Please Sign In


New To Sportsman Network?

Proposed teal limit reduction

Reply
 
The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission has made a proposed change to the 2019 - 2020 teal seasons to include a bag limit reduction: 'Reducing the daily bag limit of teal from six to four for the early September teal season.'

Public comment will be accepted at LWFC monthly meetings from February through March and/or can be submitted in writing by mail to: Tommy Tuma, LDWF Wildlife Division, P.O. Box 98000, Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000, or via email to ttuma@wlf.la.gov until 9 a.m., March 7, 2019.

LDWF will also collect public comment at public hearings to be held Feb. 25-March 2 throughout the state. The locations and times for those meetings include:
•25 (Monday) at 6 p.m. at the Ponchatoula High School Library, 19452 Highway 22, Ponchatoula.
•26 (Tuesday) at 6 p.m. at the LDWF Lafayette Field Office, 200 Dulles Drive, Lafayette.
•27 (Wednesday) at 6 p.m. at the LDWF Minden Field Office, 9961 Highway 80, Minden.
•28 (Thursday) at 6 p.m. at the LDWF Monroe Field Office, 368 Century Link Drive, Monroe.
•March 1 (Friday) at 6 p.m. at the Alexandria Convention Hall, 915 3 rd Street, Alexandria.
•March 2 (Saturday) at 10 a.m. at the LSU Ag Center Building, 7101 Gulf Highway, Lake Charles.

For more information, contact Tommy Tuma at 225-765-2349 or ttuma@wlf.la.gov .
Reply
Re: Proposed teal limit reduction
My response sent in opposition:

I just wanted to take a moment to strenuously object to the proposed reduction in the teal season bag limit. There is no evidence that this reduction will benefit teal populations or improve teal hunting. The movement of teal into the state is driven by climactic conditions during hunting season and the population of teal is driven by climactic conditions on the breeding grounds. The adaptive harvest management plan for teal is well vetted and by all accounts hunting mortality of bluewing teal is a minor contributor to overall mortality and likely compensatory in nature. Had the commissioners simply asked their own waterfowl biologist this would all have been explained. The LDWF has a long history of supporting wise waterfowl management and opposing 'knee-jerk' reduction in hunting opportunity as a response to transient issues. the very founding of the teal season is a great example of this. It would be highly contrary to that proud history (teal season, added wood duck bags, maintaining a 60 day mottled duck season ect.) to now go backwards on teal bag limits after the selfsame department expended funds and effort to achieve the increase just a few years ago. If there were ANY biological basis for surmising that this reduction would increase hunter enjoyment or was in anyway needed to protect the resource I would support it. However since neither of those conditions is the case here I again strongly object to the proposal.

I here this whole proposal is a bit of a lark.
Reply
Re: Proposed teal limit reduction
You need to send your comments to the LDWF and/or attend one of the meetings to get them formally heard.
Thanks
Reply
Re: Proposed teal limit reduction
Already sent it, will try to make the meeting but there isn't one near me really.
Reply
Re: Proposed teal limit reduction
lanco1,Just noticed I will be near the Feb 25th LDWF meeting at 6:00pm at Ponchatoula High School(manning a Medicare booth at Ponchatoula Wal Mart that same day,8-3)and will stick around to attend meeting.Will e-mail Tommy Tuma to let him know I intend to attend!!Be glad to voice my opinion and hope others that are free to attend can do so!!

Mandevillian
Reply
Re: Proposed teal limit reduction
Done, also asked what the LWFD Department Biologist are saying
Reply
Re: Proposed teal limit reduction
Quick update, apparently the LWFD Biologist recommend a bag limit of 6 teal is the reply I just got from LWFD.
Reply
Re: Proposed teal limit reduction
According to the USFWS 2018 Waterfowl Status report:

BW Teal are 27% above the long term average.

GW Teal are 42% above the long term average.

daily bag limits should be set based on science.
Reply