CALIFORNIA DEER HERDS

[YukonDall]

THIS IS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION THAT I RAN BY MY LOCAL FISH & GAME OFFICE A COUPLE MONTHS BACK. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A GOOD STARTING POINT TO ME:

ISSUE A 2 YEAR DEER TAG, TAKE ONE BUCK IN A 2 YEAR PERIOD. TROPHY HUNT IF YOU LIKE OR SHOOT A MEAT BUCK..... YOUR CHOICE, HUNT BOTH YEARS. ENJOY THE HUNTING EXPERIENCE....SUN UPS,SUNSETS..... CAMPING WITH FRIENDS, THE CAMP FIRE, PLANNING, & THE ANTICIPATION OF THE HUNTING YEAR. REVENUE DOLLARS DONT CHANGE MUCH (2 TEAR TAG= TWICE THE MONEY).....HALF OF THE BREEDING BUCKS LIVE TO DO THEIR THING. (IF NEED BE...A 3 YEAR TAG). THIS WAY EVERYONE STILL HUNTS EVERY YEAR, AND THEY DO NOT MISS A HUNTING EXPERIENCE. F&G PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE LOGISTICS......BUT OUR DEER HERDS ARE WORTH IT....AND NOTHING ELSE IS WORKING...................YD. (YOUR THOUGHTS).

 

[BOHNTR]

Why not just change the current regulation of two deer a year to just one?

BOHNTR )))---------->

 

[YukonDall]

LAST EDITED ON May-01-10 AT 07:16AM (MST)[p]
WITH THE HERDS BEING IN THE DISMAL CONDITION THERE IN..... BUCK KILL NEEDS TO BE REDUCED DRASTICALLY. NOT MANY PEOPLE KILL 2 BUCKS A YEAR, TO ME ITS NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TAGS A HUNTER CAN HAVE......ITS ABOUT REDUCING BUCK HARVEST. THINK ABOUT THE QUALITY/ TROPHY TYPE OF HUNTING THAT COULD BE RESTORED TO CALIFORNIA IF WE STOPPED SHOOTING PISSCUTTERS/LESS BUCKS FOR A 3-4 YEAR PERIOD. NOTHING ELSE IS WORKING.....WE MIGHT HAVE TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT THIS & NOT WATER THIS HERD ISSUE DOWN.......YD.

 

[Jazz]

How about just shut it down completely for 2 years! Require everyone to buy the license and pay a tag fee and if they don't they aren't eligible in year three. In the meantime start using dogs to chase cats and improve the food quality with a few burns!

 

[BOHNTR]

Well, you might be surprised on how many fill both tags. (I've filled both my tags each year for the last 20 or so....and that's with a bow)

Additionally, I think the idea of having a "one deer every two years" type tag is problematic in itself. How do you regulate it? With the amount of funded wardens currently in the field, you'd be hard pressed to ensure people were not exceeding their bi-annual take.

How would we issue the tags to ensure that not all of the tags are filled in any one given year? I won't even estimate the cost of the software program needed to keep track of who is/isn't eligible.

Here's another thing to ponder: How does the state actually know how many deer are being taken in each respective zone currently? The harvest reporting is supposedly mandatory, but there is no way to enforce it. Currently, if you fill your deer tag, you have to mail the correct portion of the tag back to DFG. How many people actually do this? I can tell you not very many. I would like to see them change it to the way a bear tag is issued/returned. If you are successful, mail the correct portion back......if you're unsuccessful mail the entire tag back. If you fail to do either, you can not receive a tag the following year.

I agree with you YD, we can restore certain deer herds in CA by simply reducing the demand and increasing the supply. However, the easiest way to achieve this is to drastically reduce the amount of tags issued for the respective zone where overall herd objectives are below carrying capacity.....in other words reduce the amount of animals taken in any given year.

Just another perspective I guess.

