California "premium" zones

[yellowbeard]

Here's an idea to encourage taking older bucks without an actual the point restriction: double the price of a tag, you can still shoot a forkie, but you get half your tag price back if you check in a three pointer or greater. Idea being use a carrot rather than a stick. Might need to tweak the exact numbers.... But you get the idea?

Although sounds like science is mixed in what killing fewer forkies would actually accomplish?

 

[Banded_spooney]

Here's an idea to encourage taking older bucks without an actual the point restriction: double the price of a tag, you can still shoot a forkie, but you get half your tag price back if you check in a three pointer or greater. Idea being use a carrot rather than a stick. Might need to tweak the exact numbers.... But you get the idea?

Although sounds like science is mixed in what killing fewer forkies would actually accomplish?

Damn, dude kills a big buck and gets paid by the state? I've ate more tags in California than I'd care to count. Need to get me a refund.

 

[cjdewese]

The voters have effectively taken predator control away from our Department of Fish and Wildlife; i.e., mountain lion, no hounds, wolf protection ... the only predators we can still hunt is bear and coyotes.

The predator issue is the biggest one from my perspective and the zones I have been in. I know the drought and fire isn't helping but 1 cat kills a deer ever 6-12 days or between 30-60 deer a year.

I see cat tracks literally every time I go out right now and in very different areas so they are from different cats. In 2022 so far I've found 5 cat killed deer and have gone to pick up two calves that were attacked with my friend. 1 was dead already and the 2nd miraculously survived somehow.

I have friends that still run cattle and lose multiple calves every year to cats and are told every time they try to get a predation permit that they can't get it. They had 1 guy that would give them out several years ago but he has since retired because he doesn't like where it's gone and they haven't given any since.

 

[yellowbeard]

Damn, dude kills a big buck and gets paid by the state? I've ate more tags in California than I'd care to count. Need to get me a refund.

You could imagine also giving the same refund to those who kill a 3+ to those who kill nothing. Idea is to punish / discourage taking forkies only.

 

[Azone]

Let’s face it fellas, we’re ****** when it comes to predators in this place. WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO LEGALLY HUNT CATS AGAIN. Bears will be next on the do not disturb list. We are simply outnumbered by people with an opposing view who will not tolerate are way of life. Unless some miracle involving all the ding bats in this state migrating back east and staying there happens, nothing will change with cats.

 

[amassi]

This is the most California thing I've heard in a while.

It's failed in every state that has ever attempted it, and will continue to fail. Why do you want to continue implementing failed policies?

Name 1 other state where it failed. It didn't fail in CA, hunters failed to identify legal bucks no different than nerds shooting spikes and leaving them lay today. Should we remove all point requirements in case someone can't identify a fork?

I hunt a region in wy that uses 3pt and 4pt exemptions after hard winters and it demonstrably helps the herd recover. Same in Nevada and NM

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[amassi]

I agree with the latter 2. However, it was a failed practice because guys would shoot them thinking they were legal bucks, discover they were not legal bucks, leave them lay and continue hunting, possibly killing more buck that do not meet the 3 point or more limit. So the idea of bringing back such a failed practice just sounds insane to me, as I see it negatively impacting herd numbers, and not help re-establishing herds that are actually at traditional numbers.

But I get it, you want the herd numbers at the artificial highs of the 60's, 70's and 80's. Unfortunately, that is never likely to happen again as land practices are very very different now.

What were herd numbers in 1830 before they were "artificially high" in your opinion after market hunting was banned and logging increased post ww1?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Wags]

Name 1 other state where it failed. It didn't fail in CA, hunters failed to identify legal bucks no different than nerds shooting spikes and leaving them lay today. Should we remove all point requirements in case someone can't identify a fork?

I hunt a region in wy that uses 3pt and 4pt exemptions after hard winters and it demonstrably helps the herd recover. Same in Nevada and NM

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Yup.

My place in Wyoming was 4pt or better last year. 3pt or better this year. It didn't stop us from filling tags but it did make some guys slow down and identify. The argument that guys can't tell if a buck forks is ridiculous. If you can't identify then you simply let it walk. Or suffer the consequences of making that mistake. But to use it as an excuse is ridiculous.

 

[Marble]

Here's an idea to encourage taking older bucks without an actual the point restriction: double the price of a tag, you can still shoot a forkie, but you get half your tag price back if you check in a three pointer or greater. Idea being use a carrot rather than a stick. Might need to tweak the exact numbers.... But you get the idea?

Although sounds like science is mixed in what killing fewer forkies would actually accomplish?

This could get interesting...

How about this, 1 preference point awarded for a 3 point, 2 for 4 point or better.

You can get two tags each year, but you only get to fill one. That way you can archery hunt and rifle hunt.



Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[yellowbeard]

This could get interesting...

