3

Managing White-tails in louisianaVoluMe 2

June 2009, first editionPublished by Louisiana Department of Wildlife & FisheriesOffice of WildlifeWritten by Scott Durham, David Moreland and Emile LeBlanc

Cover art: Donald "Duck" Locascio

4 table of Contents

Contents

chapter 1 | Deer habitat, Management and growth and Development trends in louisiana - by Scott Durham 8

chapter 2 | breeding activity and Reproductive Characteristics of louisiana White-tails - by David Moreland 23

chapter 3 | Diseases and Parasites - by Emile LeBlanc 28

chapter 4 | harvest Management - by Scott Durham 32

chapter 5 | herd and habitat Monitoring - by Scott Durham 34

acknowledgements 6

introduction and background 7

bottomland hardwood 9upland hardwood 12swamp hardwood 13northwest Pine/hardwood 15historic longleaf 16southeast Mixed Pine/hardwood 17longleaf flatwoods 19Coastal Prairie 20Coastal Marsh 21

the Rut in general 23White-tail breeding biology 23breeding schedules of White-tails by hunting area 24hunting the Rut 26

hemorrhagic Disease; Cutaneous fibromas; nasal bots 28liver flukes; arterial Worms; other intestinal Parasites; external Parasites; Miscellaneous Viral and bacterial Diseases 29Chronic Wasting Disease; exotics and high fences 30hogs 31

life tables 34sighting indices 34Camera surveys 34browse surveys 34track/Pellet Counts 35Population Reconstruction 35harvest Data 35

5

chapter 6 | Deer Program and technical assistance - by Scott Durham 36

chapter 7 | trophy Deer in louisiana - by David Moreland 38

references 42appendix A 44appendix B 45appendix C 46appendix D 47wildlife regional offices 48

louisiana big game Records Program 38Where are the trophy Deer in louisiana? 38louisiana trophy Deer Records 38

This public document was published at a total cost of $17,021.33. 15,000 copies of this public document were published in the first printing at a cost of $17,021.33. This document was published by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA to provide sound information on Louisiana’s herds of white-tailed deer and to promote the best management possible of this native species. This material was printed in accordance with the standards for printing by state agen-cies established pursuant to R.S. 43:31. Printing of this material was purchased in accordance with the provisions of Title 43 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes.

louisiana DePaRtMent of WilDlife & fisheRies

P.O. Box 980002000 Quail Drive

Baton Rouge, LA 70898225-765-2800

Bobby Jindal, GovernorRobert J. Barham, Secretary

Janice Lansing, UndersecretaryRandy Pausina, Assistant Secretary

Jimmy Anthony, Assistant Secretary

Division ADministrAtorsKenneth Ribbeck, Wildlife

Gary Tilyou, Inland FisheriesKaren Foote, Marine Fisheries

Bob Love, Coastal & Nongame Resources

Winton Vidrine, Enforcement

WilDlife AnD fisheries Commission

Patrick C. MorrowStephen Sagrera

Earl P. KingFrederic Miller

Robert Samanie IIIStephen J. Oats

Ann Taylor

table of Contents

8

Louisiana has some of the most diverse landscapes and habitats in the nation. Because of this rich diversity, we are among the nation's leaders in wildlife resources. There are 10 deer physiographic regions defined in Louisiana (Table 1). Each is unique in soil and vegetation characteristics. Most are forested, but some are wetland grassland or agri-cultural based. Of the deer habitats in the state, about 26 percent are high, 24 percent are moderate and 50 percent are low in deer productivity. It is important to remember that deer habitats are always changing according to the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor (forest condi-tions), plant succession, moisture conditions, seasonal changes (temperatures, day length) and browsing pressure. Therefore, managers must realize that the carrying capac-ity for deer is always changing as well. Harvest manage-ment objectives should reflect these changes. A great deer may come from anywhere in the state. For example, in 2007, a new typical Boone and Crockett (170 B&C) buck was produced on pine dominant public land in Grant Parish, and another came from Natchitoches Parish. B&C deer have also been taken in Winn and Livingston parishes. But the majority of very large bucks (140+) are produced in the bottomlands or hardwood dominated areas associated with the alluvial soils of the Red River and Mississippi River basins. A realistic goal for hunters in moderate to high productivity areas with a good mast com-ponent is a buck scoring 125 net inches as measured by the B&C antler scoring system. For most people, this is a tro-phy deer. The Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute reported that in south Texas the average B&C score for 5 1/2+ bucks was 128. In the Mississippi Delta soil region, 5 1/2+ bucks average a gross B&C score of 136 (Demarais et. al., 2008). Louisiana delta deer have similar potential. In the following sections of this booklet, deer harvest data is presented for Louisiana Wildlife Managemet Areas (WMAs) and private lands enrolled in the Department’s Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP). These two sources of data provide some of the primary herd health data for making deer management decisions across the state. Although the format of this booklet lists and compares the data in the discussions that follow, the two land types and harvests may be very different due to pro-ductivity, soil quality, management history, and manage-ment potential. WMAs are managed for many game and non-game species, healthy forest regeneration, diverse plant communities and outdoor wildlife oriented recre-ation. Managing a large, remote, bottomland WMA for diverse public use and long-term forest sustainability has many challenges that a smaller, privately owned DMAP