BOHNTR )))---------->

 

[YukonDall]

BOHNTR...
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE HUNTERS WHO CHEAT.....THE VAST MAJORITY WILL NOT CHEAT. I LEAVE THE LOGISTICS TO THE FISH & GAME PEOPLE, THEY GET PAID FOR THAT. YOU ARE AVID ENUFF TO TAKE 2 DEER A YEAR, THE VAST MAJORITY DO NOT AVERAGE ONE DEER A YEAR WITH A RIFLE. THE KILL % WHERE I LIVE USED TO BE A WEAK 10% KILL, IT IS NOW 3.9% KILL RATE WITH A RIFLE. I WAS ON THE G-3 HUNT 2 YEARS AGO, AND WAS EVEN BUMMED OUT WITH WHAT IS NOW THE QUALITY OF THAT "PREMIUM" HUNT. NOTHING ELSE THE F&G PEOPLE ARE DOING IS WORKING.....EVEN X5B IN TANKING .......THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT/ I KNOW YOU DO CARE............YD.

 

[cowboy57]

YD,how about shorting the season,to a 10 day hunt late oct through nov. 3 point or better in all d zones for 5 years,and start start a meat hunt for does.cowboy57

 

[HunterHarry]

YD,
with all due respect, your proposal might have validity on warped out heavily hunted public land, but many tracts of private ground here in Cali have flourishing deer herds that have been properly managed for decades.
On good private ground 2 bucks a year is a chip shot and has no effect on the quality of up and coming bucks.
Using a blanket type management plan for the entire state is the wrong approach in my opinion.
Each segment of habitat should be examined and managed separately.
Look at the size of A zone for example.
It could be broken into several management zones.
California likes to raise a bunch of revenue by selling that second tag, they then send you out to hunt during the 100 degree days of summer when it is the most difficult to find deer so the huge number of tags won't completely wipe out the herds while still collecting all of the tag money.
Mountain lions, coyotes and poaching by Mexicans remain a huge problem here.
A friend of mine hunts on a mountain above some large vineyards.
A large percentage of the bucks he shoots have .22 slugs in them.
Any ideas as t where those come from?
Overall, California simply has too many people.
You can only spread the resources so far.
I suggest keeping a second tag option open for private property.
HH

 

[HunterHarry]

If the overall deer population is so low, I somehow doubt that a doe hunt is the solution.
HH

 

[mtnview]

Calif is in the business of managing people, when they should be managing the deer herds. The CA deer program identifies the biologist first task as "Biologists develop hunting regulations,.." No where I have I read a comprehensive management plan with specific goals and objectives to do SOMETHING. It is unfortunate that real science may not ever be particularly relevant in CA again when it comes to wildlife management. If I am wrong on this, someone please get me pointed in the right direction...

One of four paragraphs outlining DFG's deer management....

The Deer Management Program is composed of branch and field biologists who work together coordinating programs throughout the state. The Deer Management Program, its activities, and staff are largely supported by hunters through the purchase of hunting licenses and deer tags. Biologists develop hunting regulations, provide expertise on habitat and population assessments, compile harvest information, conduct and direct research needs, monitor and estimate populations and respond to various public inquiries related to deer in California. Biologists also work to coordinate joint projects with outside agencies, universities and private entities.

I ain't the brightest fella out here, but setting regulations, counting deer, and waiting to be asked my humble scientific opinion is not management IMO.

 

[brownie]

Mtnview, yes the DFG is in the business of managing people. But I don't think it was intended that way. Go attend a Fish and Game Commission Meeting, it'll open your eyes. The hunting and fishing in this state is pure politics. I truly believe that the biologists in the deer program, know, and want to do whats right to get our herds back in shape. The most extensive deer study, on the Round Valley Herd provided lots of reasons for the low deer numbers. The number one problem was predation on newborn fawns by coyotes, bears, and lastly lions. But do you think we can trap the coyotes, no, steel jaw traps were banned by the greenies. The department this year wanted to increase the bear harvest from 1700 to 2500, but no, the greenies filed suit to stop the increase. And we all know about the protected mountain lion. When the public was going to vote on the bill to ban all hunting on the lion, the director of the DFG was told by the governer that when asked if the lions were a problem his employees were to remain neutral on the issue. They could not tell the public the truth, that the lions were a problem. Heck at that same time the DFG had 31 lions collared on the winter range in Round Valley! But they couldn't let the public know that those lions were going to kill a deer a week, thats 31 deer a week. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out where the deer went. If the DFG was run by sound practices, without having there hands tied. And politics had nothing to do with policy,we could have our deer back. But I think that is just a dream here in good old Cali.
As far as the two deer tag deal, I think it stinks that you can draw an X zone, then re apply for an archery only tag in some of those same X zones or rifle tag in the D zones. Don't think its a problem with the A zone, but I don't know much about them anyways.
The one thing we have to do as deer hunters in this state,is stick together, because the greenies are out to stop us at all cost, Thanks, Brownie.