How about this, 1 preference point awarded for a 3 point, 2 for 4 point or better.

You can get two tags each year, but you only get to fill one. That way you can archery hunt and rifle hunt.



Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Like that idea!

I'm also curious, if there was a three point restriction and people abided by it, after several years, how many fewer legal deer would be available and actually be taken? What is the natural fatality rate between (mostly) 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks? I guess it will depend on the area (cars, predators, etc) and also if such a restriction actually helped herd numbers. Personally I'd take e.g 50% fewer legal bucks if all those bucks had an extra point. But I'm possibly not like most hunters.

 

[willfrye027]

Lots of flawed logic in this thread. I would love to see our premium zones produce better deer. But as some have alluded to, we just don’t have the habitat to support massive deer herds right now. Drought (largest factor in my opinion), old growth timber, predators..lots of factors at play. Plus our genetics and forage just don’t lend themselves to growing huge deer even on a good string of years.

There are already so few tags in most of the X zones. Most of the tag holders are road hunting and killing forkies. A few guys hunt hard and that’s fine too. There are absolutely bucks dying of old age. I did not see a single hunter on my last X zone hunt and we passed a lot of bucks.

Antler point restrictions, less tags, etc will do NOTHING for deer populations. This has been studied over and over. It’s the does that matter. We need several years of good moisture to make healthy forage and fat does that have twins, who then have twins, etc. even with predators on the landscape we would see a dramatic increase in our herds, number of bucks, and size of bucks (years down the road) if we could only get out of the drought.

I am fine with the way current regs are set up. Some guys idea of a premium California hunt is shooting a forky from the road, and that is fine. It’s really not affecting the quality of my hunt, but less tags would continue to cause terrible point creep. Plus how many of you are going to pass a heavy 26in fork?? Our genetics are known to produce old deer with forked horn genetics and personally I’d be happy to kill one.

 

[yellowbeard]

we just don’t have the habitat to support massive deer herds right now

Is summer range, winter range, or both the issue?

 

[willfrye027]

Yup.

My place in Wyoming was 4pt or better last year. 3pt or better this year. It didn't stop us from filling tags but it did make some guys slow down and identify. The argument that guys can't tell if a buck forks is ridiculous. If you can't identify then you simply let it walk. Or suffer the consequences of making that mistake. But to use it as an excuse is ridiculous.

The area that you and amassi are referring to has a very healthy population of deer and massive hunting pressure. APR makes sense there, if only to increase the quality of the hunt. When there are no APRs, there are tons of residents meat hunting there. Years with APRs many residents stay away. More pressure from exponentially more hunters on those years drives deer further into cover and you see less of them. I’ve definitely had “better” hunts on the APR years but the surveys would argue it has nothing to do with the herd size. Age structure, yes you are going to see more 3.5 year old bucks the year after a 4pt restriction. But it does not make sense for our California zones, in my opinion.

 

[willfrye027]

Is summer range, winter range, or both the issue?

Both I believe. Used to be winter range was all the biologists focused on in terms of herd health. Newer school of thinking is that healthy summer habitat leads to healthier does that are more prolific breeders and survive harsh winters. Some of the X zones may be prone to winter kill but I think that is the minority.

Compare the amount of forage in any California zone to, say Colorado and it becomes very apparent that we have shitty deer habitat and can’t expect amazing deer herds.

Another comparison would be the deer you see in Yosemite vs Estes park. Yosemite has monsters by California standards, but not even close to a Colorado park.

 

[amassi]

Lots of flawed logic in this thread. I would love to see our premium zones produce better deer. But as some have alluded to, we just don’t have the habitat to support massive deer herds right now. Drought (largest factor in my opinion), old growth timber, predators..lots of factors at play. Plus our genetics and forage just don’t lend themselves to growing huge deer even on a good string of years.

There are already so few tags in most of the X zones. Most of the tag holders are road hunting and killing forkies. A few guys hunt hard and that’s fine too. There are absolutely bucks dying of old age. I did not see a single hunter on my last X zone hunt and we passed a lot of bucks.

Antler point restrictions, less tags, etc will do NOTHING for deer populations. This has been studied over and over. It’s the does that matter. We need several years of good moisture to make healthy forage and fat does that have twins, who then have twins, etc. even with predators on the landscape we would see a dramatic increase in our herds, number of bucks, and size of bucks (years down the road) if we could only get out of the drought.

I am fine with the way current regs are set up. Some guys idea of a premium California hunt is shooting a forky from the road, and that is fine. It’s really not affecting the quality of my hunt, but less tags would continue to cause terrible point creep. Plus how many of you are going to pass a heavy 26in fork?? Our genetics are known to produce old deer with forked horn genetics and personally I’d be happy to kill one.

