Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2008‐09
Mail survey‐ Each year, a 6% sample of licensed hunters between the ages of 16 and 59 receive a
harvest survey by mail. Participants return the survey and statistics are compiled. Youth and senior
hunters are not included in this survey, so estimates are best used for monitoring long term trends. The
mail survey index for hunters and harvest for the 2008/09 season is 162,600 and 158,200 respectively.
The harvest by weapon type and sex is shown in Table 3. While the hunter number index has been
relatively stable the last few years, the harvest index was down 21% this year and is the lowest value
since 1986 (Figure 2). Two more major hurricanes, as well as the effects of Katrina are largely impacting
the landscape, and are thought to have caused access and visibility issues across the state, but especially
in the coastal zone. Temporary flooding events caused some deer mortality in isolated areas during and
after Ike. Trees and forested habitats were affected well into central and even northern Louisiana
during Hurricane Gustav. Reduced visibility and accessibility due to storm debris impacted many
hunters. Anecdotal hunting reports were mixed this year, with some hunters (especially in the southern
parts of the state) reporting reduced harvests, and some reporting normal or exceptional harvests. In
southern areas the mast crop was reduced by the storm, but many hunters still saw good acorn
availability. Heavy rainfall following the storms may have increased fawn mortality in some coastal,
bottomland, Florida, and rice prairie parishes such as Lafourche, St. Landry, Tensas, Pointe Coupee,
Concordia, East Carroll, Tangipahoa, St. Helena, Evangeline, and Jefferson Davis. Lower than average
lactation rates were observed on a few WMAs, and DMAP clubs, and there was one report of low fawn
observations on other private land. This may reduce recruitment into older age classes in affected areas
and could result in reduced harvests of that age class (fewer 1.5 year olds next year).
Human expansion and development also impact wildlife habitats and deer carrying capacity and we
continue to see an increase in exurbia in some areas of Louisiana. Forest management practices of the
last decade have also impacted the landscape and reduced carrying capacities are being observed in
some pine dominant parishes and regions. Hog populations may be high enough in some areas of the
state to affect deer numbers through direct competition for food resources. And although there were
no large scale hemorrhagic disease (EHD or BTV) outbreaks reported or identified, it is possible that
some populations suffered mortality rates higher than perceived, and this may have impacted harvest at
some local levels.
Hunter attitudes and preferences may be changing. Some hunters, even on WMAs, now are sometimes
“passing” females and younger bucks in hopes of harvesting a trophy, or possibly because they simply
do not have the time or desire to do the work of processing the animal. This may be especially true of
the growing number of senior hunters and the younger generation of busy, affluent, trophy‐type
hunters. Some hunters and managers may be becoming more comfortable with managing for lower
numbers of deer that are more balanced with the habitat. Biologists have seen no indication within the
available data that statewide over‐harvest of female deer has occurred since implementing the new 3
antlerless deer limit. We are continuing to monitor and take public comment from concerned hunters
where overharvest has been a concern at local levels.
Table 3. Distribution of deer harvest as recorded by the annual LDWF mail survey, 2008‐09.
Figure 2. LDWF hunter and harvest estimates from its annual mail harvest survey, 1970‐2008.
Internet/phone reporting results‐ This year was the first mandatory year for tagging and reporting deer
through the new system. Results provide a count of male and female deer harvested by weapon type
and parish on private and public lands. Participation in the reporting program is believed to be less than
100% and it may take a period of time for all hunters to learn the system and comply with the law. It is
important for hunters to report their deer, so that complete data is available for future deer
management decisions. There were 227,001 sets of deer tags issued in 2008‐09. A summary of the
reported harvest along with the WMA managed hunts and program totals are presented by parish in
Appendix 1. The top total harvest parishes are presented in Table 4. The top harvest parishes by
forested acres per deer are presented in Table 5. The total harvest count from all 3 sources of data is
116,571. The harvest sex ratio of the 95,718 deer reported taken on non‐program private lands was 58
% male and 42 % female.
Table 4. Top 20 deer harvest parishes derived from the new reporting system , 2008‐09.
Table 5. Top 20 harvest parishes by forested acreage derived from the new reporting system, 2008‐09
Mail survey vs. reporting system harvest‐ The mail survey index of 158,200 is higher (36%) than the
system reported harvest of 116,571. Since the mail survey is a single mailing, there is the potential to
bias the index high. The mail survey index is best used to monitor trends over time and not as an
absolute estimate. The new reporting system count is likely low due to less than 100% participation.