 

[RACKMASTER]

how about Ca adopting AZ law about asking if your a legal or a illegal alien to all hunters in the state legal ok go kill bambi if arrest them beat them then ship their butts back to mecico or china...

rackmaster

 

[Califelkslayer]

Damn RACK, I like it BUT in this state we are already the minority so I'm thinking the law will be if you are a legal citizen and they catch you deer huntin, they'll beat us, throw us on a ship to where our ancestors came from.

 

[sageadvice]

Brownie said,
"When the public was going to vote on the bill to ban all hunting on the lion, the director of the DFG was told by the Governor that when asked if the lions were a problem his employees were to remain neutral on the issue. They could not tell the public the truth, that the lions were a problem."


I found this interesting and they are still pretty much keeping with this policy. At meetings that i have attended, the F&G biologists wanted to blame everything else other than predators as the reasons for the declines. When someone in the room would mention Mt Lions, they would react as if offended or a blatant pointed use of the "F" word had been used. For some reason, the fear of blaming predators or even acknowledging that they are a major factor, is not a concept that they care to discuss. That's a major case of deception and them burying their head in the sands if ever there was one!

Joey

 

[cowboy57]

HH i hunt d7 alot i see alot of small bucks in the area i hunt,but i see a hell of lot more does,maybe 70 to 80 to one.tony

 

[Ant]

Interesting post. I think better management is needed also. But I think that the major problem is encroachment into the national forest, and other areas that are traditionally wildlife habitat. I understand that these lands are supposed to be protected. California has so much urban sprawl. Major problem that has not been mentioned in this post. Why do I see so many new homes when I drive a mountain road. As for those who want to blame the Mexicans. I am of Mexican and Spanish ancestry. Born and raised in southern Cali. I don't think it is any one group of brown skinned people that are the problem. Most of those new homes in the mountains are owned by Caucasians. Just finished reading an interesting post in the Mule Deed forum, about a family of Caucasian poachers. Yeah I know that was in Utah. Seems to me that race has little to do with these issues. So let's focus on the problem with the Deer herd.

 

[BomberBlackies]

Ant, maybe in Los Angeles you have the encroachment problem, but in Northern Kalifornicated (where the majority of the deer reside) there is basically very little encroachment. The biggest problem is predation and poaching by fuggin mexican cartel dope growers. So, as you see, we do have a problem with illegals poaching and trashing our forest lands. Our National Forest and BLM land are not safe from May thru the middle of OCT. Nearly every year round creek has a plantation growing in it. Just curious, where do you hunt deer living in so-cal? thanks

 

[YukonDall]

WELL......I WAS WARNED BY A COUPLE MANAGEMENT FELLAS THAT THIS SUBJECT ALWAYS GET SLICED & DICED INTO MANY REASONS AS TO WHY OUR HERDS HAVE PROBLEMS. IN ADDITION SMALL SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS OF ALL KINDS MUDDY UP THE ISSUE, & THIS IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT IS HAPPENING IN UTAH WITH SFW. YES... IT IS A LARGE ISSUE THAT WILL COST $$$$$$ TO FIX......THEREFOR I DONT SEE IT GETTING ANY BETTER ANYTIME SOON...........YD.

