any maps anywhere? curious if we'll have a true coastal zone or will all of south LA still be west zone. Never really understood this.

The new configuration does not change the old East Zone, and creates a 3rd zone by adding a boundary starting at the junction of Hwy 167 and LA 106 just north of Miller's Lake, running west along LA 106 to Oakdale, then south on Hwy 165 from Oakdale to Hwy 190, and then west on Hwy 190 and LA 12 to the Texas border.

That boundary separates the old West Zone into a Coastal and a new West Zone (north of that boundary).

The boundary between the East and new West Zone in northcentral LA was also changed so that it goes straight north from Jonesboro to the Arkansas line along Hwy 167.

Contrary to what the Advocate reported in the link above, the new 3-zone configuration does NOT put the marshes north of Lake Pontchartrain into the Coastal zone. The old zone boundary of Hwy 90 remains.

We have issued a press release that includes a map at: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/35533

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/document/35151-waterfowl-hunting-zones-and-splits/website_zones_and_splits_2012_read-only.pdf

The survey results indicate that participating hunters wanted to keep the 2 zones configuration, but the Commission changed it to 3 zones. Who advocated the change?

The 2012 survey results (you may be looking at those in the power-point which were from earlier surveys) showed that hunters in the new West Zone prefered a 3-zone option to the 2-zone option 50% to 35% (with the rest either no opinion or don't know). Hunters in the East Zone prefered the 2-zone option 46% to 38%, and hunters in the new Coastal Zone were about split with 45% wanting 3 zones and 46% wanting 2 zones.

The change made today implemented a 3rd zone where there was the most support for that change, primarily in NW LA. The East Zone was not changed, and those in the Coastal Zone are also unchanged except the name of the zone.

drew-b is back. A couple of weeks ago you stated you were leaving when posters corrected your in correct facts. You left mad, took your toys, left the playground, and went home. When you going to pay up on that bet, my boy?

That's funny, the recent official survey had 3 options, and the 2 options that had 3 zones both proposed moving all areas around Lake Pontchartrain into the new Coastal Zone, which would have been a wise move because of the similarity of the habitat and tidal characteristics to that of the rest of the new Coastal Zone. Now the new system has 3 zones, but Lake Pontchartrain is still in the East Zone. Why was this adopted if it was not even an option from the beginning? So now the hunters that frequent this area are still in the same situation...likely unable to hunt later in the season when the low water level in the area converts much of the area to solid mud flats. Go figure.

Everything proposed/approved at the Commission meeting was supported by survey data. We divided the survey respondents to look at specific locations.

1) The guys who would be moved from the old East zone to the new West zone in NW Louisiana by straightening the former boundary.

2) The guys in Evangeline and St. Landry Parish who would be in either the new West zone or the new Coastal Zone depending on which 3-zone boundary was selected.

3) The guys in the Atchafalaya Basin who would be moved from the East Zone to the new Coastal zone depending on which 3-zone option was selected.

and 4) what the hunters around Lake Pontchartrain wanted in terms of zone options because both 3-zone options included moving that area from the East into the Coastal Zone.

The analysis for 4) was the only one where 50% of the hunters preferred 'no change' compared to only 42% who preferred one of the 3-zone options. That was also the place where an inordinately high proportion of hunters (51% in the public survey) reported hunting in both zones, and making the boundary change would have made that more difficult. Lastly, one of the proposed 3-zone boundaries divided more of our WMAs so they would have 2 different zones within the WMA.

Based on those data, we chose to NOT make the boundary change around Lake Pontchartrain.

As I said in the thread below about the 2012 survey, the only thing I can guarantee is that whatever changes we make or don't make, a lot of hunters are going to be pissed off. But based on the survey data (and nothing was a knock-out like say an 80% to 20% preference), we made a change that satisfies the largest group of hunters, and one that I think will be beneficial for us long-term with potentially changing season lengths.

