I don't live in Louisiana anymore but I filled out the survey. I think I always hear a 50/50 split of people that want to hunt early in the season when the Teal and Gray ducks are down in full force and people that like to hunt later in the season when the mot mallards are down. I've always wanted a no zone with 3 splits (2 breaks). Satisfy hunters that want early season, encompass Christmas and New Years and the last weeks in January as well.

I think it would help spread everyone out and alleviate pressure in some areas.

Also in Oklahoma we'd have drawings at the area lakes. Everyone that showed up would put their name in a hat. As they drew your name you had to put a star on the map with your name on it and you received a permit for 1 duck blind that was yours to hunt. After 8:00 each morning it was fair game to anyone wanting to hunt it.

Sure made the hunting nice knowing you could leave at a reasonable time and know you had a place to hunt. You also knew where everyone else was hunting, very few surprises on opening morning. This works extremely well on every lake I've hunted on. They also hold many of the drawings on the same mornings, making it difficult if not impossible to obtain permits for multiple blinds.

I'd even be willing to pay a fee if I were in Louisiana to be certain that I had a place to hunt and didn't have to get out there at 3:00 in the morning to hunt it.

6400 is what % of total # of estimated waterfowl hunters. I was under the impression there were around 125,000 waterfowl hunters in LA . Does a survey of 5% of a population with a 17% return justify change. Does a internet survey count statistically. seems anyone could respond weather a hunter or not. less reliable than target audience.

sorry question mark key does not work on this notebook.

There were an estimated 89,000 active waterfowl hunters in Louisiana during the 2010/11 season. Estimates for last year are not yet available.

I don't know that any particular sample size or response rate justifies anything. We designed our survey to get 400 responses from each of 4 regions of the state with only a 25% response rate. 400 responses typically gets us estimates with plus or minus 3-4% variation. That is pretty good if we can assure that those responses are indeed a random sample from the population. They may not be; chances are they are biased toward the more dedicated hunters. But I do know that no consideration is due those who don't participate, especially on the mail-out survey, for which every selected hunter at least knows of it.

More importantly, we have watched the Commission make decisions on WAY, WAY, WAY less input from WAY, WAY, WAY more biased samples than from 2,400 hunter responses that this survey represents. So it certainly isn't perfect ...... but it's the best I've got.

We are learning a great deal from conducting the mail-out and internet surveys concurrently (both in 2010 and again for this survey), and some of that is illustrated in the results to the 2 questions I posted above. We know the internet survey is biased toward more dedicated hunters, as evidenced by the estimate for ducks killed last season. However, we get almost the same answers to questions about satisfaction and preferences for management and regulatory options, such as the satisfaction with the past season. So the answer to your question is yes, the results from the internet survey count.

Thanks again to all who participated in the survey.

1. Thanks for the clarification on the duck hunter numbers.
2. you said ' I don't know that an particular sample size or response rate justifies anything.'
Duh huh did you really mean to make this statement. if so what does it mean. pardon my ignorance.
3. from what i understand, you sent 1600 random surveys each to the four regions for a total 6400. hoping to get 400 or 25% from each region. by your account a total of around 1100 responces were mailed back. less than the hoped for 25% from each region. please define and give break down of # of responces from each region.
4.please give examples of the WLF commision making decisions on...' WAY WAY WAY less input from WAY WAY WAY more biased samples.
5. ' Since we get almost the same answers .... the internet survey counts. ' WHAT !!!

When everybody get's the same answers,could it be somebody is cheating. can you tell the region an internet response comes from. can a person respond more than once. can a person that resonded to the mail in also respond on internet.

Traditional season dates, season lengths, holiday traditons and other family functions are at stake here. this should not be taken lightly. if you count the internet responces for a total 2400, that is less than 3% of the total # of waterfowl hunters. i don't buy the notion of 'well you should of spoke up' . it is obvious that of the eighty-nine thousand waterfowl hunters, not many visit the WLF web site after hunting season when this survey was set up. i know that some of the questions can't be answered until after the season. it is hard for wildlife professionals to understand that all people that hunt, do not spend all waking hours planning, thinking dreaming etc hunting. most have familys and other obligations which explains the lack of survey responce.