 

[Mallards_Only]

> Mtnview, yes the DFG is
>in the business of managing
>people. But I don't think
>it was intended that way.
>Go attend a Fish and
>Game Commission Meeting, it'll open
>your eyes. The hunting and
>fishing in this state is
>pure politics. I truly believe
>that the biologists in the
>deer program, know, and want
>to do whats right to
>get our herds back in
>shape. The most extensive deer
>study, on the Round Valley
>Herd provided lots of reasons
>for the low deer numbers.
>The number one problem was
>predation on newborn fawns by
>coyotes, bears, and lastly lions.
>But do you think we
>can trap the coyotes, no,
>steel jaw traps were banned
>by the greenies. The department
>this year wanted to increase
>the bear harvest from 1700
>to 2500, but no, the
>greenies filed suit to stop
>the increase. And we all
>know about the protected mountain
>lion. When the public was
>going to vote on the
>bill to ban all hunting
>on the lion, the director
>of the DFG was told
>by the governer that when
>asked if the lions were
>a problem his employees were
>to remain neutral on the
>issue. They could not tell
>the public the truth, that
>the lions were a problem.
>Heck at that same time
>the DFG had 31 lions
>collared on the winter range
>in Round Valley! But they
>couldn't let the public know
>that those lions were going
>to kill a deer a
>week, thats 31 deer a
>week. Doesn't take a brain
>surgeon to figure out where
>the deer went. If the
>DFG was run by sound
>practices, without having there hands
>tied. And politics had nothing
>to do with policy,we could
>have our deer back. But
>I think that is just
>a dream here in good
>old Cali.
> As far as the two
>deer tag deal, I think
>it stinks that you can
>draw an X zone, then
>re apply for an archery
>only tag in some of
>those same X zones or
>rifle tag in the D
>zones. Don't think its a
>problem with the A zone,
>but I don't know much
>about them anyways.
> The one thing we have
>to do as deer hunters
>in this state,is stick together,
>because the greenies are out
>to stop us at all
>cost, Thanks, Brownie.


Ding, Ding, Ding!!! We have a winner!!
Game populations are on the decline in CA because it's a game of politics and fund-raising, rather than sound game management. Anyone who thinks the F&G Commission has sound game management at heart needs to pull their head out of the sand. Take a look at the members of the commission and it's plain to see why the decisions made are anything but good for game management.

 

[tuleelk]

As a Fish and Game employee no one has ever told me to be quiet about Mountain Lions. That being said we are not allowed to comment publically on legislation (at least that is my understanding). My opinion is the problem is not mountain lions (as a whole). There are many factors which make up healthy deer habitat, winter range, summer range, fawning areas, weather, predations, etc. People are quick to throw out mountain lion kill numbers but you must look at those numbers with an open mind. Here is a quick scenario with numbes I made up to give you an idea.

If you have 400,000 deer and lions kill 150,000 a year (rough estimate made up by me). After one year you have 250,000 deer (ok deer have babies each year, so roughly 3/4 of the deer are does that have fawns, (guess on my part) average 1.5 fawns per doe (this number is probably higher than normal - less probably get past the first couple months) so you have 187,500 deer to have 1.5 fawns now you have 343,750 (does, fawns, & non breeders) deer after one year. Now you take away lion kill 150,000 deer so you have 193,750 deer. 75% of these are does that have fawns (145,313) each one has 1.5 fawns that survive so you have 266,407 deer after year two. Take away lion kill (150,000) and you have ... Granted this is very crude on the numbers but hopefully it made the point that either they are not that many lions out there or the lions are not killing as many deer as is being thrown around. These are not real numbers but total estimates and assumptions. This assumes that lions are the only cause of mortality and that 75% of the deer are does that have fawns (so take away young deer, bucks, and old deer). There is much more mortality than just lions, hunting, coyotes, old age, vehicles, winter kill, poaching, etc. You can see that it would only take a few years at that level of kills to end up with zero deer. Lion kills go up when deer increase and down when deer decrease (generally). One other thing to consider on predator kills is that some times although the predator got the deer it may be linked to other factors. If deer are weak due to poor feed they are going to be more vulnerable to predation. So the coyote or lion kills the deer but the actual cause was lack of quality food. Same train of thought to when you concentrate deer due to shinking winter range, now they are more concentrated for predators. Lack of good fawning cover = more vulnerable to predators. You must be cautious in assumptions.
These are just imaginary numbers and BIG assumptions on my part, but you need to be careful when throwing out the amount of deer killed by lions each year because if you start to add it up we would be left without any deer in a short order of time. Lions do kill deer and they kill quite a few of them that is not in question.
Every area is different as well. The study in Owens Valley showed lion populations fluctuate with deer numbers (again trying to remember off the top of my head). I think some areas for a part of the year lions are killing a deer a week but other areas probably not. Again, these are quick numbers off the top of my head based NOT in reality.
Lack of fire is huge in my mind, even with the recent fires the overall percent of areas burned is somewhat small. In some instances these super hot fires are not helping but burning down to mineral soil. Juniper encroachment and cheat grass, the closing in of our Forests with nearly 100% canopy closure is huge and highly underestimated. Look at old forest pictures there were a few large trees with lots of open areas, shrubs and grasses. Now it is complete closed canopy forest in vast areas.
Just my thoughts.