ChaPteR 1 Deer habitat, Management and growth and Development trends in louisiana

tAble 1. Statewide deer habitat

ChaPteR 1

Habitat Type

Percent of State Habitat

Total Acres

DMAP Acres (2006)

WMA Acres (2006)

Produc-tivity

Bottomland Hardwood 25% 4,250,000 589,561 325,410 High

NW Pine/Hardwood 18% 3,060,000 139,964 137,091 Moderate

Historic Longleaf 17% 2,890,000 141,657 200,531 Low

Coastal Marsh 14% 2,380,000 182,927 127,300 Low

Coastal Prairie 8% 1,360,000 2,187 0 Low

Swamp Hardwood 6% 1,020,000 52,943 161,483 Low

SE Pine/Hardwood 5% 850,000 62,783 15,515 Moderate

Longleaf Flatwoods 5% 850,000 19,661 796 Low

Upland Hardwood 1% 170,000 46,528 13,307 High

Streambot-tom Hard-wood

1% 170,000 867 0 Moderate

Louisiana 100% 17,000,000 1,239,078 981,433

tract may not have to consider. The deer management objective on WMAs is to manage for long-term maximum sustained yield. Very often the residual herd may be lower than observed on some private lands where higher deer numbers are desired. However, this management style offers the highest harvest potential over time, promotes a balanced sex ratio, and keeps the herd in balance with the habitat, allowing LDWF to meet other species habitat requirements at the same time.

9

bottomlAnD hArDWooD

The bottomland hardwood physiographic region is one of the most productive in the state. It includes the Mississippi River and Red River alluvial valleys. Portions of Caddo, Bossier, Red River, Natchitoches, Rapides, Avoyelles, Point Coupee, West Baton Rouge, Concordia, Catahoula, Tensas, Franklin, Madison and East Carroll parishes are included in this physiographic zone. Of the 186 Pope and Young bucks taken in Louisiana, 62 percent have come from the bottom-land hardwoods. Of the 64 B&C bucks taken in Louisiana, 48 percent have come from the bottomland hardwoods.

importAnt plAnt speCies As in other habitats, diversity, quantity and quality are important. A deer browse plant such as a leather flower (Clematis sp.) may be found in 90 percent of the rumens sampled on a managed hunt (S. Durham, pers. obs.). Yet, the volume of forage that such a plant species may provide is likely fairly low because it is not a dominant plant across that landscape. However, this plant obviously is very important because deer are selecting it and eating what is available. It may provide a particular micro-nutrient (vitamin or mineral) that few other plants provide. Further research is needed in this area, and we hope to gain nutritional values for native plants that are currently unknown.

TReeS: Nuttal Oak Water Oak Willow Oak Overcup Oak Bitter Pecan Persimmon Honey Locust Sugarberry Elms Sweet Pecan SHRuBS/MiDSToRy TReeS: Arrow Wood Hawthorns Deciduous Holly Mulberry Elderberry Swamp Dogwood

WooDy VineS: Smilax spp. Rattan Vine Honey Suckle Trumpet Creeper Poison Ivy Pepper Vine Vitis spp. Dewberry

FoRBS: Eupatorium spp. Aster spp. Elephant's Foot Bog Hemp Sanicle Geum sp. Poke Salad

mAnAgement

Bottomland hardwood management could be considered one of the more challenging forested habitats to manage. Prescribed fire is not an option, and chemical herbicides are difficult to use because most of the ones that control invasives and undesirable plants also affect the plants that are to be maintained and regenerated. This means that herbicides often must be applied by hand, creating high labor costs. The moist soils normally associated with bottomland hardwoods are very conducive to growth of invasive species such as Chinese privet and tallow. Frequent or seasonal back-water flooding and poorly drained soils can impede forest management, regeneration and harvest prescriptions. Managing forested habitats for optimal deer production and development requires timber harvest occurring on a regu-basal spraying method of chemical application to target non-

desirable species.

logging operation part of an overall forest management plan.

group selection hardwood cut.

