A chance for California hunters to have their voices heard

[sojourner]

I got it. Curious to see the results if they post them. Did anyone who didn't have a LE tag get the email?

That would be interesting to find out if it was all people who drew LE tags who got the survey? I drew an Elk tag this year. The questions were all about deer though...

 

[badkneesbro]

Got mine & filled it out last weak. Kinda doubt they would ask a question like the one about doe hunting[which doesn't exist here in cali] if they weren't really considering it. I certainly understand Bruces hard feelings for the state, & my dad quit hunting ducks here decades ago because of all the regulations thinking,[thatll show um!] I never understood how quitting what you love to do is going to send a message to people who don't want you to do what you want to do! I agree that trying to get more hunters out there is probably the best way to deal with our crappy state.

 

[boom]

There are a few doe hunts in Cali.

 

[Ben]

... I'm moving to Cali in a few weeks with no knowledge of thier hunting regs. This has me worried.

 

[FreeRange]

... I'm moving to Cali in a few weeks with no knowledge of thier hunting regs. This has me worried.

Ben where are you moving to? Us CA hunters have a lot to complain about but there's a lot of good things about hunting in this state if you have the right attitude and patience.

 

[MattB]

I bought 2 AO tags and got the survey, so it was not sent just to draw tag recipients.

Monterey County has had an either sex hunt for decades, and there may be others. The underlying condition that is driving the talk of doe hunts (low buck:doe ratios in many units, and perhaps the rationale that doe hunts will solve for the depressed deer population) is/are what folks should worry about, not the doe hunts themselves.

 

[Craig Van Arsdale]

I'm no biologist but I don't support killing does to bring the buck to die ratio into balance. Improving habitat, increasing predator management and reducing buck harvest sounds much better to me to grow the population and the buck to doe population

 

[CaseyU]

I drew a deer tag and received the survey as well. there were some questions regarding the tag i drew directly so maybe thats how they decided? who knows. I said my piece and hope people took the twenty minutes to fill it out and see what happens.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Got mine & filled it out last weak. Kinda doubt they would ask a question like the one about doe hunting[which doesn't exist here in cali] if they weren't really considering it. I certainly understand Bruces hard feelings for the state, & my dad quit hunting ducks here decades ago because of all the regulations thinking,[thatll show um!] I never understood how quitting what you love to do is going to send a message to people who don't want you to do what you want to do! I agree that trying to get more hunters out there is probably the best way to deal with our crappy state.

I didn't stop hunting, I merely stop funding the people responsible for gate closures, outlawing hounds, lead and all the other BS that this state does to sportsmen and women. I travel to AZ, NV, UT, OR, TX, FL and spend my hunting money in places that appreciate and respect us. Less likely to run into a meth lab or pot grow in those states too. I certainly find myself treated differently by the GWs in surrounding states...they are actually helpful and will provide current, local intel. Oh and to those who dislike my "opinion"...tough sh*t...it's a discussion and you don't get to dictate what others can and cannot post.

 

[Califhuntn]

I received the survey and predator management was my position throughout.

 

[Beastmode]

Well that escalated quickly. I didn't receive anything but I don't believe they have my email. I highly doubt it is going to change anything in regards to mountain lions in this state which is the major problem. I do hope it helps with some better regulations with bobcats, coyotes and bear.

 

[ceng]

I got the survey. One of the more interesting questions was along the lines of, "who do you think manages the deer population? Forest Service or DFG?" I answered Forest service because DFG has no intention of managing predators and frankly our habitat may be a larger issue in most areas. Forrest service actively makes plans for management(mostly for timber that they don't want to sell anyways), and decisions for fire suppression that greatly affect the hurds. DFG only really "manages" hunters. At least where I'm at in the state. Curious to hear what you guys think? I think predators are a big portion of the problem but not sure it matters much with the poor habitat still limiting Hurd growth. I know where there's a fire or other habitat restoration there are animals regardless of the predator situation but this is relatively isolated which concentrates the deer and increases their risk for disease and predation.

 

[cali_hornhunter]

I'm no biologist but I don't support killing does to bring the buck to die ratio into balance. Improving habitat, increasing predator management and reducing buck harvest sounds much better to me to grow the population and the buck to doe population

I 100% agree with this... I think also one thing with improving habitat is getting huge companies that own big chunks of land to participate along with the usfs aka SPI I undertsand that there in the business of lumber but it would be nice to see them step up to help also

 

[Beendare]

Hey participation is good...there are still some good hunting opportunities in Ca.

If every hunter in Ca participated and was a member of the hunting orgs...it can only help the cause..

 

[IdyllwildArcher]

In certain cases, killing does can help the harvest of bucks. If the deer have eaten themselves into a carrying capacity, the does will stop having twins and triplets and only have single young. Coupled with an over-harvest of bucks, you have a buck:doe ratio of 10:90 or worse with most of the bucks getting killed before they're old.

If your 90 does each have one fawn and 40 of them are bucks, you can see how having a buck:doe ratio of 40:60 with each doe having twins, ends up with more bucks coming into the herd which ends up with more bucks being able to be harvested.

Look at San Diego: 1000 either sex archery tags, 300 antlerless rifle tags, and 80 ML either sex tags. San Diego has one of the best buck success rates in Southern California. Buck success rates by % of tags in San Diego are commonly 2.5 times better than their neighbor to the north, Riverside County and they give out more tags in San Diego to the tune of 4 digits. There's more reasons for that than just doe tags, but the several hundred doe that are being killed every year in San Diego do not seem to be hurting the buck success rate.

That doe rifle tag and ML tag are also not drawable on a 2nd choice so that's 380 guys that are coming out of the point race every year they draw it.

I'd support limited doe tags as a LE hunt in the A, B, and D zones as long as it was accompanied by a cut to buck tags in every zone that held a doe hunt.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

In certain cases, killing does can help the harvest of bucks. If the deer have eaten themselves into a carrying capacity, the does will stop having twins and triplets and only have single young. Coupled with an over-harvest of bucks, you have a buck:doe ratio of 10:90 or worse with most of the bucks getting killed before they're old.

I see you've been to D7. LOL