All of the analyses I've described were presented to the Commission during a nearly 1.5-hour presentation and question/answer session. It's clear that they were reticent to make any changes at all. 6 of the 7 are from south Louisiana and asked about every single step of the process and every Parish where a change might affect hunters.

Because of that, I'm going to whine a little.

This was not a strongly biological issue; this was an issue determined almost completely by hunter-opinion. But only 17% of hunters responded to the mail-out survey. This was a short (14 questions including sex, age, and Parish of residence) and simple (if you didn't have a gut reaction to a question, there was a choice of 'no opinion' or 'don't know') survey that asked very little of hunter's time or effort. My colleagues in Missouri, Minnesota, and Illinois have or are considering moving to 3 zones, and they got 50-70% response rates to much more involved and complicated surveys. I can't help but be disappointed.

My presentation to the Commission yesterday used the survey data to an extreme; those data drove the decision. But I've already been 'skewered' by people claiming these decisions were made with inadequate hunter input because of the low response rate and small sample sizes when we divide the data into regions.

Agree or disagree, you know what? I've seen the Commission make decisions based on comments from just a couple people at their meetings, and I provided much more than that. Furthermore, I've spent the money ($30,000 on contract costs alone), my time and effort trying to get the most feedback I could using both sound scientific methods and providing opportunity for everyone to participate via the internet. If an issue has a firm biologically-based answer, I'm going to use it regardless of hunter-opinion. But if hunter-opinion is key to the outcome, I'm going to use what I have.

I know that doesn't apply to most of you, I just needed to get that off my chest. Thanks again to all who participated in the surveys. Those who participated have the right to 'skewer' me all they want.

Larry- i know that i commmented, and probably others that hunt with us as well, that we would have supported the three zones if the boundary between west and coastal would have been I-10. We hunt right on the gulf, and in Northern Acadia parish, and clearly have birds at different times in the different places- was any justification given for having Northern Acadia (or Jeff Davis either for that matter) in the 'Coastal' Zone.

There are an infinite number of places we could have chosen to put zone boundaries, and I'm under no illusion that we have it perfect, but I-10 in SW Louisiana was never seriously considered because of the vast tracts of similar habitat both north and south of the interstate. We considered a zone boundary between the marsh and the ag fields, like along the ICWW more than we considered I-10. We still have the problem of arbitrarily dividing ag habitat between Coastal and East and some West at the southeastern boundary of the new West Zone, but we think it's a better split between the coastal ag/marsh habitat and the predominant habitats of western and NW LA.

Furthermore, hunters in that part of the state, including Evangeline Parish where there was a difference in what zone they would end up by which 3-zone option we chose, preferred the no change option at a higher rate than those further north in western LA.

I've been surprised by the number of contacts I've recieved today from guys who are a little miffed that we moved to 3 zones despite the change not affecting them at all. That was the whole reason for collecting the regionally-specific hunter-opinion data ...... so we could see if there was support in some parts of the state that was masked in a statewide data analysis by other parts of the state that would not be affected.

Larry are we going to lose any hunting days because of the new zone splits or will each zone have a sixty day season? Thanks

There will be 60 days open for hunting in each zone if that is what the framework allows.

This is the second time today I've heard from someone that suggested there might be some penalty in hunting days for having 3 zones. Where did that come from?

Really just a rumor heard. I think there a lot of rumors going around right now. Like you said though its impossible to please everyone. They need to increase the limit on some of them ducks.

That Mr. Reynolds was able to tweak the proposals to keep the traditional Hwy. 90 dividing line around Lake Pontchartrain is awesome. He took the time to listen to the NOLA area hunters, made adjustments to the original options, and the commission passed what was best for the majority. Government actually worked for a change.
3 cheers for Mr. Reynolds!

Yea alot of guys like to get in the extra week of hunting around here either in the pearl river north of hwy 90, big branch, or manchac. Manchac is usually good for a few ducks late season shot a few pintail n greenheads out there at the end of the season two years ago talk about nice but that year it was about 20 degrees for a week.