DeeR habitat, ManageMent anD gRoWth & DeVeloPMent tRenDs

23

the rut in generAl

Most deer hunters are familiar with the word "rut," and would define it as the time when bucks are chasing does for breeding purposes. Every year, numerous articles are pub-lished in the popular hunting magazines advising hunters about the rut, hunting the rut, when the rut will occur in their area, etc. Deer hunters know that this is probably the best time to be in the woods because the adult bucks with the larger racks are on the move in pursuit of does. The word "rut" is actually a broad term describing the breeding activity of deer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "an annually recurring condition or period of sexual excitement and reproductive activity in male deer." Some biologists will break the rut down into various phases such as pre-rut, primary rut, secondary rut and post rut. For a buck, the rut begins when its antlers become hardened. As testosterone levels increase, antler growth ceases, the velvet is shed, and the buck is ready for the does. However, based upon DNA research at Mississippi State University, it is the doe that controls the date for when breeding will occur. While a buck is ready to breed when the antlers harden, unless a doe is having an estrus cycle, there will be no breeding. Since the genetic make-up of the doe determines the actual breeding schedule (dates) of a deer herd, understanding breeding activity in Louisiana requires one to examine the history of deer restocking in the state. Hunters still talk about the Wisconsin "blue-bucks" released in the state. Restocking of Wisconsin deer occurred in the 1950s. Actually, most of the restocking effort in Louisiana involved deer that came from three locations in the state: the Red Dirt Game Preserve; the old Chicago Mills Game Management Area in Madison and Tensas parishes; and deer captured with the aid of air-boats from the marsh habitat on the Delta National Wildlife Refuge at the mouth of the Mississippi River. By the late 1960s, restocking efforts were completed and by 1973, most of the state was open for deer hunting. During the restocking period, biologists did not consider the breeding activity and schedule of the deer in their release methodology. Consequently, deer from several trapping sites were released within the same parish. This has resulted in some parishes having different breeding schedules (dates) in various areas within the parish. This first came to light in the 1966 breeding study by Roberson and Dennett. In their study, they examined the breeding activity of the herd on the Jackson-Bienville Game Management Area. This area was restocked with deer from Tensas Parish, and the calculated dates for Jackson-Bienville corresponded to those calculated for the deer in Tensas Parish. Moreland (1986, 1990, 1996) found this to be the case with two deer herds in East Feliciana Parish. The southeast

portion of this parish, east of LA 67 and south of LA 10, was stocked with deer from the Red Dirt Preserve. Breeding dates established for herds on Camp Avondale and in the Blairstown area correspond to the breeding dates established in 1966 for deer on Red Dirt. An area in the northwest portion of this par-ish, west of LA 67 and north of LA 10, was stocked with deer from the Delta Refuge in 1969. Breeding dates calculated for the deer on Beechgrove Plantation correspond with the breed-ing dates for the Delta Refuge in the 1966 study. Anderson (2001) and White (2002), along with special collections con-ducted by LDWF, identified similar situations in Bossier, Caldwell, LaSalle, Richland and Webster parishes. The breeding date schedule determined from these research studies in Louisiana has provided information for establishing hunting season dates. Seasons are set to corre-spond with breeding activity. Adult bucks are more active during the period of peak breeding. Since many hunters today are interested in quality deer management (QDM) and increasing the number of adult bucks on their property, sea-sons are set so that hunters can reap the benefits from their management efforts. Some states take a different approach with their hunting season schedule by not allowing gun hunt-ing during the peak breeding activity. This is another tech-nique for increasing the number of adult bucks in the popula-tion.

