Why? CA hunting licenses over time.

[H&H]

With harvest % as low as they are and even lower with respect to total population what benefit (especially on the west slope Sierra and B zones) do you think will occur? I've talked with a few biologists and they say the same thing, in mature forest like B and D zones, we can move tag numbers, but harvest won't change much. In X this is a different story and is why there has been a lot more movement in tag numbers over the years.

Deer tag revenue makes up 1% of the DFG budget. Total hunting license revenue is roughly 5% of the total budget, wit all big game fees reserve for the Big Game Management Account and there is still a structural deficit and a need of more than $100M from the general fund.. The Legislature was able to close some gaps in the budget in the past, but now in the Covid era it is different. Just look at the range of co-signers on this request when it comes to the budget. Groups that don't agree on much, except for the budget challenges in the department.

[URL unfurlI don't think it will make much of a difference. 30,000 tags with a =

With harvest % as low as they are and even lower with respect to total population what benefit (especially on the west slope Sierra and B zones) do you think will occur? I've talked with a few biologists and they say the same thing, in mature forest like B and D zones, we can move tag numbers, but harvest won't change much. In X this is a different story and is why there has been a lot more movement in tag numbers over the years.

Deer tag revenue makes up 1% of the DFG budget. Total hunting license revenue is roughly 5% of the total budget, wit all big game fees reserve for the Big Game Management Account and there is still a structural deficit and a need of more than $100M from the general fund.. The Legislature was able to close some gaps in the budget in the past, but now in the Covid era it is different. Just look at the range of co-signers on this request when it comes to the budget. Groups that don't agree on much, except for the budget challenges in the department.

https://www.calwaterfowl.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Governor-Letter-re-CDFW-Budget.pdf

I think it will be small innitially but if tags were reduced long term along with other measuers of preditor control, buck to doe ratios and implementing new hunts, forest management and protecting migration routes there might be hope. I'm not trying to talk budgets other than I highly doubt DFW is willing to reduce it even further, and the example I gave D3-5 I guess that those 30000 tags bring in around $1M depending on how many 1st and 2nd tags are issued.
The point I believe in and think that is the one issue that can be fixed is how DFW manages wildlife. Currently they do not. It is dictated by popular vote of uneducated public who vote for pretty animals. They need to have the ability to make changes to actually manage game and be able to do predator control. I think we are starting to see that mature forests cause all sorts of issues and hopefully will be worked on.

As with all nature, it is a system and that system must now be managed. If not we will not be hunting in California at all any more. So why would anyone become a new hunter in this environment? That what is what we are discussing and all I know is that I might become a statistic in that unless something changes I will stop buying a license in the very near future.

With a 10% success rate or lower, in most OTC units, and the ability to draw a premium tag once every 5-10 years how are we going to hold onto hunters?

 

[BucksnDucks]

I know where you're coming from, I remember my dad would buy a book of 5 pig tags for $25 20 years ago and kept them in his truck when he would come across some pigs on a customer's ranch.

It's unfortunate how people take advantage of a good opportunity to get soneone into hunting and charge so much to hunt something that is so destructive.

On a side note, anything killed in A zone on public was definitely hard earned. Two deer seasons and quite a few pig hunts has resulted in one small boar. Lots of steep dry country out there but it's close to home.

I know where you're coming from, I remember my dad would buy a book of 5 pig tags for $25 20 years ago and kept them in his truck when he would come across some pigs on a customer's ranch.

It's unfortunate how people take advantage of a good opportunity to get soneone into hunting and charge so much to hunt something that is so destructive.

On a side note, anything killed in A zone on public was definitely hard earned. Two deer seasons and quite a few pig hunts has resulted in one small boar. Lots of steep dry country out there but it's close to home.

$25? Wow I feel old. I remember when there were no tags needed, then tags for around $5 for a book of five.

 

[BucksnDucks]

I’ve never hunted the B zones so I’m not familiar with the area, what do you think the cause of the decrease in the area is if not Habitat related. I know there’s a ton of bears up there just have a hard time thinking the bears do that much of a damage on the fawns

Bears in the B zone are tough on fawns and deer in general. I forget the term for it (clepto-predation) or something similar. Basically, bears steal the kill of lions or coyotes causing the more efficient predator to kill more often. Not the only thing hurting deer, but can't be dismissed. Fawn survival rate study out of Mendocino Forest showed this with collared fawns around 2018.