Joe

 

[need4x4]

Joe, that last paragraph said it all.

This leads to very low deer numbers, bad cycle of fire and overgrown brush.

Once this is in place, the cycle is very difficult to change. Put on top of that an un-checked lion population, because they can continue to live off dogs and cats in my opinion. You now have a deer heard that has no chance.

My comments are covering the marginal habitate that exists in the southern part of the state.

If I was the king (and I am not), my first move would be an agressive burning program. A by-product would be it would lessen the huge fires that seem to happen each year.

 

[chap_dog48]

OK, here is my thought but I'm just your "Average Joe Hunter" and here is my stance on many of the posts and comments.
First, I like the fact that the season is as long as it is. I am only able to hunt on the weekends so in a 4+ week season I get about 10 days in the field. I work as a teacher and the way that the education system is if you take off 3 days in a row you better have a medical note "yeah I know you can cheat and get one but not what I am about" and you only get 2 NQA days if you really have to take off. Many other hunters have jobs that they can ask for time off or schedule a week in September a week in October a week in November and go hunt, I can't. Being able to hunt with two tags lets me hunt about 20 days a year for deer assuming I don't tag out. Now some of those days get cut due to kids? events like sports or other things that come up but the potential to get into the field for 20 days is what deer hunting is all about. My out of state hunting will come in 22 years when I retire, yea ha!
If they only gave one tag then the rifle guys take the brunt of the limited hunting opportunities. You get the General season of 4+ weeks and that is it. Some guys like to try different areas that don't have over lapping seasons. For the AO tag holders they still get all those days to hunt starting from Early July to December and you can hunt all the A, B, and D zone seasons. I know ?bowhunting is harder? but, you still like getting out and chasing deer as many days as you can, Right? For those guys that get to hunt out of state you are lucky, I can't, so my ?out of state hunt? is really an ?out of area hunt? and it is just another D zone with the great odds of 8%. We have about 7 guys that hunt with us and they all get 2 tags. The best year we took 7 deer. The worst year we got 1. So you take just those two years and that is 8 deer out of 28 tags. On average we get 4 deer so 14% for our group over a 5 year period isn't bad but it's not awesome. Remember that our success is due to time scouting and working our asses off. I enjoy years we get deer and I enjoy the years we don't, I just like getting out in the woods to hunt.
Other points, Yes the predators are a problem! I can remember being 8 years old hiking a ridge with a bb gun and also when I was 12 year old with my rifle hiking down ridges with no worry of Mt. Lions, never saw tracks or sightings. Now I would not let my son go on his own and that is due to the fact that my Dad and I have been stalked several times by lions and we see way too many tracks now. The Mt. Lion Foundation is a joke and the people of California got duped by them and we even continue to set aside California tax payer money to the foundation every year even in this financial crisis that we are in. They are a very powerful group with all that money.
So to conclude, I am sure many of you will say get a new job so you can hunt more but I work in a field I went to school for. Yes, this will sound clich?, but ?who will teach your kids.? I infuse conservation, hunting, and outdoor topics into my lecture so the next generation student know that the hunting heritage and outdoor heritage still has a place in America. Most of the teacher in the public school systems are left wing liberals and show Bambi over and over and sing ?Cumby Ah.? That is not me I do what I am supposed to do and that is get the standards across to students and give them real life lessons they can use. I even started an Outdoor Club on our campus to expose students to Outdoor Activities. I like what I do and make good money doing it.
I like the 2 tags now and the season length. I think looking at predators and people as the main problems. Look at wintering ranges, illegal hunting, pot growers, predators, and politicians as the #1 problem. Remember as soon as you take something away it is very hard to get it back.
We as hunters need to stay focus on what we like to do and not cause divisions among us, which is what the far left wants so they can chip away at the regulations one at a time. First it will be limited tags, then limited guns, then bows, then hunting as we know it. I like to hunt and fish and hope to do for the rest of my life.
Kurt