White-tAil breeDing biology

Breeding dates are established from fetal measurements. This technique was developed by Cheatum and Morton (1942 and 1946). Armstrong (1950) also developed an aging key for northern white-tails, while Hamilton (1985) developed an aging key for white-tails in the southeast. This work has served as the standard guide for reproductive studies con-ducted in the southeastern states. The 1966 Louisiana study used the aging key of Armstrong. The work done in East Feliciana Parish in the early 1980s utilized the Armstrong key along with studies conducted in Mississippi by Noble (1974) and Jacobson (1979). Studies since that time have used the fetal scale key developed by Hamilton. Both aging keys appear to produce similar results, although some variation in breeding dates is likely. Peak breeding dates established Nov. 1-15 for the 1966 Red Dirt deer herd study, Nov. 6-26 for the 1983 Camp Avondale study and Nov. 8-21 for the 2000-2001 Red Dirt/Blue Tick Hunting Club study in north Bossier Parish. Breeding studies require the collection of pregnant does. This is usually accomplished by special collections that also examine other herd health conditions such as kidney fat, blood parameters, internal and external parasites and browse species consumption, along with testing for several specific

ChaPteR 2 breeding activity and Reproductive

Characteristics of louisiana White-tails

bReeDing aCtiVity & RePRoDuCtiVe ChaRaCteRistiCs

24

diseases. Road-kill animals, along with deer killed by other natural mortality, are good candidates to examine as well. It is usually best to target does that are two to four months preg-nant. Female reproductive tracts are collected, and the embry-os or fetuses are removed from the uterus. The fetuses are measured on a fetal scale. The age of the fetus (number of days old) is then backdated from the harvest date to obtain the breeding date. Ovaries are examined to determine if corpora lutea are present in the evacuated egg follicles. A corpus luteum is a yellowish colored body that develops in the follicle following ovulation. Corpora lutea aid in the production of hormones and this helps maintain the pregnancy. If fertilization does not occur, the corpus luteum will begin to disintegrate and the doe's body begins preparing for the next estrus period. When the corpus luteum degenerates after the doe gives birth, a reddish-brown pigmented scar remains on the ovary at this site and is known as a corpora albicantia. The corpora albi-cantia is very prominent after fawning and remains distinct up until the onset of estrus at the next breeding season. A count of the number of corpora albicantia in the ovaries prior to the current season ovulation can provide information about the past years' breeding success. Examination of female reproductive tracts during the entire deer season provides information about the breeding activity of a particular herd. Prior to ovulation, ovaries will appear normal, with some large follicles having a clear gel substance. Once ovulation occurs, a rupture site will be visi-ble on the outside of the ovary. This rupture site is where the egg was ejected from the follicle. The corpora lutea then develop in these follicles, which would indicate to the biolo-gist that a doe had cycled. This observation does not provide any insight as to whether the doe had been bred. It takes sev-eral weeks for the embryo to become implanted and visible in the uterus. This is why it is best to wait a couple of months after the end of the deer season to examine does. Ovary examination does provide an estimate for ovulation dates, and these dates should correspond somewhat to the actual breed-ing dates established from fetal measurements. The gestation period for a white-tailed deer is about 200 days (seven months). Most hunters have observed bucks following closely behind does. Bucks begin to sense when a doe is approaching estrus and will usually follow her and stay with her for a short time prior to actual breeding. Such chases can be intense and may often include several bucks. For the hunter, this can be an exciting time. The actual time that a doe is receptive is about 24 hours. If a doe is not successfully bred, another estrus cycle occurs 28 days later. It is generally best to have does bred during the first estrus cycle. Does bred during the second and third estrus cycles will give birth to fawns later in the summer. This cre-ates growth and development problems for the deer herd, especially on marginal or poor habitat sites. Hunters benefit from these studies by knowing when breeding occurs in their area and can adjust their hunting schedule to include this time period. These studies also pro-vide insight into the health of the deer herd. Productivity is

best in herds on habitat with good nutrition and where the herd is kept in balance with this available habitat. Productivity, as well as animal growth and development, will be poor in those herds that are over-populated or occupying poor habitat. Poor productivity includes factors such as low fawn produc-tion of adult does and poor fawn survival.

breeDing sCheDule of White-tAils by hunting AreA

AReA 1 In 1980, Area 1 comprised all the parishes bordering the Mississippi River from Madison Parish southward to Plaquemines Parish and included the parishes in the Atchafalaya Basin. The area of southeast Louisiana referred to as the Florida Parishes were grouped together as Area 4 (excluding West Feliciana Parish) and St. Bernard Parish was listed as Area 7. The Area 4 designation and the early deer season for this area may have been based upon the idea that this habitat was similar to that of Area 2 (pine/hardwood). Studies in East Feliciana, Tangipahoa and Washington parishes have estab-lished a much later breeding schedule than that of Area 2. Area 1 today consists of the parishes along the Mississippi River from Madison Parish southward to Baton Rouge and includes that area north of I-12 from Baton Rouge eastward to the Pearl River at the Mississippi state line. The parishes in

ChaPteR 2

examination of ovaries reveals information about breeding activity. An ovary with a corpus luteum.