Cool name 1 study where antler point restrictions and fewer tags had no or a negative effect on deer herds.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Wags]

The area that you and amassi are referring to has a very healthy population of deer and massive hunting pressure. APR makes sense there, if only to increase the quality of the hunt. When there are no APRs, there are tons of residents meat hunting there. Years with APRs many residents stay away. More pressure from exponentially more hunters on those years drives deer further into cover and you see less of them. I’ve definitely had “better” hunts on the APR years but the surveys would argue it has nothing to do with the herd size. Age structure, yes you are going to see more 3.5 year old bucks the year after a 4pt restriction. But it does not make sense for our California zones, in my opinion.

I'd agree & like you, have not had the issue of filling a tag. I hope that the APR is helping the herd. I can say I saw an impressive amount of Forks this year as well as a very healthy number or Does with twins. The future is bright if they are able to manage well through the winters.

I would agree that imposing those restrictions would do little here in CA. I'm saving points for a few hunts to cash out on before I leave CA. I'd like to hope that our herd improves but I think we all know better by now. I pray for wet years and no lives lost during fire season (which seems to be 12 months a year) anymore.

I didnt even bother with Deer this year in CA but I am going to try to punch my Bear tag...

 

[yellowbeard]

Both I believe. Used to be winter range was all the biologists focused on in terms of herd health. Newer school of thinking is that healthy summer habitat leads to healthier does that are more prolific breeders and survive harsh winters. Some of the X zones may be prone to winter kill but I think that is the minority.

Compare the amount of forage in any California zone to, say Colorado and it becomes very apparent that we have shitty deer habitat and can’t expect amazing deer herds.

Another comparison would be the deer you see in Yosemite vs Estes park. Yosemite has monsters by California standards, but not even close to a Colorado park.

Really appreciate your views on this. I couldn't believe how many cattle I saw hunting this season and was hoping that winter range was more important... Hard to imagine those cattle aren't impacting the herd. It always looks to me like the cattle take the best habitat, and the deer are pushed up super high where it looks to me like they must be eating rocks.

Also compare the Yosemite herd to herds outside a national park in California. Biggest difference would be hunting pressure I think? Is the food that much better in Yosemite?

Imagine taking some Colorado deer to CA and vice versa to see how much of the difference is genetics vs habitat. My understanding of where similar studies have been done is that habitat is way more a part of it than genetics, but genetics still plays a role.

 

[Bubblehide]

It was the decade before market hunting took off so seems like a pretty good point to measure from.
Answer the question
What were herd numbers before you believe they were artificially high?
You must have a baseline to know what high was right?
For instance it's easy to tell your full of chit since we know the average amount of chit that's in most people. You have 6x that amount of chit aka full of chit

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Per DFW's records, the current herd numbers for the vast majority of deer zones are AT historic levels. So my baseline is based on DFW data. Where do your numbers and what you say come from, beside your opinion?

My point here is that I have personally seen the results of a minimum point system, the result was seeing several dead large antlered fork horns each day (not counting the same bucks). Unfortunately, like you, I do not believe human nature has changed; and continue to believe another point limit in such zones will produce the same results. But FYI, DFW themselves referred to point limits/restriction as a failed practice. I'm pretty sure they have much more data on it than you. But, you are free to disagree with their data all you want.

 

[willfrye027]

Cool name 1 study where antler point restrictions and fewer tags had no or a negative effect on deer herds.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Mule%20Deer%20Initiative/MULEDEER_ANTLERPOINTREGS_REVIE0006790.pdf

Not “bench” research, but a good summary of which states have tried and what the results were.

This is an excerpt from Dennis Austin’s book Mule Deer, A handbook for Utah hunters and landowners. Highly recommend it for an in depth look at mule deer management and biology. It goes into a lot of this stuff.

 

[amassi]

Per DFW's records, the current herd numbers for the vast majority of deer zones are AT historic levels. So my baseline is based on DFW data. Where do your numbers and what you say come from, beside your opinion?

My point here is that I have personally seen the results of a minimum point system, the result was seeing several dead large antlered fork horns each day (not counting the same bucks). Unfortunately, like you, I do not believe human nature has changed; and continue to believe another point limit in such zones will produce the same results. But FYI, DFW themselves referred to point limits/restriction as a failed practice. I'm pretty sure they have much more data on it than you. But, you are free to disagree with their data all you want.

Name 1 unit at historic levels and define historic level

Since the 3 pt restriction was tried there's been a huge increase in the quality and use of optics. It failed because of the prevelance of road hunting at the time. I'm sure you saw hundreds of dead forkies during it. I've found a bunch shot and abandoned spikes, especially on the coast and b zones- should we remove the 2pt requirements for areas where hunters shoot spikes hoping they spork enough to hang a ring on? How about we remove species requirements and you can hunt any ungulates with a deer tag? Raghorn elk look awful lot like big bucks when they're running through timber

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk