California "premium" zones

[Bubblehide]

Name 1 unit at historic levels

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The vast majority of zones in the state is not good enough for you (per DFW). Again, you are giving your opinion, rather than looking at California's DFW data and findings.

I get it, like me you want better hunting, including better quality of animals. Unfortunately, the habitat will only provide so much, and the necessary widespread habitat changes are no longer possible given the state of affairs. There could be significant improvements of predator management, but again, given the current state of affairs, this is much more likely to get worse than better; to make it even worse, wolves are bound to expand their territory in this state, along with their population. This will undoubtedly result in significant declines in game species. Those herds that are at the critical state may be wiped out without direct interventions, and may or may not ever be reestablished. Granted, the herds that do survive, will likely adjust to wolves given enough time, and numbers may recover to some degree. But for the hunting years I have left, I am exceptionally likely to see herd declines in both zones that I hunt in the state.

Lastly, once wolves do take hold, I am sure we will see significant declines in feral pig populations within the territories they establish.

I know, this is not the news you want to hear; me either, but denying it simply does not make sense.

 

[Kal-Elk]

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.

I recall listening to a podcast where a study was conducted almost exactly along these lines, I think it was in somewhere in the Dakotas. Mule deer were taken from two areas, one known for deer with "good genetics" and there for "poor genetics", i.e. overall body size and antler quality

If I remember correctly, the captured deer from the poor quality areas did not show much improvement in captivity even though they were benefiting from having all their needs met. There was a noticeable, but not drastic, improvement in the first generation born from the captured wild deer. The second generation, born from the first generation born in captivity, had incredible improvement, almost indistinguishable from the population native to the "better" deer areas.

The thinking was the captured deer already had their genetic potential set for both themselves and their genetic material. This was due to their life in the subpar food and habitat. The 1st generation born in captivity still had their genetic potential set by their parents (as the source of their genetic material), but, because of their improved quality of life, they were able to maximize this limited potential. It also allowed them to improve their own quality as a source of genetic material, and so the 2nd generation born in captivity demonstrated the greatest gain in "quality."


If I can remember I'll try to post a link.

 

[philos]

For those on this thread trying to provoke others-now would be the time to stop. Let's get back on topic and stop trying to one up each other.

Thanks.

 

[fngTony]

For those on this thread trying to provoke others-now would be the time to stop. Let's get back on topic and stop trying to one up each other.

Thanks.

I agree, I just deleted about six comments from the thread.

 

[Gdharmon1]

I believe the otc tags are just fine. Get them every year, hunt hard and you will start finding deer each year and have better success. The harder to draw units are just for people who hunt roads and don’t want to put in work

 

[Kal-Elk]

I recall listening to a podcast where a study was conducted almost exactly along these lines, I think it was in somewhere in the Dakotas. Mule deer were taken from two areas, one known for deer with "good genetics" and there for "poor genetics", i.e. overall body size and antler quality

If I remember correctly, the captured deer from the poor quality areas did not show much improvement in captivity even though they were benefiting from having all their needs met. There was a noticeable, but not drastic, improvement in the first generation born from the captured wild deer. The second generation, born from the first generation born in captivity, had incredible improvement, almost indistinguishable from the population native to the "better" deer areas.

The thinking was the captured deer already had their genetic potential set for both themselves and their genetic material. This was due to their life in the subpar food and habitat. The 1st generation born in captivity still had their genetic potential set by their parents (as the source of their genetic material), but, because of their improved quality of life, they were able to maximize this limited potential. It also allowed them to improve their own quality as a source of genetic material, and so the 2nd generation born in captivity demonstrated the greatest gain in "quality."


If I can remember I'll try to post a link.

I found the paper referenced in the podcast, I was mistaken it was Whitetail Deer in South Dakota:

Monteith, Kevin; Delger, Joshua; Schmitz, Lowell; Monteith, Kyle; and Jenks, Jonathan A., "The Maternal Effect: Carrying the Consequences of Nutrition Across Generations" (2011). Natural Resource Management Faculty Publications. 164.

https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1161&context=nrm_pubs

 

[Banded_spooney]

I found the paper referenced in the podcast, I was mistaken it was Whitetail Deer in South Dakota:

Monteith, Kevin; Delger, Joshua; Schmitz, Lowell; Monteith, Kyle; and Jenks, Jonathan A., "The Maternal Effect: Carrying the Consequences of Nutrition Across Generations" (2011). Natural Resource Management Faculty Publications. 164.

https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1161&context=nrm_pubs

It’s a meat eater podcast called landscape of fear. My single favorite podcast episode ever.