Sorry for spelling and no question marks.

Decisions are made regarding hunting and fishing regulations with a variety of public input ranging from 1 individual to many thousand. I've personally seen the Canada goose season changed from 9 to 16 days based on input from 1 hunter. At the May Commission meeting, we watched about 14 shrimpers determine the season dates. A couple of years ago, input from only 15 individuals determined the fate of the Canada goose closure zone in SW Louisiana, and about half of them were prodded by 2 people who actually wrote their letters for them.

So if you didn't like my answer .... then decide for yourself what sample size and response rate justify changes in regulations. I know of no such metric.

Comparing data from mail-out surveys of randomly-selected hunters with data from internet-based surveys is showing us that we get very similar answers on satisfaction and preference questions despite the sample populations being very different. We showed in 2010 that repondents from the mail-out survey hunted fewer days, killed fewer ducks, bought fewer lifetime licenses, and had a far lower participation in conservation organizations than respondents to the internet surveys. Expectedly, these were very different populations of hunters. However, their levels of satisfaction, attitudes toward particular regulatory changes, array of hunter typologies, etc. were almost identical. For regulatory changes (spinning-wing decoys, noon closure, zone configuration, etc.), there was not a single question on the 2010 survey where the management decision would have been different for the mail-out vs internet surveys. There have been 3 other peer-reviewed publications showing similar results. So internet surveys are not useful for estimating things like days hunted and ducks killed, but they have good utility for assessing attitudes regarding satisfaction and regulation changes.

Wildlife professionals do indeed understand that the vast majority of hunters don't live their lives tuned in to every press release, radio broadcast, and internet posting about surveys and proposed changes. However, states like Minnesota, Illinois, and Missouri get response rates above 50% (sometimes much higher) to their mail-out surveys. If you participated in the survey, then you know how simple it was. I don't believe we were asking too much from anyone that received a survey in the mail.

And why would we even make that effort if we we didn't care about all the things that are at stake? We could have just used the input we received at the 6 public meetings (less than 40 individuals). We spent the resources and implemented a designed survey precisely because of what is at stake. Furthermore, a 3% sample of 2,400 is a very good statistical sample; but I think it is biased toward more active, dedicated hunters.

So that is what we have, and it represents far more public input than most decisions are made upon. But does anybody have to abide by it? No. I will be interpretting/presenting those survey data as best as I can, but the final decision rests with the Commission, and they are under no obligation to approve the most popular option.

There is only 1 thing I am certain of: lots of hunters aren't going to like the outcome ..... whether we change anything or not.

Strut-n-Rut,

Would you prefer they did no survey at all, met in a room and just did what they wanted to do?

If you're going to criticize, please suggest a better way of getting the public's opinion.

Its unfortunate, but most of the public, including myself often times, do nothing, and then complain about actions that were taken.

Sounds to me they are trying their best to get as much feed back as possible. I'm sure they would have loved to have gotten a 100% response. I don't think the 25% response is the response they were 'wanting', I think it was the response they were 'expecting'.

Sounds like somebody here is looking for public input, and trying to do right by the public. If you have a better idea, it looks like he's listening; speak up.

I agree. Our wildlife and fisheries personnel are generally people that enjoy the outdoors and are looking to do right by hunters and wildlife populations. Getting our feedback is something that they don't necessarily have to do, and their effort should be appreciated.

As for survey results being skewed, if someone is willing to sit there and do the survey 50 times on the internet, don't you think that person is much more interested in the outcome of these decisions? People have the right to be as vocal as they wish. If hunters choose not to participate in the meetings and surveys, they make the choice to not be fully represented. And if someone that hunts every day of the season and goes to every meeting and participates in every survey gets more representation, they deserve it. Simple as that.

LDWF is doing a fine job with these surveys from my perspective.