too. The regulations clearly outline what portions of what parishes are in which areas. And they use very easily discernible boundaries.

As for lower limits being difficult to enforce: how does any other state enforce lower limits than what we have? Come on man, that's weak. If you move to regional limits, you have tags for each region. How do you think other states do it? I always hear about people buying tags for a particular Unit or county in other states for Elk.

I'll grant you, some of your argument is intriguing, but your lack of understanding of regulations just makes the fact that you are arguing this laughable.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

How do you think other states do it? I always hear about people buying tags for a particular Unit or county in other states for Elk.

Right, if Louisiana hunters were willing to pay $34 for each and every resident deer tag like Colorado charges, then LDWF might have enough money to manage the herd with 20-50 zones. You can't have western style management schemes without comparable associated costs.

If you can convince LA hunters to trade what they have now for $34 deer tags that are only good in a single parish for a two week period, because the benefits of Smalls management schemes are so superior, then go for it.

But Louisiana is a Sportsman's Paradise in spite of some of the big government increasingly regulating outdoor activities, not because of it.

Maybe if LDWF spent less on Whooping Cranes, they'd have more money to improve management of the deer herd. But you can't have bigger government in every area of wildlife management without paying for it.

$34 deer tags ... Anyone ... Anyone .... Bueller .... Beuller

[Smalls]

Dude, you are so far off on what I've suggested. How many times have I said that I'm not suggesting 20 zones?

You are so far off on this, its ridiculous. Stick to your math, and please, for the love of all things wild, stay away from any regulatory entity that has power over natural resources.

[duckman1911]

Just kill every critter that trespasses onto your property. If the LDWF liked them critters so much they would control em better. They get to tell you when and how you can kill stuff on your own land. That's a sack of BS to me. F them its my property. If they wana tell me when and what I can kill they need to get all of those animals off of my F'n property. I don't want them on my land.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

Just kill every critter that trespasses onto your property. If the LDWF liked them critters so much they would control em better. They get to tell you when and how you can kill stuff on your own land. That's a sack of BS to me. F them its my property. If they wana tell me when and what I can kill they need to get all of those animals off of my F'n property. I don't want them on my land.

Wildlife is a public property, whether on private land or not, so a public agency, like LDWF, has the right and responsibility to regulate wildlife and fisheries resources. If it were not for game agencies, we would not be hunting ducks, deer, or Turkey today. Couldn't catch a lot of the fish we do either.

Maybe we should just go back to the way feudal Europe was. You aren't a noble, you don't get to hunt anything. And if you do, the nobles will cut your head off. Or we can go back to the early 20th century when there were no regulations and almost all game animals were extirpated from the conterminous United States.

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Wildlife is a public property, whether on private land or not, so a public agency, like LDWF, has the right and responsibility to regulate wildlife and fisheries resources. If it were not for game agencies, we would not be hunting ducks, deer, or Turkey today. Couldn't catch a lot of the fish we do either.

Maybe we should just go back to the way feudal Europe was. You aren't a noble, you don't get to hunt anything. And if you do, the nobles will cut your head off. Or we can go back to the early 20th century when there were no regulations and almost all game animals were extirpated from the conterminous United States.

Mr. Sense of Humor this is Mr. Smalls. I don't think you two have ever met .

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Dude, you are so far off on what I've suggested. How many times have I said that I'm not suggesting 20 zones?

You are so far off on this, its ridiculous. Stick to your math, and please, for the love of all things wild, stay away from any regulatory entity that has power over natural resources.

Yep, it gets offensive when math challenges the power that gov't types want to exercise, not just over natural resources, but over honest citizens who want enjoy and utilize those resources.

Don't you think 15 pages of deer regulations are enough? Do we really need additional regulations refining in more detail what is and is not allowed in each zone?

OK, so you're good with 10 zones, you just want each to have different harvest limits rather than regulating harvest numbers with open and closed dates. But the existing limit of six is a possession limit, rather than a harvest limit. A hunter who lived in zone 10 couldn't bring home six deer even if all six deer were shot on family hunting land in zone 3.

This scheme (limiting harvest numbers by kill limits rather than open dates) inevitably leads to much more complex and expensive tagging schemes, usually that connect tags with specific zones. So if you hunt in zone 10 and get invited to zone 3, you've got to buy a tag for that zone, etc. I kinda like it how it is now. At least the tagging scheme is simple. Six deer anywhere in the state.

[Smalls]

Here's an ethics question for you.

How many people would exercise restraint if there was no restriction on how many you can take?

How long would it take for an all out "Tragedy of the Commons" epidemic to break out?

Cause, you know, that worked so well before game agencies were formed.

I'm not suggesting more government regulation. I'm suggesting science as a basis for management. If you're too stupid to understand that you can only kill X amount of deer here, and Y amount there, then you don't need a gun in your hand. I agree, some regulations are confusing, but to say that the limit in Area 10 is 4 deer, maybe only 1 doe, for example, is not that difficult.

You look at it as regulation. I look at it as conservation. How many people would willingly exercise that mentality in a free for all?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Wildlife is a public property, whether on private land or not, so a public agency, like LDWF, has the right and responsibility to regulate wildlife and fisheries resources. If it were not for game agencies, we would not be hunting ducks, deer, or Turkey today. Couldn't catch a lot of the fish we do either.

Yeah, we get all that, and we agree.

But these basic facts do not justify unlimited power to regulate everything shot out of a gun because some game animal might one day eat it or to regulate different land uses because they might change what eventually washes into a stream or to regulate CO2 emissions because they warm the earth and melt the ice polar bears need to survive.

The state-owned wildlife argument, taken to extremes, can be used to exert near-total control. There need to be reasonable limits on gov't exercise of power, and regulations that criminalize actions that are fundamental to liberty should be justified by hard data as necessary limitations on that liberty.

Fifteen pages of regulations on any one species is enough, don't you think?

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Yep, it gets offensive when math challenges the power that gov't types want to exercise, not just over natural resources, but over honest citizens who want enjoy and utilize those resources.

Don't you think 15 pages of deer regulations are enough? Do we really need additional regulations refining in more detail what is and is not allowed in each zone?

OK, so you're good with 10 zones, you just want each to have different harvest limits rather than regulating harvest numbers with open and closed dates. But the existing limit of six is a possession limit, rather than a harvest limit. A hunter who lived in zone 10 couldn't bring home six deer even if all six deer were shot on family hunting land in zone 3.

This scheme (limiting harvest numbers by kill limits rather than open dates) inevitably leads to much more complex and expensive tagging schemes, usually that connect tags with specific zones. So if you hunt in zone 10 and get invited to zone 3, you've got to buy a tag for that zone, etc. I kinda like it how it is now. At least the tagging scheme is simple. Six deer anywhere in the state.

The tagging system now sucks. Its not so much the system that sucks but its the tags. Leave it to our state to give you a tag with no way to attach it. Go deer hunting now and you gota stop at staples for a pen and home depot for some zip ties. Always thought about filling out a tag and shoving it in a deers azz. If the damn warden wants to see it he can get the damn tag himself.lmao. It is attached to the deer. F em if the don't like it.