Its happening again in California

Swayze said:
Also of note to anyone on this thread - the Wildlife Resources Committee is discussing tag returns and refunds on 9/16. Here is the agenda:

If you can, we should show up. I would prefer they move the seasons later in the year than allowing refunds - but restoring preference points for folks that got a premium tag is something we should get behind.

You can join the meeting with these instructions:

Meeting materials will be available here: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=193737&inline
Click to expand...
Interesting, but we have C tags that open 9/18. I think we are going to send them back this year, the Dixie Fire really messed things up and I don't closures up there being lifted before the zone ends on 10/3.
 
Muley Buck said:
Honestly I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I believe we should be careful about wanting to change or conform season dates or anything else due to unjust FS closures. It sounds like a slippery slope to me.

First of all the blanket closures are BS. Regional closures on a smaller scale due to legitimate fire danger is not unreasonable and most of us do and can understand that.

It is my opinion that if season dates change the line of thinking will be that there will be no reason to not keep changing them till there will be none at all. After all the forest will be closed every fall due to fires anyway right? Furthermore we cannot hunt unsuspecting bucks statewide at such a vulnerable time during full rut. That would be unfair and unsporting. After all they are just trying to breed and propagate their species. All this and more as they wag their index finger at you. All you who live here in California know this certainly could be a reality.

I believe we should hold on to the already liberal and long seasons we have. They are great and offer plenty of opportunity. Fight the fight where it's needed, we shouldn't bend to the BS.
Click to expand...
I see your points with almost all of that, but as it is right now a lot of us that don’t have a private property hook up aren’t hunting already.
 
Azone said:
I see your points with almost all of that, but as it is right now a lot of us that don’t have a private property hook up aren’t hunting already.
Click to expand...
I'm in the same boat as you, I get it. I have two D zone tags and zero private property to hunt on.
 
Warmsy said:
But then, in theory, less tags would be issued, improving the odds for those able to get a tag. I would love to hunt here in the rut. About 3 days after a season closes, a buck is in my archery range. Despite hours and days crawling through brush to come up empty handed!
Click to expand...
The tags for this year are already issued.

With our deer herd having declined by ~50% in the past 25 years, I highly doubt we will see more opportunities during the rut.
 
Bubblehide said:
Actually we are hunting during the rut in in the vast majority of rifle seasons, just not that stage of the rut you are referring to.

The DFW does not want to minimize harvest, they want to manage herd numbers at sustainable levels. We are currently at or near traditional population levels in the vast majority of Ca, but most cannot get past the artificial population boom brought on by land management practices of the past that we will never see again.
Click to expand...
In the units I've hunted and from talking to other hunters I trust we've seen the pre-rut kick in occasionally during the last few days of the rifle season (usually weather/precipitation-related), but I believe you are incorrect that the deer are in any phase of the rut for the "majority of rifle season". My belief is that the general rifle seasons are set to close before bucks begin exhibiting any rutting behavior to limit harvest.

I believe you are fooling yourself in thinking the state has a coherent management plan for our deer herd insofar as tag allocations are concerned. The department is in a tough spot between CA's massive population wanting hunting opportunity, the significant variables that influence herd numbers that are outside of their control due to political factors (e.g. habitat/predator management), and the declining deer herd.

One only has too look at the tag numbers versus population estimates reported by the department to see this. While the numbers do not line up chronologically due to reporting delays, as an example the most recent (2017) population estimate for D7 was 10,986 deer (down from an estimate of 16,807 just 4 years earlier, a 35% decline). In 2019, the department had a tag quota for D7 of 9,000 tags - the same as in 2013 even though DFW believes we have 35% less deer. Looking back, the tag allocation for D7 has been 9,000 since 2000 (oldest data I can find). If the goal was to manage herd numbers at sustainable levels as you suggest, we would have observed tag allocations that trended up or down with population estimates over time but we do not see that.

Another example of this is A zone. CA DFW estimated the 2013 population at 165,250 and the 2017 population at 97,520 - a 40% decline. And yet the tag allocation remained constant at 65,000. When I look back at the 2000 tag allocation, what do you think it was? Yup, you guessed it - 65,000.

Back to D7. Looking at it from a different angle, when one considers the likely age/sex distribution (assume 20 bucks:100 does, 20% of bucks sub-legal), the department may be issuing 5 or more tags for every legal buck they estimate to live in the unit. While it is unlikely that the success rate will move up materially from the embarrassingly bad 7.2% 2019 level, if there was an upward movement the herd in that unit could be substantially impacted.

