I've been looking up some academic papers discussing CA's blacktail & mule deer herds. Looks pretty dire. One of the reasons that I gave up deer hunting in CA 20 years ago was the lack of deer. Seeing more deer and, frankly, 'cause I wanted to, I took it back up again. But, according to the data, our populations have been cut in half since 1990 (about the time I stopped).
CA DFW obviously relies on tag sales to fund its operations. A moratorium would be against their interests since it would affect departmental revenues. Yet, continued pressure isn't helping either.
So my question is one of ethics. This is not a prescription for all hunters, just your personal choice. If your state had only 10% success rates and rapidly thinning herds, would you give up hunting deer in your state?
No, I would just be more selective in what I harvested. Let the younger bucks go, as well as does. If I were with the fish and game department, I would try and get some different regulations made. For example, a 3 on a side rule like we have here, limiting hunters to one buck per year. Maybe even going a few years with no doe tags sold. I'm no conservation expert, but it seems to me that this might help a little bit.
Not necessarily. I would however set a self imposed rule not to shoot a buck that wasn't at or past his prime.
Self imposed rules generally do little as far as game management. Things won't change without a legislative action
Coincidentally, the year you stopped hunting, 1990, was also the year mountain lion hunting was banned in California. Under the current political climate in California, I'm sure the DFW would prefer to manage deer populations by feeding mountain lions, and perhaps wolves, if they can be reintroduced, rather than by human hunters. The current head of CA DFW has said as much publicly. Granted, mountain lions and wolves don't buy hunting licenses, but I don't see reduced fees as an effective deterrent to idealistic fervor.
Unlike the early part of the 20th century, DFW has qualified wildlife biologists who are capable of counting the numbers and protecting the viability of the deer herd, and I don't believe they will issue more deer tags to humans than the population will stand. So my advice would be to go ahead and hunt while you still can. If the deer herd falls below a huntable level, I don't think it will be the fault of human hunters who are legally hunting.
Good thoughts. But keep in mind that CA is well past those measures. Outside selected lottery "special hunts," we haven't been able to shoot does for many decades. Although I've talked to a couple people over the years who will pass up a forkie if it's opening weekend, most take whatever buck they find since they know that they may not see another buck of any size (let alone get a shot) for another few years.
Not trying to argue your points -- just setting the stage with a little more detail.
Yes I would! I would be hunting elsewhere, believe me if Oklahoma has a major CWD kill or something otherwise I'll be hunting in other states. It's one of the reasons I have spread out my hunting endeavors. I have good spots for Whitetail in Oklahoma Kansas Arkansas and Missouri. Multiple spots for elk in Colorado and hopefully expanding my Whitetail hunting to eastern Colorado soon.
If I were you I would be giving Oregon, Washington, and Idaho a good hard look
QuoteOriginally posted by pdk25:
Self imposed rules generally do little as far as game management. Things won't change without a legislative action
That is correct. At some point you need to trust the biologists making the harvest recommendations and the legislature to accept their recommendations.
Traditional equipment does not negatively impact herds. All other modern tools do with their varying degrees of ease and destruction.
10% success was common in the 70s
Herd reduction would be from poor habitat - and or predators?
In all cases I only hunt if there is a surplus - so if there was not a surplus and game needed a break I might support that - but gun season must stop first to prove to me there is serious effort to help a herd
<><
<--------------<<<<<<<
I would not quite but I would take more out of state hunts.
Honestly the things I love to do with my life are a good enough reason for me to live where I can do those things well.
I do that all the time. I can tell if numbers are up or down as I'm in the timber daily. If the year is low, I will be very picky or take nothing.
Yes.
QuoteOriginally posted by Cory Mattson:
Traditional equipment does not negatively impact herds. All other modern tools do with their varying degrees of ease and destruction.
10% success was common in the 70s
Herd reduction would be from poor habitat - and or predators?
In all cases I only hunt if there is a surplus - so if there was not a surplus and game needed a break I might support that - but gun season must stop first to prove to me there is serious effort to help a herd
<><
<--------------<<<<<<<
Well said. Most folks I know that complain about never seeing deer will still shoot whatever they do see (Rifle hunters for the most part).
Nothing says you have to kill one... just go and enjoy what you do.
CHuckC
I don't shoot enough deer to affect anything.
The cougar population and ballot box measures cut your deer herd down or should I say our deer herd because I plan to hunt CA at some point.
The HSUS outlawed hunting cougars and the bio report I read showed CA is a predator pit. Oregon was becoming a predator pit but hunters put pressure on our fish and game so they developed the cougar management plan and started reducing cat numbers.
QuoteOriginally posted by Doug_K:
QuoteOriginally posted by Cory Mattson:
Traditional equipment does not negatively impact herds. All other modern tools do with their varying degrees of ease and destruction.
