California Deer

[Zach]

I think I'd take Ed and Roy's perspective before I'd trust the CA DFG.

JR, perhaps you can contact the bio's doing these counts and get their perspective and share it.

 

[hank4elk]

People forget how big and rural CA is.
I remember the 70's & 80's and talk then of how it was not what it used to be.I found it hard to believe with the luck I had,filling 2 tags a year most years. And there were some big bucks. Look at the CDA emblem buck.
The numbers may not be what CAFW says and I do not know how they work compared to the old DFG.But I do know many of the old wardens & how often I would see the white plane with green CA-DFG letters flying the central coast.
Poaching & cats. Too many people.

No where near the deer numbers here in NM or what they used to be,but I'm happy.

 

[BOHNTR]

Well, I began my law enforcement career as a CA game warden years ago so I have a little knowledge of what goes on there. Read the quoted paragraph VERY carefully......."Each year CDWF biologists estimate deer numbers in California using a computer model that uses harvest numbers along with survey data. (Again, historically there is no mandatory harvest reporting.....it was essentially voluntarily, as there was no mechanism in place to ensure compliance) Harvest numbers come from harvest reports submitted by successful hunters and data collected from meat locker records. (See above....and this is not true, as I have inquired with numerous meat lockers over the years and none are required to submit any information annually to the department on deer....even worse, none have ever been asked to submit their information) Survey data is collected by field biologists by aerial and ground surveys in the fall and spring. (As I've previously stated, aerial and ground counts have not been completed in years, as funding was eliminated) Estimates are computed for each zone and on a statewide basis to provide information for developing tag quotas for the upcoming hunting season. (This is true......the numbers they post are grossly inaccurate estimates punched into a computer model. Game managers I know from other states chuckle at our method of deer estimates)

 

[HighDesertSage]

Well, I began my law enforcement career as a CA game warden years ago so I have a little knowledge of what goes on there. Read the quoted paragraph VERY carefully......."Each year CDWF biologists estimate deer numbers in California using a computer model that uses harvest numbers along with survey data. (Again, historically there is no mandatory harvest reporting.....it was essentially voluntarily, as there was no mechanism in place to ensure compliance) Harvest numbers come from harvest reports submitted by successful hunters and data collected from meat locker records. (See above....and this is not true, as I have inquired with numerous meat lockers over the years and none are required to submit any information annually to the department on deer....even worse, none have ever been asked to submit their information) Survey data is collected by field biologists by aerial and ground surveys in the fall and spring. (As I've previously stated, aerial and ground counts have not been completed in years, as funding was eliminated) Estimates are computed for each zone and on a statewide basis to provide information for developing tag quotas for the upcoming hunting season. (This is true......the numbers they post are grossly inaccurate estimates punched into a computer model. Game managers I know from other states chuckle at our method of deer estimates)[/QUOTE

Wow, then why would they post that information on their website? If this is the case, I feel really let down. I'll see if I can do some research on my end. You gotta link to any info on them stopping the counts? I definitely trust the word of a game warden, I just like to do my own research. Side note, I always punched my B-zone tags when I tried, and I also saw a lot of deer out there.

Sorry for derailing this thread.

 

[BOHNTR]

Wow, then why would they post that information on their website?

Simply put.....because that's our (CA) method of estimating deer numbers in the Golden State.....and I'm no longer a warden for the state.....left a long time ago for another agency where I can get time off to hunt.

There is no link.....the state funding was cut. Limited counts are done for some elk and sheep areas.....and some deer at times. But they are usually funded by conservation groups (MDF, RMEF, FWS, etc.) and are used for other reasons than simple animal counts.

Want to find out specifically? Call the main Sacramento Office or a regional field office and ask to speak to the deer biologist for the respective area......let's say zone D-11 & D-14. Ask him (Kevin Brennan) when was the last aerial deer count for those specific zones? You might be surprised by the answer.

No doubt there are deer in CA......not disputing that at all. I've filled two archery deer tags for years in the Golden State.......but the numbers reported are inflated and are based on insufficient and unreliable data.

 

[jryoung]

JR, perhaps you can contact the bio's doing these counts and get their perspective and share it.

I have, and what makes California unique is that we are pretty much a buck only state. What that means for individual counts is that it means far less to conduct an overall count, which is probably why BOHNTR heard that they are no longer conducting counts. I know that in region 4 they conduct two field counts for 2-4 weeks each, one in December and one in Mar/April. From these counts they focus on buck:doe ratio and fawn recruitment which the department feels is much more important than a gross population count. The population in the state is stable to declining, and this is a result of a myriad of factors much of which is out of the departments control. That population graph isn't worth much today as it shows how it was, but not how it is going to be in the future...again because of several factors like fire, population growth, destruction of winter range, limited logging, predators control, etc etc.

At the end of the day, there are counts, but individual population counts and ariel counts just aren't worth the cost when the buck harvest doesn't necessarily impact the population that much. On the forested west slope of the Sierra they have found that even if you move the tag numbers up or down, the success rate doesn't move significantly (this dovetails with the saying 10% of hunters kill 90% of the game). On the east slope, in open sage country it is a very different story and the biologists need to adjust their numbers consistently as hunters have a far easier time finding deer and the X zones have historically had far higher success rates.

 

[BrokeTrapDad]

the survey numbers and harvest data are all skewed Ill bet 99% on there harvest reports lie anyway!

 

[BrokeTrapDad]

They need to issue doe tags here in CA to the masses and the quality of deer hunting would drastically go up...