That's not management IMO, that is idly sitting by with one's thumb up one's ass hoping no one catches on.

California’s Deer Population Estimates

The Department of Fish and Wildlife manages California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.
wildlife.ca.gov

 
@MattB

It sounds like you are only considering Pre-Rut and Rut behaviors and not the scientifically identified Stages of The Rut. Our seasons are aligned within one or more of the stages of the rut. I have discussed this very thing with a few different biologist.

"Fooling" myself; hardly. The fact that we have sustainable stable deer populations is much more than just a strong indicator that we have good management. In short, you cannot change carrying capacity without changing land management practices; which requires changes in the laws; which is not going to happen due to, primarily, political and societal outlook on the changes that would be required. However, considering all the fires in recent history, there are likely to be some land management changes directly related to that in which our deer populations are very likely to benefit from; if implemented. But you are fooling yourself if you think we have declining herd numbers.

"Tag numbers vs. population" tells us nothing. They can issue a million tags for a zone, if the harvest is 100 deer, it has no significant impact on the population. In short, without considering harvest success numbers, you do not have any useful information. The fact is that in most zones, more deer are killed by cars than hunting. Furthermore, you are looking at data that is still adjusting from the artificial population increase of the 40's and on. f you look at historical data, our current populations (in general) are at historical levels and stable. You are fooling yourself because you are looking at the wrong data and do not have and understand all the pieces.

Parts of A zone are an exception, as very recent research exhibited a need to adjust the calculation of the lifespan of deer within the study area from years to days, directly attributed to excessive depredation. This is not the case in the vast majority of other zones in the state.

"Back to D7". Your argument revolves around false concepts. You obviously want the success rate much higher than it is in your selected zone. Reducing tag numbers is not likely to raise success rates in any significant manner, with few zone exceptions.

"the herd in that unit could be substantially impacted."
The success rate in our units/zones are well established and only actually have any significant gains from weather events during the season. So even from a long term perspective, there is no significant change in success rates. So thinking success rates are going to increase is really a pipe dream. I mean the only want success rates will increase in the long term (without major land management changes) is that if somehow hunter skills increase dramatically.

"That's not management IMO, that is idly sitting by with one's thumb up one's ass hoping no one catches on." Here you are completely wrong. You could not be more wrong. F&W has sent out hunter surveys in the past over numerous years, and F&W has responded to what hunters want i.e., some premium draw zones and opportunity to hunt every year. As such, some zones in which the deer populations/hunter success can handle increased issued tags while maintaining traditional (pre 40's) herd numbers which are sustainable. I have been fortunate enough to hunt a few of California's top zones while the herd numbers were still fairly high (from the artificial population boom), when getting a tag for those zones was easy. Well the regulations changed and I adjusted my hunt locations to 2 zones I can draw pretty much every year. It should be obvious, but but zones I hunt have crappy hunter success. But in short, there is one thing I have discovered to increase my success rate. I simply spend countless hours in the areas I hunt, both on and off season. As such, I have become very intimate in my knowledge of the deer populations in the areas I hunt. Not to brag, but it is that effort that allows me to have several opportunities at harvesting animals, every season in the zones I hunt. I have put numerous hunters on animals. In short, as a hunter, I have matured over the years. That maturity as a hunter has allowed me to be much more selective int he animals I chose to harvest, instead of just taking the first legal buck that presents a shot opportunity.

In short, the point I am trying to make here is that we have little control of the environment and factors involved in relation to game and land management. As such, there is really only one thing we as hunters can do that is effective in raising our individual success rates; that is to become better hunters/mature as hunters. That takes study, in whatever from available, time in the field, effort, and frankly some suffering. What I mean is I very often leave camp ( one that is already 5 miles from the nearest road) and walk in the dark usually 2 or more hours, to sit and wait at least 1/2 hour for first light. I also get back to my camp after dark pretty much every day I hunt; so I am most often running on a lack of sleep while trying to run at peak performance both physically and mentally. I say mentally because targeting mature animals can be a chess game.

With that said, best of luck to everyone this season, and prayers that the forest closures end very very soon.
 