We anticipate greater compliance with the system in the future. However, it is possible that, due to a
number of reasons, the statewide harvest from the reporting system will continue to be lower than the
mail survey index.
Wildlife Management Areas‐ The Department manages over 1,000,000 acres with deer hunting
opportunity. Archery and either sex gun hunts are the primary methods for keeping deer numbers in
balance with the habitat. Youth and handicapped hunts also are available on many areas. Buck only
seasons provide extended hunting opportunity and generally are held near or during rut. Harvest rates
are highly variable on the WMAs according to deer physiographic region, habitat conditions, and hunter
efforts. In some years WMA harvest rates equal or surpass intensively managed DMAP properties. On
some WMAs, harvest rates are low due to habitat type, forest conditions, accessibility issues, or other
management objectives. In general, WMA deer herds are managed in a way that helps insure long term
forest regeneration, diversity, sustainability, and high deer quality. WMAs are not managed for
maximum residual numbers, but rather maximum sustained harvest and recreational opportunity, which
means deer herds at or below maximum biological carrying capacity.
In 2008/09, managed deer hunts were held on over 900,000 acres of wildlife management areas where
high rates of success were often observed. The harvest was over 5,000 deer on the WMAs this year
(Table 6). Either‐sex hunts had an average hunter success rate of 11 efforts per deer, well below the
long‐term average of 16 efforts per deer, but up slightly from the 9.3 efforts per deer observed last year
(Figure 3). The success rate was considered good considering the heavy rainfall that fell across most of
the state during the either sex days following Thanksgiving. Either sex day harvests are greatly
influenced by weather and hunter turn out. Hunter success and harvest vary, sometimes substantially,
from year to year. Some Region 5 hunts were closed due to military training exercises. The long term
trend for WMA hunter success illustrates fewer efforts needed to harvest a deer.
Many exceptional deer were harvested on the WMAs. The top 10 WMA bucks of 2008‐09 are listed in
Appendix 2.
Table 6. WMA harvest totals from managed deer hunts and/or self‐clearing permit data only, 2008‐09.
Figure 3. LDWF Wildlife Management Area deer hunter success rates, 1960‐2008.
Appendix 1. Deer harvest by parish as recored through the LDWF tagging system, 2009.
People per Acres1 Forested Forested 2 System WMA DMAP LADT Total Acre per Forested acre
1
Parish Sq Mi Land area land acres harvest3 harvest4 harvest harvest harvest deer harv. per deer harv.5
Acadia 90 419379 0.24 100532 164 0 4 4 172 2438 na
Allen 33 489280 0.70 343916 1092 124 33 126 1375 356 250
Ascension 262 186560 0.48 88660 299 18 68 0 385 485 230
Assumption 69 216768 0.52 112409 485 0 88 58 631 344 178
Avoyelles 50 532736 0.37 196104 2042 229 515 42 2828 188 69
Beauregard 28 742464 0.80 592461 1816 0 62 565 2443 304 243
Bienville 19 518810 0.87 451470 4159 67 185 976 5387 96 84
Bossier 117 537152 0.68 365219 3460 88 0 382 3930 137 93
Caddo 286 564480 0.56 313620 1838 0 0 82 1920 294 163
Calcasieu 171 685504 0.39 270336 541 0 0 81 622 1102 435
Caldwell 20 338816 0.76 256017 1823 195 179 53 2250 151 114
Cameron 8 840320 0.00 0 209 0 2 31 242 3472 na
Catahoula 16 450368 0.41 183159 1092 10 51 198 1351 333 136
Claiborne 22 483008 0.90 435693 4499 0 103 569 5171 93 84
Concordia 29 445376 0.38 170753 1032 229 239 332 1832 243 93
DeSoto 29 561408 0.78 437109 2854 0 84 76 3014 186 145