 

[Zach]

I have, and what makes California unique is that we are pretty much a buck only state. What that means for individual counts is that it means far less to conduct an overall count, which is probably why BOHNTR heard that they are no longer conducting counts. I know that in region 4 they conduct two field counts for 2-4 weeks each, one in December and one in Mar/April. From these counts they focus on buck:doe ratio and fawn recruitment which the department feels is much more important than a gross population count. The population in the state is stable to declining, and this is a result of a myriad of factors much of which is out of the departments control. That population graph isn't worth much today as it shows how it was, but not how it is going to be in the future...again because of severalv factors like fire, population growth, destruction of winter range, limited logging, predators control, etc etc.

At the end of the day, there are counts, but individual population counts and ariel counts just aren't worth the cost when the buck harvest doesn't necessarily impact the population that much. On the forested west slope o.f the Sierra they have found that even if you move the tag numbers up or down, the success rate doesn't move significantly (this dovetails with the saying 10% of hunters kill 90% of the game). On the east slope, in open sage country it is a very different story and the biologists need to adjust their numbers consistently as hunters have a far easier time finding deer and the X zones have historically had far higher success rates.

Lived in CA for 35yrs, hunted D16. Muzzle loader does are tasty.
I've seen plenty of photo's from SoCal deer, most that never surface on any website. There are some amazing deer in CA, every variation of the hybrids.

With that said, the CA DFG organization as a whole seems to be trending in a direction that isn't very hunter friendly, just ask a few former commissioners.

I've got a pic of a SoCal buck on one of my backup drives somewhere at home, if time permits next week perhaps I'll add it to keep myself on topic here.

Forgot to ask, do you know everyone in those pictures you posted?

 

[jryoung]

Forgot to ask, do you know everyone in those pictures you posted?

I don't know any personally, just from postings in CA hunting group pages on Facebook. The guy with the velvet archery buck, and the one below is named Doug and I'd call him the Greenhorn of CA bucks. He seems to bring home 2 beautiful bucks each year.

As for the Commission I fully agree, we have our battles, but at the end of the day I don't see them as very different than other states. Just well organized special interests that tend to be anti-hunting in one form or another. That said I have yet to meet anyone in the Department that doesn't like hunters/hunting. They do the best they can with what they have. We still have our two buck tags, year round pigs, a great bear population, unbelievable waterfowl hunting and great upland hunting. Most of the deer management in this state needs to come in the form of fire or logging, just about everything except the studies and analysis is out of the departments hands. I spoke extensively with a fire and fuels manager of one of our forests who is a big time hunter and the limitations placed on him is unreal. Good fires, doing great things so very often have to be put out because he doesn't have the resources to put on the fire. In a perfect world, with a lightning strike and a moderate burn he'd send out a small team to monitor it. Since they are short staffed and underfunded he has to have that team put the fire out because they have to go elsewhere to other fires. It really opened my eyes to some of the nuances they have to deal with.

 

[Zach]

Makes you wonder why they don't issue permits to harvest firewood in Nat'l forest. Do you still need an adventure pass to access the public land?

I'm guessing Dan Richards has a diefferent view of the state of CA DFG.

 

[BOHNTR]

What that means for individual counts is that it means far less to conduct an overall count, which is probably why BOHNTR heard that they are no longer conducting counts.

Jr:

Again.....call the main region office in Sacramento and ask when the last deer count/survey was completed in D-8 through 19 and tell me what they say? Those units combined are larger than most eastern states. When you get that answer, then ask yourself how can an estimate even be attempted.

For the record, I've arrowed over 60 deer in the Golden State over the years......from the Northern units to the Southern zones. A half million deer living in CA is laughable and unreliable. Sorry.

 

[jryoung]

That is probably the issue then, I called and spoke with the Region 4 supervisor at length and they count in 4. It must be different in 5 and 6. I'm not trying to make an argument out of this, I'm trying to understand the specifics.

 

[huntbux]

Some great California bucks. I have seen a few this year that go right along with this thread. California has some great deer with the right tag and some effort put in. I hope to get one in about 2-3 years when I get drawn. The point system is wack in California.

 

[bioboy232000]

I have hunted from San Diego to Yreka for 30 years. I'm not that old.... There is no doubt deer numbers in most areas are declining, so without some type of surveys and reporting system how could CFW know? Every state I know of does surveys to base their tag numbers and harvest on.... Ca does not. They don't have the money or resources. Throw in an unhunted, unchecked Mountain Lion population and growing Black Bear population. They recently eliminated hound hunting and the Black Bear harvest is less than half of what it used to be. Two deer limit does not help and quite a few rifle hunts are during the rut.

I'm not a biologist but that 500,000 estimate has been their estimate for a very long time. 511,871 that's how precise they think they are. I doubt they have a clue. Like I said, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I'm not trying to stir the pot, just calling BS on that population estimate. Ed F

I volunteer every year for DFW to do spotlight surveys and this is just for Little dry creek and Howard slough wildlife rufuges, I would imagine they do it throughout the state as well.

 

[bioboy232000]

It must be true then... Government propaganda is what that is. California is famous for that. "meat locker records" that's funny.... Believe what you want, I've never in all my years heard of or seen and aerial deer survey done by CFW. The aerial sheep surveys are funded mostly by WSF... or they would not be conducted, that's a fact. Harvest reports were not mandatory. It's hard for me to believe that California has deer numbers that rival Colorado (424,190), Idaho (465,000), Montana (445,000)... Ed F

They do aerial surveys, there was actually a helicopter crash that killed a crew that was doing just that a few years backs.