An ovary with corpora albicantia

(reddish brown scar) from the

past fawning season.

34

There are many ways a hunter or deer manager can gather information to determine appropriate harvest rates as he gains experience and becomes more familiar with the habitat and the deer herd. Any manager or group of hunters can keep basic data with minimal expense. The more tools that you use, the better the information you will have to make management decisions.

life tAbles

These are relatively simple tables (Appendix C) derived from harvest data over a period of years. They provide a minimum population and/or recruitment estimate. Data required includes ages (pulling jaw bones) for all female deer taken over a period of years. Each year after the ages are esti-mated, the number of females born in a particular year (age cohort) are inserted into the appropriate column (an Excel spread sheet works well for this). After a number of years, the known minimum crop of female fawns born can be added, and an average can be calculated across a number of years. It then can be assumed that this represents 50 percent of recruit-ment, as in a normal deer herd on good habitat, males and females are born at 1-to-1 ratio. If you are averaging a mini-mum of 35 fawns recruited per year with no apparent reduc-tion in your residual herd, you may assume that you are har-vesting no more than one-third of the herd (remember the 25-40 percent potential annual recruitment). Therefore you may estimate a deer population of more than 100 deer. By observing the mean recruitment over a number of years, a manager can determine the productivity of the habitat and use this information on other tracts of similar quality. The weak-ness in this technique is obvious. The more deer you harvest, the higher your population appears to be. It takes a number of years to harvest an entire cohort of females available, and thus provide the minimum estimate for that year's reproduc-tion. This tool should be used along with other indices to understand deer population levels on a particular tract.

sightings inDiCes

Although this technique (Appendix D) will not produce a population estimate, it will provide one of the simplest and easiest ways to index deer numbers. By recording deer sight-ings, a manager or hunter can determine the number of deer observed per hour, an index to population density. For exam-ple, on well managed mixed pine hardwood habitat, hunting a woods stand in the forest interior, an index of greater than one deer per hour may indicate populations that are too high (S. Durham, pers. obs.). The doe to buck and doe to fawn ratios can also be estimated. If a manager consistently observes doe to buck ratios of more than about 3-to-1, he should consider reducing the female segment of the herd. Recent Texas research has shown that on average, most suc-

cessful bucks (those that bred at least one doe that had a fawn) breed only about three does per season (Sumners et. al., 2007). This research illustrates the importance in maintaining a balanced sex ratio in a deer herd. Again, observe three-year running averages and trends. These data points are very important and, along with herd health data and habitat moni-toring, all you need to make simple harvest management deci-sions.

CAmerA surveys

This technique was developed at Mississippi State University (Demarais et. al., 2000) and is basically a sightings index where a camera does all the work. It is probably the best tool we have for the regular hunter to provide a reasonable deer population estimate. The Deer Program performs several of these each year now in various parts of the state, and so far, there is a good correlation between the camera estimates and the results of the browse and habitat surveys we do. The cam-era surveys have supported the harvest recommendations that LDWF has historically made and continue to make on DMAP lands or other tracts where technical assistance has been requested.

broWse surveys

LDWF has long been a proponent of doing regular browse surveys to monitor deer numbers and browsing pres-sure on native habitats. Moreland (2005) described the tech-nique in detail. With practice and dedication, any focused manager or hunter can learn the indicator plants that tell the story of what is happening on the landscape. Learning as few as 25 woody plants can give the manager the tool to under-stand what kind of pressure is being put on the native plant community. This is perhaps the most critical and important

ChaPteR 5 herd and habitat Monitoring

lDWf Acadian region manager performing a transect survey, an important technique for habitat monitoring.