 

[Lyfter1013]

Bears in the B zone are tough on fawns and deer in general. I forget the term for it (clepto-predation) or something similar. Basically, bears steal the kill of lions or coyotes causing the more efficient predator to kill more often. Not the only thing hurting deer, but can't be dismissed. Fawn survival rate study out of Mendocino Forest showed this with collared fawns around 2018.

I’ve heard this too in the past, wasn’t sure if the lion population in the B Zones was very high or not compared to Other parts of the state but I know in some of the X Zones what you described is really prevalent. I think all parts of the state deal with different issues just because of how
Different the environment is throughout the state.

I wish there were more Studies And more research being put into this but I’m not sure that there are many. I’ll hunt California as long as I live here just because it’s close but also because there are certain areas that I just love being in and brings back memories of hunting with my dad before his health deteriorated so quickly.

 

[Mark1970]

Reading the inputs, I wondered if we were looking at the issue through "deer goggles".
Clearly deer are an important part of the CA hunting culture, but there are lots of other game to hunt in this state.
Moreover, I find hunters to be a rather resilient group, not so easily dissuaded by low harvest probabilities.

I decided to plot something that is not likely related to deer habitat. I chose fishing.
You can clearly see that in the 1970s, hunting took a dive. Perhaps that was from deer habitat or access or the movie Bambi being rerun on TV, but after about 1978 the curves of hunting and fishing overlap very well.
To me, this shows an overall decline of sportsman activities in the state.



It would be interesting to find data on other outdoor activities that require some effort, like surfing, rock climbing, mountain biking....

 

[H&H]

Reading the inputs, I wondered if we were looking at the issue through "deer goggles".
Clearly deer are an important part of the CA hunting culture, but there are lots of other game to hunt in this state.
Moreover, I find hunters to be a rather resilient group, not so easily dissuaded by low harvest probabilities.

I decided to plot something that is not likely related to deer habitat. I chose fishing.
You can clearly see that in the 1970s, hunting took a dive. Perhaps that was from deer habitat or access or the movie Bambi being rerun on TV, but after about 1978 the curves of hunting and fishing overlap very well.
To me, this shows an overall decline of sportsman activities in the state.

View attachment 169098

It would be interesting to find data on other outdoor activities that require some effort, like surfing, rock climbing, mountain biking....

Interesting, but more I think about it the more is makes sense. Deer hunting is the biggest drive for me at least in California hunting and fishing. I wonder how this correlates to sportsman leaving California? In this time frame more people have shifted to living in urban environments and less reliant/interested in outdoors while more sportsman leave the state.

 

[LaSportsman]

Military here currently in CA for second time. All great points but unless I missed it, I didn't see one of the top barriers to gaining new hunters - CA is making it ridiculously hard to own and operate a rifle. I saw the banning of lead mentioned but not the hurdles just to buy ammo and no online purchases. Long time hunters and shooters will find a way but definitely an extra barrier to adding new hunters. I don't know how hard it is to get reloading supplies in CA but that isn't an in for new shooters either.

 

[Mark1970]

LaSportsman,
Welcome back to CA. I hope you get some good hunting in.
I agree, its tough for new hunters here and that is a barrier.

Good points. I too have been frustrated trying to find certain lead free ammo (20ga slugs). I very much support the lead free movement, but restricting mail order certainly makes it tough.
One solution is that some stores allow you to order on line and send to their store for you to pick up in person.
Then there is firearm ownership and the liability which comes with it.

Also since there is some social stigma about hunting, many hunters are kind of quiet about sharing that they are a hunter and thus more difficult to randomly meet and get their input.

At least, in this internet age, we can get on to sites like this to find others and get help.
Hunters generally dont like to compete with other hunters in the field, but when it comes to a community, I see lots of helpful hunters on here.

 

[SO7mm]

Reading the inputs, I wondered if we were looking at the issue through "deer goggles".
Clearly deer are an important part of the CA hunting culture, but there are lots of other game to hunt in this state.
Moreover, I find hunters to be a rather resilient group, not so easily dissuaded by low harvest probabilities.

I decided to plot something that is not likely related to deer habitat. I chose fishing.
You can clearly see that in the 1970s, hunting took a dive. Perhaps that was from deer habitat or access or the movie Bambi being rerun on TV, but after about 1978 the curves of hunting and fishing overlap very well.
To me, this shows an overall decline of sportsman activities in the state.

