California game management

[Where's Bruce?]

California is probably one of the worst states when it comes to managing the wild game herds. It’s where I live, so I obviously hunt it the most.
Predators
Can’t hunt mountain lions. Can’t use dogs for bears anymore. And deer populations seem to be declining more as years go on. A friend of mine talked to a forestry biologist and they had trail camera pictures of 61 different mountain lions in one small area that I used to hunt. Idk how they know that they’re different cats but still seems excessive. I’ve even heard a rumor that California wants to reintroduce wolves. Why not issue tags for mountain lions with a quota. Once quota is met, season closes. I myself have seen 4 throughout the years

Deer season:
I feel maybe California should try a longer archery season and shorter rifle season but rifle season for 2-3 weeks at the end of October and maybe a week into November with a 3 point or better for rifle season. Fork or better for archery. Maybe significantly reduce tag quota for rifle.

Im no genius when it comes to this type of thing, everyone feel free to put in the 2 cents

I live here too and see the corruption within the state's Fish & Game Dept (a division of the Humane Society). I hunt neighboring states mostly...too many reasons to avoid the People's Republik of Mexifornia.

 

[Takem]

Here's another good use of our F&G money. Fighting lawsuits. Not sure what animals are still being chased with dogs anymore.

Animal rights groups sue California over hunting rules that allow GPS on dogs

Tracking devices allow dogs to chase prey to the point of exhaustion, and then hunters follow the GPS signal to find an animal that can no longer flee and is easily shot, the group said.

www.eastbaytimes.com

 

[amassi]

Here's another good use of our F&G money. Fighting lawsuits. Not sure what animals are still being chased with dogs anymore.

Animal rights groups sue California over hunting rules that allow GPS on dogs

Tracking devices allow dogs to chase prey to the point of exhaustion, and then hunters follow the GPS signal to find an animal that can no longer flee and is easily shot, the group said.

www.eastbaytimes.com

Wont cost f&w anything

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[kickemall]

Here's another good use of our F&G money. Fighting lawsuits. Not sure what animals are still being chased with dogs anymore.

Animal rights groups sue California over hunting rules that allow GPS on dogs

Tracking devices allow dogs to chase prey to the point of exhaustion, and then hunters follow the GPS signal to find an animal that can no longer flee and is easily shot, the group said.

www.eastbaytimes.com

Racoons, fox, hogs (three dogs per hunter), deer (one dog per hunter), rabbits, squirrels are about it.

 

[Billinsd]

I love to read these kinds of discussions, it's always amusing to see so many people make unsubstantiated claims. All the keyboard experts and no fact.

To you experts that KNOW for a FACT that the deer population in California (and the in the United States in general) are NOT declining, hear's a graphic from a study done on why the deer population is in FACT declining in California.

View attachment 120674

And just to play the Devil's advocate, the study says that there is a correlation to poor timber management practices of the state. You environmentalists that like to hug trees, kitties, puppies, and cute little bears have created a change in forest management to point where old growth is overtaking all of the natural edge browse that deer subsist on. All trees (dead, decaying, bug infested trees) or all grass wont work, that's not how deer survive, they need food next to cover and water, without food, water, and security they wont survive.

I'll play devils advocate too. What makes the study and your graph fact? Gravity is fact. I'm not saying your info is not valid, it could be. Who wrote what you are referencing? Wasn't it in the late 60s that Nixon banned poisoning coyotes? Isn't, was not the biggest reason for deer decline? I think the mt lion thing is way over inflated and are mostly ignorant. Of course it's stupid that lions can't be hunted. Of course they kill a lot of deer. But not as much as coyotes, the huge drought we've had, the mismanagement of our forests and Development. When I've talked to fish and game I've been told that many lions are killed that are a proble. Again I'm in favor of hunting lions, I just don't believe all the parroting that lions alone are main reason for deer decline . This is my educated opinion. Bill

 

[Billinsd]

Here's another good use of our F&G money. Fighting lawsuits. Not sure what animals are still being chased with dogs anymore.

Birds,, birds, birds, birds, are hunted with dogs using gps collars. Bill

 

[Billinsd]

What appears to be missing here is that the high deer populations of the 50's through 80's were artificially high due to land management practices.

I did some more "research" looks like Nixon signed an executive order banning poisoning coyotes in the 60s. Then Reagan revokes the ban in the 80s. I think this is the ding, ding, winner, winner, chicken dinner.

So today's herd population numbers have finally returned to what historically is considered NORMAL population numbers. So the trend of thought here in this thread of our deer and their numbers being in despair is simply false. That outlook is falsely promoted by those not looking at/unaware of the historical data. The bottom line is that the facts clearly point to our herds being at normal healthy levels.

Absolutely nothing you have written supports your claim, let alone being fact. What does NORMAL population mean? Do you think California has changed, maybe a tiny bit since historical times? When were historical times when the miners killed so many deer to live off the state enacted a law protecting spike bucks, so there would be some bucks that would survive each year? The logical question is what is the carrying capacity for deer in California? Us as hunters want as many deer as we can get. So, we want predator control, which was on steroids with the poisoning. I'd like to bring back the poisoning, but it ain't gonna happen. OK, how about all the development of land that deer use? Nope, that ain't coming back. How about the drought? Well it looks much better, but what can we do about it? I don't know of anything. How about mountain lions? Sure it would be great to hunt them and manage them, but that won't happen. And lions are getting killed, just not by hunters.