ChaPteR 5

35

tool that a manger can use to make habitat and harvest man-agement decisions. It takes practice and dedication of a cer-tain amount of time. Anytime a hunter or manager is out in the woods scouting, doing stand work, cruising timber or just looking around, he should be aware of what is going on around him (Richard McMullen, pers. comm.). A must for advanced white-tailed deer management is to understand browse availability, quality and utilization. Technical assis-tance through the Deer Program is available to land managers to learn and understand browse and habitat work.

trACk/pellet Counts

Another good technique that can be done to monitor the habitat and/or deer density, is to walk a series of transects through the woods. All that is needed is a compass, a four-foot stick that can be punched into the ground at a center point, and a piece of small rope. At regular intervals deter-mined by pacing off a number of steps, a count of deer pellet groups is performed within a certain radius (Eberhardt and Van Etten, 1956). The surveyor could also document the plant species availability and browsing within the plot to perform a combination habitat evaluation and deer density index. This technique could be performed once a year prior to the hunting season to monitor trends, or could even be done before and after the season to compare the results after a number of deer have been harvested. Track counts can be performed in areas where tracks can be easily observed, such as fire lanes, food plots or roads. Simply count the tracks once a year in the same area or in a given length of fire lane as a sample. Do it at the same time each year to monitor trends.

populAtion reConstruCtion

Many states estimate minimum deer populations at coun-ty, regional or state levels. Population reconstruction methods (Downing, 1980) use harvest data taken from managed hunts or mandatory deer check stations where deer data is collected and ages are estimated. The age and sex of each animal is needed to place it in a "cohort." Mortality and survival rates are determined based on the numbers of deer that remain within each cohort through successive years. Assumptions concerning natural mortality, recruitment, immigration and emigration are model variables that affect the accuracy of the population estimate. Chart 1 shows a 10-year population model from 1997-2006 based on a sample of 1.2 million acres of consistent DMAP club harvest data and extrapolated for the 17 million acres of deer habitat across the state. The 10-year average is just over 700,000 deer for the state of Louisiana. It is impor-tant to remember that these are minimum population esti-mates based on harvest data. It is interesting that the average harvest estimate from the annual mail surveys during the same period is about 230,000 deer or roughly about 33 per-cent of the population estimate for the same 10-year period. This indicates a stable population. Chart 1 shows a popula-tion peak of 821,933 in 1999 and a relatively flat line in

recent years with a population estimate around 600,000 (one deer per 28 acres statewide). Harvest estimates in recent years have been around 200,000 deer. This shows that there are plenty of deer in the state, and that they need to be managed according to habitat quantity and quality, which are changing all the time according to land use patterns of development, agricultural trends and forest management practices.

hArvest DAtA

The physical conditions of deer taken during the season are important indices to deer herd health. Serious deer hunt-ers/managers will pull a jaw bone to age the deer, take accu-rate antler measurements, check does for lactation and weigh each deer. The physical condition of the deer herd is an indi-rect measurement of habitat quality and deer density. Average weights, main beam lengths, number of points, percent lacta-tion and age structure are fundamental data that a manager needs to make decisions about future harvests and habitat management. These indices (10-year means) have been pre-sented in Chapter 1. They can give managers base line stan-dards to compare with their deer in the respective deer phys-iographic regions. Deer data can fluctuate substantially as environmental conditions and habitat quality changes, and the manager needs to remember the many variables that affect deer quality. Growing season conditions (temperature, rain-fall, soil moisture), mast crops, insect populations, disease incidence, deer density, sex ratios, age structure, agricultural influence and many other variables affect deer quality within soil regions.

taking antler measurements, weighing, ageing, and checking for lactation are basic deer harvest data that must be kept for managing deer herds.

ChArt 1.

louisiana minimum deer population estimates based on consistent DmAp harvest data, 1997-2006.

heRD anD habitat MonitoRing

48

bAton rouge AnD regionAl offiCes

- Technical assistance questions (phone and email).- Phone interviews.

LDWF TeCHniCAL ASSiSTAnCe ConTACTS:Website: www.wlf.louisiana.gov

Region 1: 1401 Talton, Minden, LA 71055 318-371-3050

Region 2: 368 Century Tel Dr., Monroe, LA 71203 318-343-4044

Region 3: 1995 Shreveport Hwy., Pineville, LA 71360 318-487-5885

Region 4: 261 Wildlife and Fisheries Rd., 318-757-4571Ferriday, LA 71334-1640

Region 5: 1213 North Lakeshore Dr., 337-491-2575Lake Charles, LA 70601

Region 6: 5652 Hwy. 182, Opelousas, LA 70507 337-948-0255

Region 7: 2000 Quail Dr., Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000 225-765-2360

Deer Program: 2000 Quail Dr., Baton Rouge, LA 70898 225-765-2351 & 225-765-2344

Forest Stewardship Program: 2000 Quail Dr., 225-765-2354Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000

AppenDix e.