I appreciate the kind words, but it was my idea to change the zone boundary to get all the marshes around Lake Pontchartrain into the Coastal zone because it is the same habitat type used by the same birds. I also got quite a few complaints about the change in the East Zone season dates last year, which cost those marsh hunters a week of early-season hunting. Moving those marshes to the Coastal zone seems a logical solution, and I still like the idea from a biological perspective.

But given the survey data cited above, there just wasn't enough support for me to be comfortable pushing that change.

Same thing happened at Catahoula Lake, where I thought (and still do) that earlier season dates would benefit those hunters. After all, it is probably the most important early-season waterfowl habitat in the state and the probability of it flooding out increases as the season goes on. But those hunters rejected that idea preferring to be left in the East zone or hunting even later, rather than earlier.

Guys,

I was at the meeting last Thursday when Larry presented the data to the commission. I personally felt that the data was presented very clearly and there was lot of discussion by the Commission prior to voting. Sadly, a total of ONE hunter, from NW La, showed up to speak on this topic, in his case he was supporting the proposed change in zones so that his NW La hunts no longer will be set the same as VENICE/Delacroix, entire coast etc. Like BayouBob and a few others, I do my share of hunting on the northshore and initially wanted those marshes to be part of the new coastal zone so that we'd get the traditional West Zone dates. However, after last year's season I found that the bulk of those I was in contact with, myself included, really enjoyed being able to just drive a few minutes longer and hunt West Zone when EZ was closed. This resulted in only having to sit out ONE week the entire season if you could hunt both zones (plenty of public land in both, so plenty of opportunity for all whether you're in Mandeville/Ponchy, NOLA, Chalmette, Slidell, or in between). The fact is we're lucky to have those opportunities within 20-30 min from the house. Yes it's a bummer to lose that week after Thanksgiving when the marshes are typically loaded up, but just hit the nearby West Zone (now Coastal Zone) public areas while awaiting the EZ 2nd split opener.

I can also attest that Larry has gone far above and beyond to get this matter out to the public and gather hunter opinon. I follow quite a few hunting/fishing/sports related forums and surprisingly found Larry active in many of them, engaged in interaction and Q/A just like you see here. If you have something to say about the rules and regs of your duck seasons or any hunting/fishing season, I encourage you to attend the LDWF monthly commission meetings. I've found them very informative and gives you an opportunity to see how the decisions are made; ignore the rumors, go get it from the horse's mouth! Couple months left and it's teal time, good luck fellas

What are the proposed dates of the Coastal Zone? I personally like the way the West starts the 2nd weekend in November and the East starts the 3rd.

Based on conversations I had with 3 Commission members at the last meeting, I expect the season dates in the Coastal Zone and the East Zone to be the same as last year with calendar adjustments. I would be surprised if there were any changes except maybe Youth Hunting days in the East Zone, where Commissioner Ronny Graham is firmly in support of the Youth hunt being after the close of the second split rather than prior to the first.

In the new West Zone, I will propose alternative dates because the harvest data, hunter-opinion survey results and the phone calls and e-mails I'm receiving are not consistently favoring one option. I suspect we will propose 2 sets of dates and collect public comment for the month of July before making a decision. Again, the final authority lies with the Commission.

When you say you expect the season dates in the Coastal Zone and the East Zone to be the same as last year with calendar adjustments, does that mean expect the second weekend in November to be the opening weekend in the Coastal Zone and the following weekend in the East Zone?

We're in the new Coastal (old West) and opening weekend has been the second weekend in November as long as I can remember.

'I would be surprised if there were any changes except maybe Youth Hunting days in the East Zone, where Commissioner Ronny Graham is firmly in support of the Youth hunt being after the close of the second split rather than prior to the first.'

This issue again? Didn't the public weigh in against this just last year?