Kurt-www.shootitimages.com

 

[brownie]

Hey, Tuleelk, I didn't say that the lions were the problem. I said that the coyotes and bears were eating the newborn fawns in the backcountry. The lion problem was between fifteen and twenty years ago, about the same time as the Round Valley Deer herd study was started. At that time the DFG had 31 lions collared in Round Valley. The deer herd numbered 6000, about 2 years later it was less than 1000. The story was it was all the developement at Mammoth Lakes, or poor feed that was the problem. Couldn't have been 31 lions living in a fish bowl like Round Valley!
After the lions ate the deer, then ate each other, the deer herd was floundering. The numbers were so low that it took ten years for them to come up to todays numbers. But they can't seem to get over that hump. The coyotes and bears have been the problem lately. The deer that cross over the Sierra Crest in the summer to have their fawns, come back emty or with one fawn. The deer that stay on the East Side, come back to the winter range with twin fawns. The DFG just completed the study last year, that was their findings after eighteen years of study.
Now that the have the findings , their hands are tied to do anything about it. I truly beleive that the deer program biologists, want to do the right thing but in this state, POLITICS is king. Not trying to pick on anyone, just trying to let people know what happened to our deer.

Thanks Brownie.

P.S. The deer that stay on the east side have both their fawns because the coyotes were afraid of the golfers on the courses in Mammoth.

 

[Ant]

I hunt D11, D13, and soutern A zone. You can D13 and D11 with the same tag. I don't poach. Haven't had the oppurtunity to hunt much the last couple of years, have had a hard time findin work. Finally got a good job. When I do get the chance I hunt hard and don't kill monsters but I do pretty well. I have visited northern cali before Santa Rosa, San Ramon, San Francisco, Concord, Sacramento, even in Tahoe there has been a lot of growth. So I think you are underestimating the effect of Sprawl. I also, know that there is illegal activity up there. The laws are pretty lenient up there when it comes to growin. If you are a resident seems you have a voice and a way to get things changed. A lot of hippies up there too. Not just mexican cartel members.

 

[nickman]

Well, I should stay out of this....

As far as "sprawl" goes, what is your diagnosis of areas that are very isolated, near wilderness and have had ZERO developement for over 75 years...ie, the Eastern Sierra?

We have seen incredible loss of deer numbers over the past 15 years. Bear, lion and Coyote numbers are way up.
We don't have significant winter loss, and while I might accept an increase in road kill, I can't get behind the loss of habitat theory at all.

Several of the zones have had tag numbers cut in half in the last 10 years, so it's not a hunter issue.

Every year, we see fewer and fewer "OREO" deer come out of the parks during the winter migration.

Maybe they are being beamed up to the mother ship for transfer to some other planet.....

 

[Jazz]

I don't think there is a big enough loss in habitat either but some of the habitat likely needs a good fire to promote some better food growth. That is definitely the case in many areas of NE CA!