Azone said:
Not being negative by any means, I was laughing when I posted that.
This thread is about being shut out of forest ground and now it’s gonna devolve into a pissing match of deer surveys and when the rut occurs.
Carry on gentlemen, carry on.
Click to expand...
That was my attempt at humor, as you I was laughing when wrote it. The bottom line is that neither opinion makes a difference in our actual hunting anyway, other than perhaps, how the knowledge/information is individually implemented.
 
Also glad to be escaping commiefornia
This really blows for premium tag holders
Hopefully they won’t extend it come sept 17


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I wrote the forest service and CDFW. CDFW usually takes a while to respond, but the first service just responded with a generic response about making the difficult decision to close the forest s.

Doesn't look like anybody at the forest service is actually listening.
 
interesting post from r/californiahunting on the closures:


Hi, quick comment here on this.

I believe this order is unconstitutional, and hunters should evaluate their legal options for lawsuits (legal challenges in the courts to this order, or orders similar to it). The only way to reopen our forests (and avoid broad-brush closures) is to contest closures in the courts.


The order was an attempt to pre-emptively foreclose upon further objections to closures for the rest of the year.


The recent order came from the USDA Forest Service Pacific SouthwestRegion and the announcement can be found here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd949147.pdf


There is an active regulatory petition to the Fish and Game petition, which I initiated on August 22, 2021, before the Forest Service issued their statewide Forest closure. To sum up: On Aug. 22, I submitted via e-mail, a Regulatory Petition to the Fish and Game Commission (via FGC-1 form) Relating to Big Game Defined, titled "Petition against proposal(s) to close areas to hunting." If you are contacting the Commission, please ask them to support this Petition.


As further background, on August 25, 2021, I received an e-mail from the Forest Supervisor of the Los Padres National Forest, Kevin B. Elliott. In his e-mail, he stated, "Any time I consider an emergency Forest Order closing or restricting access to national forest system lands within the Los Padres I do so for the purposes of the protection of our natural resources and safety of our forest visitors, and our firefighters and I do so with the smallest area and time period necessary. Hunting is not precluded on the Los Padres except as subject to the rules and regulations established by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife Department and the California Fish and Game Commission."


In my reply to him on this matter, which the Fish and Game Commission analyst was copied on, I mentioned to him the following, sent on Aug. 26, 2021:


"Kevin,(...) It is the purview of the Commission to as mentioned, limit or expand upon seasons (see Fish and Game Code Section 203) and to change areas or territories for taking. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...ision=1.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=1.To wit, in Fish and Game Code, Section 203, "Any regulation of the commission pursuant to this article relating to resident game birds, game mammals and fur-bearing mammals may apply to all or any areas, districts, or portions thereof, at the discretion of the commission, and may do any or all of the following as to any or all species or subspecies:(a) Establish, extend, shorten, or abolish open seasons and closed seasons.(b) Establish, change, or abolish bag limits and possession limits.(c) Establish and change areas or territorial limits for their taking.(d) Prescribe the manner and the means of taking.(e) Establish, change, or abolish restrictions based upon sex, maturity, or other physical distinctions."


(...) this does not change that the Commission cannot mandate what the USDA - Forest Service or the BLM for example will do with respect to the lands that the (Forest Service, BLM, etc.) manage and control.

However, I was able to find a section that you may have relied upon in the past when closing a forested area (in past Forest closures which I recall due to past language used in a Forest order in the Los Padres NF - Monterey District area, where not long ago there was a significant part of the Forest closed using language matching the following), which can be found here: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/prc-sect-4297.html

**This is actually California Public Resources code.**

This reads, 'Upon the showing of the director that the unrestricted use of any grass-covered land, grain-covered land, brush-covered land, or forest-covered land is, in the judgment of the director, a menace to life or property due to conditions tending to cause or allow the rapid spread of fires which may occur on such lands or because of the inaccessible character of such lands, the Governor through the director, may, by a proclamation, which declares such condition and designates the area to which, and the period during which the proclamation shall apply, require that such area be closed to hunting and fishing and to entry by any person except a person that is within one of the following classes:

(a) Owners and lessees of land in the area.

(b) Bona fide residents in the area.

(c) Persons engaged in some bona fide business, trade, occupation, or calling in the area and persons employed by them in connection with such business, trade, occupation, or calling.

(d) Authorized agents or employees of a public utility entering such area for the purpose of operating or maintaining public utility works or equipment within the area.

(e) Members of any organized firefighting force.

(f) Any federal, state or local officer in the performance of his duties.

(g) Persons traveling on public roads or highways through the area."