The misinformation written in this thread is astounding.

I'm more disappointed at how very few people know how to think critically and logically. LOL. However, to do so is a burden.

get the disappointment of many posters in this thread. After all, I hunt a zone in Southern Ca with some of the worst success rates. However, I still manage to see and pass on several legal bucks every season. In fact, I almost always see a few mature bucks every season. I have hunted a lot of different places, from several western states to outside the country, and southern Ca is some of the toughest hunting there is for mule deer.

You are absolutely correct. Southern California has some of the toughest hunting in the country. If you can be successful here, you will only be elated hunting out of state for the most part. You sound like you spend a ton of time scouting and sound like a great hunter. Of course you are going to see bucks and be successful. However, how does that relate to the declining deer in California? You don't really use any facts or logic. You basically say historically deer herds were down and now they are down. And I am a really good hunter and scout real hard and am successful. You don't support your statements in anyway. Carry on. Bill

 

[Billinsd]

I live here too and see the corruption within the state's Fish & Game Dept (a division of the Humane Society). I hunt neighboring states mostly...too many reasons to avoid the People's Republik of Mexifornia.

What pray tell is the corruption? I'll tell you. It's former radical Human society, and other radical environmental groups, members, leaders taking on many and high ranking positions in the department and commission. I call it corruption, because these are rabidly anti hunting, radicals running a department and commissions that regulate hunting. Not much can be done. I don't think anything. Some years I wonder if I should buy a hunting license. OH, yes I will, I remember my Tule Elk Muzzleloader bull elk tag. Not everything is terrible. Carry on..... Bill

 

[Takem]

Birds,, birds, birds, birds, are hunted with dogs using gps collars. Bill

No kidding? The article talked about the dogs chasing animals until they're tired and go up a tree. I haven't seen that with birds.

 

[MattB]

I think you need to re-analyze the information in that article as there is nothing on p.66 referring to CA deer population over time. But if you point out the specific graph or graphs your referring to, I will be happy to walk you through it, as my time permits.

I was specifically referencing figure 4 above which provides population estimates across the western states from 1450 through 2000, but are you saying that figure 6, titled "Estimated California Population, 1912-2013", doesn't refer to CA deer populations over time?

If you were to actually look at Figure 6, it reflects CA deer herd levels below today's level only from 1925 and prior, which was during the population trough that resulted from unregulated market hunting. So is that what you are saying is "normal"?

 

[Billinsd]

No kidding? The article talked about the dogs chasing animals until they're tired and go up a tree. I haven't seen that with birds.

Right. You said you are not sure what animals are chased by dogs anymore. You were referring to "mamamals" being chased and hunted with dogs with tracking collars. I would have said something like, I'm not sure it's legal to hunt mammals by hounds anymore in California. This is a hot button for me, it touched a nerve. I'm real concerned that using the same exact collars and transmitters that hounds wear to tree animals on pointers to track them hunting birds. It's not much of a leap for me to believe in California. My hunting days are numbered in California. Probably 6 more years? Thanks Bill

 

[Bubblehide]

You guys that are knocking my "logic" are simply FAILING to account for the reason the deer population exploded. You are simply comparing the high to today's population level without considering what accounts for that population explosion. So if you are deaf to the facts behind that ARTIFICIAL population explosion there is no sense in me, a guy with multiple graduate degrees, a guy that was the University department Statistics Coordinator, a guy that understands research, research design, methods, the methods section of research and it applies to meaningful information, then no amount and quality of response will make a difference.

 

[MattB]

You guys that are knocking my "logic" are simply FAILING to account for the reason the deer population exploded. You are simply comparing the high to today's population level without considering what accounts for that population explosion. So if you are deaf to the facts behind that ARTIFICIAL population explosion there is no sense in me, a guy with multiple graduate degrees, a guy that was the University department Statistics Coordinator, a guy that understands research, research design, methods, the methods section of research and it applies to meaningful information, then no amount and quality of response will make a difference.

Not hardly, you are trying to call today's deer numbers as "normal" and have dodged and deked every attempt for you to provided a basis for why justifies today's level is "normal". The most cogent argument you've made as to how today's herd level is normal is the the 1960's levels weren't. No ****.

You've moved the goalposts that bound the heyday period and inferred we should look at the period prior to the abolishment of market hunting as that baseline. How does that make any sense?

Now you've argued that anyone who doesn't agree with that nonsense is making an entirely different argument then they are in what I can only assume is another effort to duck the question.

I would think someone who has a much education as you claim would understand the value of data and how it is used in these sorts of discussions.

So, what year or period should we use as the proxy for what is "normal" and why?