10% success was common in the 70s
Herd reduction would be from poor habitat - and or predators?
In all cases I only hunt if there is a surplus - so if there was not a surplus and game needed a break I might support that - but gun season must stop first to prove to me there is serious effort to help a herd
<><
<--------------<<<<<<<
Well said. Most folks I know that complain about never seeing deer will still shoot whatever they do see (Rifle hunters for the most part). [/b]
I call BULL. Unchecked hunting harms the herd IE mountain lions. They're a great animal, but humans are now stewards of the land and its inhabitants. One species can't be hunted while letting the other run wild. People and lions each eating deer makes for less to go around. That's double dipping. What is the solution to that? Ban deer hunting so the lions that are not regulated have enough?
Don't know if this is topic-related, but my club hunted one day in the first muzzleloader season and one day so far during out six day shotgun deer. To date, our tally is 4 coyotes and 3 bucks. Wondering what this says. And, these "yotes" were huge and judging by their hide, were extremely well fed. Can't see how they'd get that way eating only rodents.
Some of the data I was reading yesterday indicated about half of the annual fawn kill was due to lions and about a quarter was coyotes (all CA data). But there were many healthy does also taken by lions, counter-intuitive to the rule of thumb that predators only take the weak, old or sick among the herds. They also migrate with the herds, overlapping each other's territory, bucking the usual trend to keep to one large area as resident predators. Like our deer, our lions are always on the move.
Doubtless, the presence and growth of lions isn't helping things. But I'm curious as to why this would be a significant contributor over many years. What level of deer population would reduce lion numbers? How has the lion population stayed in control in the past? Is the absence of grizzlies or wolves (who may steal lion kills) allowing lions to grow beyond their normal carrying capacity? Too many questions, for sure. And dynamic, complex systems can't easily be reduced to singular causes so much as the interplay between many causes.
Personally, I lean toward Daniel Quinn's "law of limited competition." The basic idea is that in the natural world, animals may compete to the fullest extent of their ability but they may not lay claim to all the food nor may they wage war against their competitors. All animals follow this rule (including humans before civilized cultures took over). So the lions and coyotes are safe from me. Unless, of course, I suddenly decide that I want a nice coyote pelt for some reason.
I appreciate the idea somebody posted about traditional bowhunters not being a significant problem compared with rifle hunters. I've only taken 2 deer in my life -- both with a rifle. But I certainly agree that if all hunters were limited to more primitive (and quiet) methods, then there would be fewer hunters and many fewer kills. My rifle kills were over and done with so quickly, I was left with a slight feeling of disappointment. I'm more proud of stalking in close to several deer this year (all does, it turned out) than in my kill with a rifle last year.
Now if only we could convince our wise and loving representatives to put a moratorium on rifle hunting only...
I am certain that they would love to..... a total ban on hunting with guns, meaning there is now no reason at all to have one, so hand them all in. We can give you a certificate for a pair of the latest Jordan jumper "tennis" shoes.
Eventually the deer herd will crash enough that existing lions will move away, starve, fight and kill each other for territory or all of the above and newborns won't have a chance. Then, after that the deer herd will repopulate, until, of course, the lions catch back up and it happens all over again.
That is just the way it works the world over
CHuckC
Stopping human hunters will have very little impact as long as the state of California allows the Mountain Lions to run rampant and not allow hunting them in an effective manner. (note: I love mountain lions and want them to be around, but I do not understand why big predators get a pass when it comes to management.)
I live in NW Reno and spend time on the two mountains that run the short distance to the CA line. Last week I was near the top just above snow line looking for deer. A week before that I saw several herds of deer and a couple nice bucks. On this trip I was casting about and found lion tracks not deer. There are always lions up there and they do not respect states lines. If they did, they would stay in CA, as a lion tag is the only big game tag we can get over the counter. I would take one as I always carry a varmit rifle up there for yotes. The yotes have gotten very aggressive around here and havebattacked several dogs within sight of the owners, and after a short retreat, reattached the dogs. I turkey hunted CA this month and saw plenty of deer, but they were a local herd in a protective situation. My best CA buck came from Camp Pendleton. Lion hunting was banned by some pressure groups, not so sure the game management folks agree. If all species were given that level of equilibrium it might be fair, but folks hunt deer,but not lions. Lions expand by numbers and by territority, but deer are not afforded the opportunity to do so. I pity the CFG as they have many masters, but are funded by politicos, not sound management.JMO
QuoteOriginally posted by fireball31:
I do not understand why big predators get a pass when it comes to management.)