Kevin, as you no doubt recall, a general forest closure at one time in the recent past was applied that in fact resulted in the closure of the entirety of the Los Padres NF (Monterey District, and I believe the rest of the Los Padres as well). The above language essentially from (a) - (g) of Public Resources Code section 4297 was incorporated in part into the text of the Forest order, and people were unable to either hike (non-consumptive use) or hunt (consumptive use) in the area. **However, the order was premised upon a showing from a director that "unrestricted use of any grass-covered land, grain-covered land, brush-covered land, or forest-covered land is, in the judgment of the director, a menace to life or property due to conditions tending to cause or allow the rapid spread of fires which may occur on such lands or because of the inaccessible character of such lands."**I dispute that the unrestricted use of any grass-covered land, grain covered land, brush-covered land, or forest-covered land, could ever be a "menace to life or property," (though I do understand the inherent danger of fires, and I have been living in Monterey for some years now and have helped with a few Big Sur fire recovery efforts) and furthermore I am not convinced that it is ever logical that a fire closure is ever logical to require that forest areas "be closed to hunting and fishing and to entry by any person except a person that is within one of the following classes" (a) - (g) within Public Resources Code Section 4297.

Firstly, hunting is not an "unrestricted" use, as it is a use of land subject to license(s), fees, tags, etc., and therefore by definition, it is not unrestricted - subject to all of those things, plus the regulations of the Fish and Game Code. Hence, hunters in general should be exempt from closure orders under Section 4297. But even more to the point, a grass-covered land, brush-covered land, or forest covered land, cannot be a "menace to life or property" if it is not on fire even if there is a director's determination of the director that an entire forest should be closed. (It is the land which is on fire, or the "incident area," and immediate surrounding area which should be closed to the public - not the entire forest.) This is why I have asserted in my petition to Fish and Game Commission (and in my request to you for parallel regulatory action from your agency) that there must be no regional or forest-wide closures (as per the proposal in the regulatory petition that I submitted to the Commission and earlier provided you a copy of). Hunters will request data-driven approaches that limit and confine areas of closure to those areas which actually are within burn areas - areas actually on fire or that have recently been burned through. It is not reasonable to shut down an entire forest (or National Forests) because of a fire within or near a Forest boundary.(...)

---------

The law already makes clear that outright broad-brush closures of Forests (and banning of hunters from them, since hunting is not an "unrestricted" use under the Public Resources Code) is illegal - hence, the Forest Order was improperly and illegally constructed and can be challenged in court, but I also wish to pursue the regulatory petition to make it more emphatic in the Fish and Game Code that such broad-brush efforts to exclude hunters from Forest lands and to do wholesale closures of Forests must be prohibited, which is in fact the language within my petition submitted August 22, 2021 to the Fish and Game Commission.
 
Similar types of closures started happening last year in Oregon. I never recall entire national forests being closed before that in my entire life.

last year we had some enormous fires in the Mt Hood national forest, and the entire national forest was closed. Even in October after the fires were contained it stayed closed. Now any of the burn areas are still closed to any public entry, and it’s a federal crime to set foot in the closure areas. I fully understand closures where they are still working on roads, and cutting hazard trees along the main highway that goes through. It just seems odd wilderness areas are still closed to entry due to a fire a year ago.

This year there was a large fire in the Wenaha game management unit, which is the hardest to draw elk tag in Oregon. The entire Umitilla national forest was closed back in July, and they were saying it wouldn’t open until fall rains. This was basically the entire Blue Mountain Range. Some of the areas closed would be a couple hour drive from the fire area. Walla walla, Mt Emily, wenaha, Ukiah, Heppner, parts of starkeydesolation, and Fossil hunting units were all affected by this closure!

They actually reopened it all except the active fire area on august 12th. I’m guessing there was some push back to closing the national forest in almost half the units in Oregon people go Elk hunting

It seems like the zero risk closure management style is something new starting last year here in Oregon, and probably not going to be going away.
 
iseebucks said:
Do you guys think they will extend the closure past September 17th?
Click to expand...
I think alot depends on the caldor fire. They threw alot of resources at saving Tahoe all while the dixie fire approached a million acres. It seems the caldor fire ran itself out so maybe they can use those resources elsewhere

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

robby denning
Interesting changes to AZ laws
Replies
9
Views
2K
Leel1018
L

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
362,166
Messages
3,833,155
Members
82,330
Latest member
PSV

Latest Articles

Back
Top