 

[Marble]

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.

I dont know the answers to those questions.

What I do know is that when mature bulls and Tom's are left to breed the hens and cows, they are more efficient and successful. More offspring are born,l and juat as important around the same time.

I would assume more mature bucks would have the same result.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Marble]

I think over harvest is probably the #1 problem facing the deer population.

Second is a lack of water.

Next, there is some areas deer compete with livestock. Cattle generally do not bother deer except to drink the water. Deer and castle primarily feed on different types of forage. But sheep and goats eat everything.

Next, predators...

Lastly, the herd has never completely recovered from some harsh winters and drought.

I also wish there was some really good websites that gathered all of the deer studies. It would be nice to read them and then discuss amongst ourselves.

And the deer herd is not at it's historic low, but it is close.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estimated-California-Deer-Population-1911-to-2017-Reported-Buck-Harvest-and-the_fig2_344865578

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[yellowbeard]

I recall listening to a podcast where a study was conducted almost exactly along these lines, I think it was in somewhere in the Dakotas. Mule deer were taken from two areas, one known for deer with "good genetics" and there for "poor genetics", i.e. overall body size and antler quality

If I remember correctly, the captured deer from the poor quality areas did not show much improvement in captivity even though they were benefiting from having all their needs met. There was a noticeable, but not drastic, improvement in the first generation born from the captured wild deer. The second generation, born from the first generation born in captivity, had incredible improvement, almost indistinguishable from the population native to the "better" deer areas.

The thinking was the captured deer already had their genetic potential set for both themselves and their genetic material. This was due to their life in the subpar food and habitat. The 1st generation born in captivity still had their genetic potential set by their parents (as the source of their genetic material), but, because of their improved quality of life, they were able to maximize this limited potential. It also allowed them to improve their own quality as a source of genetic material, and so the 2nd generation born in captivity demonstrated the greatest gain in "quality."


If I can remember I'll try to post a link.

Exactly what I was thinking of, thanks for your excellent summary! I guess we can take this as evidence that there is better habitat in Colorado than CA? But who knows, maybe a bigger genetic difference between those herds than the Dakota ones. You'd really want to replicate the study.

It does seem pretty interesting that you will see 150"+ bucks wandering around carparks in Yosemite, but you're rarely going to see that outside the park... There are so many variables: Is the habitat in Yosemite that much better? Fewer major roads so fewer vehicle kills? Is it the NPS doing more controlled burns? Lack of stock grazing? No hunting?

 

[yellowbeard]

I think over harvest is probably the #1 problem facing the deer population.

Anecdotally, I've twice hunted national forest areas that were completely closed in the previous general season due to fires. Where I hunted didn't burn itself, but areas much larger than the actual burn were closed. I saw more and larger bucks, in less remote places than normal. Not sure if overall herd was helped at all. Would be cool if DFW could do some analysis on harvest/herd after fire closures. The fire itself of course is a huge confounding variable though.

 

[Azone]

I agree, I just deleted about six comments from the thread.

Shucks, I always miss the good parts. CA can just really bring out the worst in people, especially all the internet biologists.

 

[rratzlaff1490]

My experience, coupled with bad management in favor of predators, are poachers. They’ve been anywhere and everywhere I’ve ever hunted/wanted to hunt.

 

[Banded_spooney]

Shucks, I always miss the good parts. CA can just really bring out the worst in people, especially all the internet biologists.

Usually the stuff that gets taken down is the ‘good parts’

For a minute this thread just got lame. Good riddance, you didn’t miss anything.

 

[Deleted member 8-15-23]

Looks like I'll not get my X5B tag before leaving this state.......

We have the same as an nr with the deer draw. I will hunt. A9(x5b) with a bow. Ml or rifle now takes 18 pts.

 

[Wags]

We have the same as an nr with the deer draw. I will hunt. A9(x5b) with a bow. Ml or rifle now takes 18 pts.

Right on, I only rifle hunt so I'm limited. I'll figure out a plan B at some point. I'd like the Anderson Flats hunt but that won't happen either.

 

[WKR]

Nothing like a good old dead thread revival
Right in time for the CA draw