 

[Bubblehide]

Unfortunately with my excessively busy schedule right now, I have very little time to devote to re-finding research articles. But if you read the Abstract of the linked article, you will clearly see that the 60's plus boom in deer population is directly attributed to man's influence. If you take the time to actually look for research articles, you will find many more which also indicate that "rangelands which originally supported relatively few deer"

But once again, you are failing to understand that the 60's plus boom in population is not and was not the norm. Furthermore, the articles that have been presented in this thread limit their discussion to the boom era populations and moving forward in time. They simply do not address traditional carrying capacity before man's tremendous influence on the land, and subsequently bringing about the population boom.

https://www.wildlifeprofessional.org/western/transactions/transactions_1976_9.pdf

 

[Bcoonce117]

I will say that I read a study one time in a magazine for a specific area in California. I read that bears eat about 60% of the fawns. Idk if that’s within their first month of life or what. I’m not the person who did the study so don’t bite my head off lol. There’s definitely variables, but it all goes back to the hunters & f&w implementing some better management. I see multiple bucks a year too, but I also see lots of people shooting small bucks, and I see lots of people. Too many tags

 

[Mike7]

Unfortunately with my excessively busy schedule right now, I have very little time to devote to re-finding research articles. But if you read the Abstract of the linked article, you will clearly see that the 60's plus boom in deer population is directly attributed to man's influence. If you take the time to actually look for research articles, you will find many more which also indicate that "rangelands which originally supported relatively few deer"

But once again, you are failing to understand that the 60's plus boom in population is not and was not the norm. Furthermore, the articles that have been presented in this thread limit their discussion to the boom era populations and moving forward in time. They simply do not address traditional carrying capacity before man's tremendous influence on the land, and subsequently bringing about the population boom.

https://www.wildlifeprofessional.org/western/transactions/transactions_1976_9.pdf

I don't think that you can lump all deer together in the west. Some of the environmental changes by people, are much less supportive of blacktail/mule deer, even while they are able to be exploited by whitetail deer who then move in and become competitors to once native deer.

As far as I know all of the following human caused detriments to native deer are still in place, so how without man's aid/management could deer ever currently be at their "normal" level as you say....
since currently deer have to deal with houses on historic wintering ground, some detrimental agriculture, roads and towns blocking migration routes, deleterious effects of livestock grazing on native shrubs, fire suppression, herbicides and pesticides that may affect nervous systems/immune systems/and reproductive systems, and finally they have to deal with dudes & gals with guns shooting at them part of the year after they run the gauntlet of towns, highways, domestic dogs, lions, bears, & coyotes the rest of the year.

What are you calling "normal" again?

 

[Billinsd]

You guys that are knocking my "logic" are simply FAILING to account for the reason the deer population exploded. You are simply comparing the high to today's population level without considering what accounts for that population explosion. So if you are deaf to the facts behind that ARTIFICIAL population explosion there is no sense in me, a guy with multiple graduate degrees, a guy that was the University department Statistics Coordinator, a guy that understands research, research design, methods, the methods section of research and it applies to meaningful information, then no amount and quality of response will make a difference.

It doesn't matter much to me what your credentials are. And you haven't said what your degrees are in. You do say you are a statistics coordinator. You have to be able to articulately get your point across to impress me or get me to believe you. And you don't need any advanced degrees to do that. Advances degrees are nice, I got one in civil engineering. I took a couple graduate civil engineering transportation modeling classes. And oh boy. Modeling and statistics can be useful. But, oh boy. Whose the person doing them. For instance it's fact that most killers drank milk as kids. I believe the high population of mule deer in 50s and 60s was do to predator poisoning. I've read that in different hunting magazines for decades. I agree with you that the herd numbers were inflated because of super aggressive predator control. Yes, that attacged paper is good. Looks good to me. I won't disagree with it. Predator control is a big one too. Bill

 

[87TT]

All just opinions and statistics can be made to say whatever you want. The problem is you have a state where the law makers, who have no training, passing laws on game management. The DFW is a bureaucratic mess controlled by politicians. And they are against all hunting. They also think you shouldn't have the right to defend yourself but let the police handle it. There can not be any game management when the managers have one hand tied behind their back and can't manage. The handwriting was on the wall when they took the word "GAME" out of their name.

 

[MattB]

Unfortunately with my excessively busy schedule right now, I have very little time to devote to re-finding research articles. But if you read the Abstract of the linked article, you will clearly see that the 60's plus boom in deer population is directly attributed to man's influence. If you take the time to actually look for research articles, you will find many more which also indicate that "rangelands which originally supported relatively few deer"

But once again, you are failing to understand that the 60's plus boom in population is not and was not the norm. Furthermore, the articles that have been presented in this thread limit their discussion to the boom era populations and moving forward in time. They simply do not address traditional carrying capacity before man's tremendous influence on the land, and subsequently bringing about the population boom.

https://www.wildlifeprofessional.org/western/transactions/transactions_1976_9.pdf

Seriously? Again you dodge the question.

What baseline year are you citing as "normal"? The answer will be compised of 4 numeric digits, likely beginning with a 1.

 

[Okhotnik]

Rokslide's Law: as a General Discussion gets longer, the probability of Breitbart propaganda approaches 1.

and a passive aggressive labeling someone a racist