 

[tuleelk]

I believe there is no one single answer and every area is different. On a large scale I believe there has been significant changes in habitat. From outright loss due to urban sprawn and ranchettes etc (look at the community which is being developed above Montague with smaller ranchettes, all this has a disturbance factor as well). You have an ever increasing conopy closure in the conifer forests, you have juniper encroachment (which is huge), you have cheat grass invasion, riparian zone loss and degredation. Shrub fields which are old and decadent and no longer providing high nutrient forage (needs to be burned). Vast acreage of chamise for thousands upon thousands of acres which needs to burn. Basically that area is just cover and zero food value. Habitat loss is not just brush fields to parking lots but loss of the habitat type that deer need (just due to it getting older). They are early successional creatures and as habitats mature with no disturbance it becomes less and less useful to them. We have a great system of fire suppression in this state. Even when we get some clear cuts they are suppressing the grass and brush for many years until the conifers become established and can out compete the brush and grass through shading. I know there are many instances or areas where this is not directly applicable. I am painting with a very wide brush.
The Round Valley study is one of the longest deer studies to date with some very interesting things going on.

Joe

 

[YORT40]

I can't speak for the whole state, but in regards to the Eastern Sierra's, I was there @ the DFG meeting in Bishop several years ago. This was when DFG started to decrease tags in the local zones & the public wanted an explanation. I know Brownie was there & maybe Nickman too. The DFG biologist had a nice power point presentation, covering topics such as road kill, hunter kill percentages, & habitat loss. Which everyone listened to without objection. But, when the biologist was asked the simple question as to the annual percentage of predator or Mt. Lion kills on the local herds, his answer was, "We are not funded by the state to conduct studies on the Mt. Lion or predators, so we can only presume the percentage".
That's when all hell broke loose in the room. I left the meeting 10 min. later because the speaker was getting reamed with insults, and he was having trouble explaining the DFG situation. To me, that was a big piece of the puzzle which had no answers from DFG.

 

[nickman]

Over the years, it has been no secret that I take every opportunity to slam the DFG, especially on this site.

I am not about to change my mind on the overall picture, but I am going to applaud Tulelk for his participation in these latest discussions, both on the deer and elk posts.

One of my basic complaints is their PR stance, both in big game and fishing issues. They simply suck at public relations.

I am sure that Joe is not on here in any official capacity, so he is showing an interest in helping, "off the clock", so to speak.....and I thank him for it. A dozen people in that department, with similar attitudes, would be refreshing indeed.

I am unwilling to bend as far as our local DFG crew goes however, since they have shown little willingness to provide any help or accept any input.......to the point of being rude.

Joe, if you get over this way and have some time, look me up. I would gladly give you a tour and buy you a beer.

 

[eelgrass]

I've been reading all of your responses and agree with most everything.

The bottom line is that deer numbers are down (with the exception of some areas, some private property especially.)

I highly doubt that things are going to change for the better. Cats and bear numbers will remain the same or increase. Coyotes are fun to shoot and everyone counts, but it seems the more you shoot the faster they multiply. It's very unlikely that habitat will improve, and it's the one thing that would insure more deer. There will be no logging or burning on public land, and California is broke.

So.......what YD proposed makes perfect sense to me.

What's insane to me is the two tags per year for the B zones. Again, except for some private property, that is totally unjustified. I bet that's the most abused F&G law in California.

Eel

 

[tuleelk]

I will be the first to admit I do not have all the answers and the problem is complicated and the tool box to fix it is limited at best. Nothing we can do about mountain lions, nothing we can do about burning and habitat as we do not own much property. We provide input to the land agencies (for what it is worth). I am always up for a beer and good conversation, so next time I am over that way I will try to give you a heads up. Hopefully it will be with a tag of some sort, I am hoping this is my year. Already drew Montana! Maybe I will even draw an elk tag in California.

Good luck to all.

Joe

 

[califhuntn]

I too agree with most of what has been said. Urban sprawl, fire suppression, no predator management by our DFG, poaching, unrealistic number of tags being issued, little new growth vegetation, roadkill, anti-hunter groups doing everything in their power to stop hunting. The list goes on and on.

I know this probably doesn't apply to private land. The whole situation is a terrible shame. Every single one of us can do our part no matter how small and at least stop the bleeding.

