The effects of not killing anything was just too much for these guys to handle. Now they want your money to help fix it.
I had to laugh at their video. First, they did about everything wrong. They starter with glassing a slope in which the deer would not be on for the time of year they were hunting (sure there is a very minor chance of seeing deer on it). They were sitting on a ridge/slope in which the deer were likely to be on... They did not appear to get there by first light (I recommend minimum 1/2 hour before). They then moved location, sounding like a couple small dozers plowing through the forest. They finally sat at a spring (much too close IMNSHO); but the spring would have been a much better place in the morning, instead of after the deer are bedded for the day.
There analysis is completely wrong and lack knowledge and historical information. I mean if we look at Ca deer herd numbers from a historical perspective, we see that our herd numbers are pretty much at historical levels pretty much everywhere in the state. The excessively high herd numbers of the 50's to 80's have been directly attributed to land management practices. What I mean here is that ranching and farming practices of clearing land increased exponentially resulting in environmental/ecosystem changes that significantly favored deer resulting in huge population increases equivalent with the subsequent related subsequent increase in carrying capacity. Unfortunately, with current restrictions, laws, gov oversight... we are not likely to see land management practices change to favor increased deer populations, with the exception to forest management being possible.
They then compare Nevada to California, looking at draw and success odds; a very very unfair and unrealistic comparison. What I mean is that we here in Ca have an exponential increase in demand for hunting opportunity than residents in Nevada, given herd population to resident hunter population. Ca DFW has surveyed deer hunters here and the results were/are that having the opportunity to hunt is much more important to hunters here, than waiting years for a tag. What these guys are proposing is a significant decrease in tags, so that the hunter success numbers increase.
The above proposal assumes a tremendous amount of false information. First, reducing tag numbers is not going to increase herd numbers (on a statistical scientific level). As such, this will not result in increased success rates, despite the decreased tag numbers. The old saying comes to mind, 10% of the hunters fill 90+% of the tags year after year. So if we reduce tag numbers, we all will be waiting years for a tag, any tag, rather than actually hunting our resident/home state. They fail to recognize that our herd numbers are for the most part static/stable with some slightly increasing. They fail to recognize that what they propose (based only on the video) will result in drastic drops in tag numbers across the state, meaning we would go from having the opportunity of 2 deer tags per year, to a only one deer tag, will all zones being draw zones; resulting in a significantly large number of applicants not even drawing a deer tag. In other words, it could result in only being able to draw a tag in Ca once every few years, for the crappy zones, as the best zones already take a decade or more to draw.
I could literally go on and on about what is wrong with their video and proposal, but I think the point is made. Clearly not everyone will be happy with any states draw system. But I for one have adapted, and the vast majority of years, I get to hunt one of the crappiest X zones (I like the zone, know the zone, and am exceptionally successful, all due to expended boot leather) and one over the counter zone that is local to me.
