Update on 10 Deer Conservation Units ("DCU's")

This was sent to me and I have not yet fully looked it over. However I did notice that it did show a map of the 10 DCU's. I don't know if this addresses some of the rumors of combining zones either? Maybe someone with some time can check this out?https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=95105&inline

Just my opinion and only a few thoughts:

Over all it sounds like a pretty good plan, especially in today's growing human population, but only general goals are outlined. The devil will be in the details as time goes on.

I can't copy and paste so I'll have to adlib.

It's a big challenge because of all the different land owners (private, Forest Service, BLM blah, blah, blah.)

The 44 hunt zones is where they will start but that is highly likely to change.

They are frustrated that they can't use doe hunting as a management tool. You can draw your own conclusions with that "rant"

It creates a (or there is one now?) Big Game Management Fund from hunting licenses, tags etc. All monies to be used for that purpose and transparent.

They do recognize hunters as their only source of income but also recognize other public input. I take this to mean we have to get involved and yell louder than anti-hunters, (IMO which may work and may not).

Beyond that, I'm holding my breath until I see specific regulations in print. It's not that I don't trust them, it's just that I don't trust anybody now days.

LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-16 AT 10:46AM (MST)[p]Eel...I agree with you on too fronts. #1 This looks good on the surface and #2. The devil is in the details. This particular part has me a bit concerned...

Quote: "Based on actions implementing the objectives in this Plan, the Department will focus on assessing existing DMU/deer hunt zone boundaries to determine
if similarities in habitat types, populations and other biological information warrant revising zone boundaries. Reducing the number of zones will allow data analyses that are more robust and generalizable at a large population scale."

This part falls directly inline with what I was told along time ago. In short...they were looking into combining zones and that, even the zones now managed for trophy quality were included and all zones were on the table. This was "because the hunter survey showed that most people indicated that they would prefer more opportunity over quality." He indicated that it was determined that the majority of hunter would prefer and increase in tags for the limited/trophy zones and that management for older age bucks by limiting tags/hunting pressure was no longer a priority.

LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-16 AT 10:49AM (MST)[p]I'm wondering how much if any of this is still in the mix. The Document is dated March 2015. A lot has changed within our F&W dept since this was written.

Doe hunts are useful when deer herds in areas are over, at, or near habitat carrying capacity. Other than what may be on some tracts of private property, I know of no such herd status in the Northern State, not on public land, nowhere.. Calif has it's own set of circumstances and what has worked in "other states" should not necessarily be applied here.

The history of deer numbers shown needs to go back and include the 70's. Then you will truly appreciate the major decline in our deer herds and get a better idea of the numbers of deer that could be here with, among other things, successful management.

I'm still wondering if there was any response to CDA about their "response letter" to some of these same F&W proposals or did that fall on deaf ears and closed minds?

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

They cannot do doe hunts because their past history shows they cannot manage game, so the public told them no more.

They are frustrated that they cannot manage does but are full of glee that they cannot manage lions, wolves and soon grizzlies.

They more than likely even introduced the wolves, or at least nursed them along, knowing they will never be able to manage them.

They cannot have it both ways but they do not comprehend this because they are activists and not game managers.

>They cannot do doe hunts because
>their past history shows they
>cannot manage game, so the
>public told them no more.
>
>
>They are frustrated that they cannot
>manage does but are full
>of glee that they cannot
>manage lions, wolves and soon
>grizzlies.
>
>They more than likely even introduced
>the wolves, or at least
>nursed them along, knowing they
>will never be able to
>manage them.
>
>They cannot have it both ways
>but they do not comprehend
>this because they are activists
>and not game managers.


Yup