I'm guessing it's because they're not prey. Management is, after all, only needed because we messed with the system nature already setup for us (lots of predators, humans among them). Sort of like how doctors prescribe 2 drugs to deal with the side effects of another that was barely needed in the first place. Personally, I can't see any reason to kill a lion & would be ecstatic to see one in the wild. I don't begrudge others and their choices -- it's your life, not mine. But I can only imagine how somebody who only marginally tolerates hunting feels when we kill animals with little or no food value. That's definitely a harder sell in a state where we tend to over-intervene in each other's lives.
QuoteOriginally posted by ChuckC:
I am certain that they would love to..... a total ban on hunting with guns, meaning there is now no reason at all to have one, so hand them all in. We can give you a certificate for a pair of the latest Jordan jumper "tennis" shoes.
Eventually the deer herd will crash enough that existing lions will move away, starve, fight and kill each other for territory or all of the above and newborns won't have a chance. Then, after that the deer herd will repopulate, until, of course, the lions catch back up and it happens all over again.
That is just the way it works the world over
CHuckC
Yes, that is a danger I fear as well. Most of the US gutted the 2A long ago & it more symbolic than anything else. CA takes it to a whole other level. Even though the 2A has nothing to do with hunting, for some reason, that's about the only thing keeping it in place sometimes.
Regarding population crashes, yes, I agree. I'm just curious as to what levels of deer or lions will cause such a crash or otherwise steady out. Any biologists in the room?
QuoteOriginally posted by YosemiteSam:
QuoteOriginally posted by fireball31:
I do not understand why big predators get a pass when it comes to management.)
I'm guessing it's because they're not prey. Management is, after all, only needed because we messed with the system nature already setup for us (lots of predators, humans among them). Sort of like how doctors prescribe 2 drugs to deal with the side effects of another that was barely needed in the first place. Personally, I can't see any reason to kill a lion & would be ecstatic to see one in the wild. I don't begrudge others and their choices -- it's your life, not mine. But I can only imagine how somebody who only marginally tolerates hunting feels when we kill animals with little or no food value. That's definitely a harder sell in a state where we tend to over-intervene in each other's lives. [/b]
"Somebody who only marginally tolerates hunting" generally feels fine when we kill animals with little or no food value, if there is a purpose for the killing that benefits them: for example, eradication of rats. Lots of tree huggers like to backpack, and they would generally be fine with allowing hunting of mountain lions and keeping grizzly bears out of California, because that would make it safer to backpack. Unfortunately, even though there are lots of backpackers, there are magnitudes more people whose idea of the outdoors is limited to Golden Gate Park or the San Diego zoo, and they see no problem with letting mountain lion and grizzly bear populations in the Sierras reach their natural limits.
I personally see no problem with managing wild deer and elk as a crop, the same as wild fish are managed as a crop. Interestingly, few of the Californians whose wildlife exposure is limited to Golden Gate park or the San Diego zoo have any problem with managing wild fish as a crop, since they like to eat wild fish. Since they don't eat venison, they feel free to make a moral issue about hunting deer and elk, feeling that those animals would be better fed to the mountain lions and wolves.
Predators, poaching, disease and loss of habitat are problems. A hard winter in the northern states can result in a big kill and it takes good habitat for deer and other animals to recover. States have less money to manage land and herds.
In WA years of wild fires have improved habitat in some areas, but it takes about five years for the land to recover. In CA with the continued lack of rain, it may be impacting wildlife.
Because it isn't always possible to pickup and move, you might consider a couple of options.
I would continue to hunt, and spend time looking for remote areas and/or private land.
It may be worth the time and effort to consider applying in other states.
Develop contacts with biologist and pick their brain.
Agriculture chemicals and gmo crops are no friend to wildlife. They spray stuff on beans that is killing off the song birds. it can even be a health threat for anyone that tries go in those bean fields after the spraying is done. We used to have wet waterways in every field and corn was full of foxtail. When I ran a newspaper company, I found letters talking about the impassable boggy long grass conditions, that was Iowa, to people that were planing to load the wagons and head west. The plains are suppose to be wet. Tiles have wiped out the wet areas and there is nothing in the corn except corn. i feel sorry for migrating hawks, because for mile after many miles there is nothing here for them to eat. Sooner or later all life forms are negatively affected by development, agriculture , chemical pollution, and equipment uses and transportation advantage. Before I had some financial set backs that prevented me from having enough cash on hand for a down payment to buy some land, that I figured would pay for itself with a clover/alfalfa crop and honey bee acres, i made a decision that it would be a longbow and ground hunting only hunting area. If this sport is to continue, it needs restrictions. Farming is set up so that the global elite control how things get done and they don't care at all about real wildlife issues. They do however, all agree that we should be paying taxes to the global warming bank in England, that started out because the coming ice age was imminent. The 'green' advocates have done nothing for the environment. I fear that the imbalances and damage in some areas is irreversible.