E. Baton Rouge 907 291456 0.41 120883 538 0 304 5 847 344 143
E. Carroll 22 269696 0.13 34026 526 70 429 37 1062 254 32
E. Feliciana 47 290176 0.70 204297 1579 0 454 37 2070 140 99
Evangeline 53 425152 0.49 209704 1099 0 58 50 1207 352 174
Franklin 34 399104 0.27 108819 766 0 278 89 1133 352 96
Grant 29 412864 0.84 346030 1462 120 13 53 1648 251 210
Iberia 127 368064 0.28 101286 604 0 51 32 687 536 na
Iberville 54 395904 0.65 257875 2122 154 975 147 3398 117 76
Jackson 27 364608 0.86 314611 3342 67 29 251 3689 99 85
Jeff. Davis 48 417472 0.14 58574 240 0 37 12 289 1445 na
Jefferson 1484 196160 0.11 21181 168 0 0 0 168 1168 na
La Salle 23 399232 0.86 341475 1452 231 47 0 1730 231 197
Lafayette 706 172672 0.13 22492 12 0 0 0 12 14389 na
Lafourche 83 694208 0.15 104618 610 0 362 1 973 713 na
Lincoln 90 301696 0.78 234787 2546 0 0 77 2623 115 90
Livingston 142 414720 0.76 316643 1365 0 31 0 1396 297 227
Madison 22 399424 0.26 105549 1456 0 307 356 2119 188 50
Morehouse 39 508352 0.36 180565 2606 0 269 166 3041 167 59
Natchitoches 31 803520 0.70 559577 3334 0 31 19 3384 237 165
Orleans 2684 115558 0.00 0 28 0 0 0 28 4127 na
Ouachita 241 390739 0.64 249628 1921 110 127 36 2194 178 114
Plaquemines 32 540544 0.03 13902 162 0 4 18 184 2938 na
Point Coupee 41 356672 0.40 141702 1337 0 327 294 1958 182 72
Rapides 96 846400 0.66 562213 1957 23 48 301 2329 363 241
Red River 25 249152 0.55 137864 822 0 13 124 959 260 144
Richland 38 357440 0.23 80838 984 0 78 160 1222 293 66
Sabine 27 553792 0.80 445625 2607 30 31 61 2729 203 163
St. Bernard 145 297600 0.11 31374 41 0 18 0 59 5044 na
St. Charles 169 181504 0.22 39884 125 0 15 44 184 986 217
St. Helena 26 262,000 0.79 206615 1139 0 47 0 1186 221 174
St. James 86 157504 0.47 73254 387 68 145 0 600 263 122
St. John 197 140096 0.46 64132 329 68 20 0 417 336 154
St. Landry 94 594368 0.28 167290 1857 120 174 132 2283 260 73
St. Martin 66 473536 0.63 296426 1455 0 169 304 1928 246 154
St. Mary 87 392192 0.33 131208 1505 151 188 45 1889 208 na
St. Tammany 224 546688 0.63 346369 754 5 88 0 847 645 409
Tangipahoa 127 505728 0.60 305468 991 0 41 48 1080 468 283
Tensas 11 385600 0.30 113863 1758 132 879 607 3376 114 34
Terrebonne 83 803136 0.16 129697 715 0 1 119 835 962 na
Union 26 561664 0.85 478170 6698 297 296 624 7915 71 60
Vermilion 46 751232 0.10 77283 263 0 13 13 289 2599 na
Vernon 40 850176 0.90 767517 4095 175 39 2 4311 197 178
W. Baton Rouge 113 122368 0.48 58788 472 0 578 16 1066 115 55
W. Carroll 34 230016 0.19 44517 219 0 0 9 228 1009 195
W. Feliciana 37 259840 0.63 162679 2105 74 540 67 2786 93 58
Washington 66 428544 0.70 301547 1685 22 24 5 1736 247 174
Webster 70 380928 0.75 286922 3222 0 0 430 3652 104 79
Winn 18 608320 0.90 546508 2853 0 158 261 3272 186 167
Totals 27764669 0.51 14221733 95718 2877 9349 8627 116571 238 122
1= http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html
2= USDA, Forest Inventory mapmaker, 2007
3= all lands through May 1, 2009
4= managed hunts only (SCD should have been reported by internet or phone)
5= coastal marsh and some prairie parishes exlcuded from this index. Some agriculture parishes may be biased high.
Appendix 2.
Rank Weight Live Weight Dressed Points Base Left Base Right Length Left Length Right Spread
1 248 193 10 8.00 8.00 20.50 18.50 16.00
2 240 187 8 6.00 5.50 21.00 20.50 18.00
3 190 148 10 5.13 4.88 23.14 23.63 16.63
4 219 171 11 5.25 5.50 22.50 19.75 15.75
5 175 137 11 4.75 4.75 23.50 24.25 17.00
6 203 158 11 5.00 4.88 22.00 22.50 17.00
7 223 174 10 6.00 5.00 20.00 19.50 14.25
8 225 176 10 4.75 5.75 19.50 20.00 15.50
9 205 160 8 4.88 4.63 22.25 23.25 16.00
10 190 148 11 4.75 4.25 22.75 24.25 16.75