JR

 

[Mallards_Only]

But you're forgetting one important critical element. The state of CA doesn't give priority to the healthiness of it's game herds or managing game for sportsmen. It cares about two things; MONEY and politics. Selling tags means money for the coffers. They know that with game numbers down, selling the extra tags isn't going to have that much of an impact on the overall population. It's a percentages game. With numbers declining, the numbers of deer killed also decline. They maintain revenue by selling as many tags as they can and setting seasons during times of the year that will have low probability of success. As sportsmen, we are partially to blame. If more of us started hunting out of state driven by better opportunity and better managed herds, not to mention seasons which are more conducive to a reasonable chance for harvest, F&G would be forced to respond to the decrease in revenue by responding to hunter's needs and desires. Unfortunately, in CA, it's a fine line because the anti's would jump at the opportunity to declare a victory and ride the wave by pushing for more limits.

 

[califhuntn]

The only way that Sacramento will get the point is if all us biggame hunters took a stand and elected not to buy a hunting license and tags for a year to show them that we do matter and we are relevant. I know it will never happen because the waterfowl hunters represent a huge amount of the revenue collected. The only way to make the point is through the pocketbook. We spend a large amount of money that directly goes to the state and our local economies. Money talks.

JR

 

[Mallards_Only]

I would do it. I'm fed up. I'm an avid waterfowler too, but I have made a commitment to not buy a season pass, reservation applications, or hunt fee areas because of what the state system has become.

 

[huntindad4]

Ant, none of your cities listed qualify as northern CA in my book and I know exactly what is being described about dope growers eating our deer herd in the B zones hopefully some of the too many lions will eat some growers.

Take away the 2 tag system, although you can say not alot of people kill 2 deer there is lots of forkies shot with the mindset of horn hunting with tag 2 I have done some of this myself. There hasn't been many years in the last 20 that I didn't kill 2 deer in the B zones and the years I did not I probably could have and my friends do just as well or better so the fellas that know where to look are killing at a much higher rate than you might guess.

Next choose your weapon I take full advantage of two seasons and love it but to give too much opportunity puts too much strain on the herd.IMO

BURN, BURN, LOG AND BURN SOME MORE.... The habitat is going down the drain fast and is a huge factor to the carrying capacity of our land ,much bigger up here than encroachment.

Predator control.Lions and coyotes and bears.Oh my. we need to take care of the lion problem and in this area I couldn't agree less with Tuleelk. Lions are a localized problem meaning they might not be a problem statewide or where your from but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. It does. I hunted CA from 8 or 9 yrs old (tagalong with dad) until I was 21 before I saw my first cat 4 years or so later I saw my second and have seen at least one every year since then and I am 40 so you do the math and figure the dates and I will bet dollars to doughnuts it will line up pretty close to the time when we banned lion hunting as a state.

Stop killing the little fellers. We need to go 3 point or better or even 4 point or better for a few years.This will cut tremendously the harvest rate but will pay big dividends in the long haul. I have heard the stories of the shot and left forkies in X-1 back right before they changed it and even argued with a warden at the time ( I was about 16 or 17 ). He said they found a hundred and something dead and left forkies , a point I must trust him on. Now this was a time when they were giving out 12,000+ tags for X-1, yeah you read that right. So their answer to the problem which should have been increased enforcement and about 1/4 the number or less tags but instead they allowed forkies to be killed. Most of the guys who shot and left those bucks probably didn't find a legal one to kill so how is it different? Well they shot that hundred and something probably times three the next year with fish and game blessing. I hunted the X zones alot as a kid and we saw very few spikes so most of those forkies are still with mom and dumb as hell.

Shorter seasons might help but I think the season structure (here anyways) is set up to allow opportunity but not much in the way of success and the shorter season may dcrease harvest but the woods would be so full it would be dangerous.

Less tags/draw system. Not popular but...

A choice must be made, you can have multitudes of opportunity or good deer numbers and good hunting.

JMHO

Bill

 

[YORT40]

In regards to the Road kill aspect of the herds, I have to admit it's a problem. In the last 2 weeks 27 deer have been splattered on Hwy 395. Thats just from Tom's Place to Mammoth, which is a 20 mile portion. 3 deer just this morning.