View attachment 169098

It would be interesting to find data on other outdoor activities that require some effort, like surfing, rock climbing, mountain biking....

Thanks, that's super interesting to me. I would not have guessed fishing went down at all let alone that much. The number of boats here on the delta wouldn't lead me to believe that was the case. Than again species like salmon are getting crushed compared to where they once were. I wonder if the poor conditions of the 80's timed right with an aging demographic of hunters and fisherman that weren't interested in dealing with a major decline in species? I know a few of older guys at our duck club in the 80's that had lost interest. They still enjoyed being around the guys but they didn't hunt much if at all.

 

[wolfpup]

All good points. Here's my 2 cents. My in-laws live in Cali and I have never thought hey maybe I should hunt deer there. I know there are animals there and good areas, but since I am from CO I would hunt any other state surrounding and in between before thinking I should try Cali. Its just not a destination hunting area. Most hunters in CA seek non-resident tags elsewhere even over hunting the same species in their own state. I have never heard of anyone say hey I'm heading to such and such California for a deer hunt. That's just not the big game hunt they plan for. That is not the state in the West that dreams are made of. Most sportsman within the state hunt out and probably don't recruit as much due to cost of hunting and access to keep interest locally. Add to that the surplus population, which most hunters are trying to get away from. The recreational outdoorsman in Cali is a huge market, but also just congests the available access to anywhere close to populated cities and anywhere within 2 hours of those cities. Add to that the lack of RV parking / camping access and its not hard to imagine that the tag sales will get better ever.

 

[Mark1970]

Thanks, that's super interesting to me. I would not have guessed fishing went down at all let alone that much. The number of boats here on the delta wouldn't lead me to believe that was the case. Than again species like salmon are getting crushed compared to where they once were. I wonder if the poor conditions of the 80's timed right with an aging demographic of hunters and fisherman that weren't interested in dealing with a major decline in species? I know a few of older guys at our duck club in the 80's that had lost interest. They still enjoyed being around the guys but they didn't hunt much if at all.

Im sad to agree that I think demographics is a driver here.
I also hunt ducks in the Los Banos grasslands and its pretty clear that most hunters are older.
My grandfather told me of the days where duck hunting used to be popular for business networking. Companies like HP even had their own duck club. You could fill your strap with 7 drake pintails and the neighbors would not complain if you were plucking them in the back yard. You could then take your birds to restaurants in SF to have them cooked up for a family dinner because the chefs actually knew what to do with wild game. Hunting was in vogue.

I sometimes get a sense that hunters are vilified. We have "closet hunters" in CA.

That said, I see some hope. I see a bit of a renaissance from persons that have had no exposure to hunting in the past, but want to know what its about. I have gotten to take a few newbies (not that I am that experienced myself) out into the field, both young and old. I let people know I hunt and I tell them my stories. I feel lucky to sometimes get to be a hunting ambassador.

 

[jryoung]

....You could then take your birds to restaurants in SF to have them cooked up for a family dinner because the chefs actually knew what to do with wild game. Hunting was in vouge.

You still can if you know the right places, I've brought wild game to a couple of different Michelin Starred chefs. The food culture is way stronger than the anti-hunting culture, and there is an incredible about of interest in some of the most left leaning centers because there is a deep love of food.

This is what we need to champion as hunters. We need to stop name calling and embrace those who want to support us but don't know the nuances of our challenges.

 

[SO7mm]

Im sad to agree that I think demographics is a driver here.
I also hunt ducks in the Los Banos grasslands and its pretty clear that most hunters are older.
My grandfather told me of the days where duck hunting used to be popular for business networking. Companies like HP even had their own duck club. You could fill your strap with 7 drake pintails and the neighbors would not complain if you were plucking them in the back yard. You could then take your birds to restaurants in SF to have them cooked up for a family dinner because the chefs actually knew what to do with wild game. Hunting was in vogue.

I sometimes get a sense that hunters are vilified. We have "closet hunters" in CA.

That said, I see some hope. I see a bit of a renaissance from persons that have had no exposure to hunting in the past, but want to know what its about. I have gotten to take a few newbies (not that I am that experienced myself) out into the field, both young and old. I let people know I hunt and I tell them my stories. I feel lucky to sometimes get to be a hunting ambassador.

I feel like, as you stated, there is definitely hope. To go along with what JR said I feel like people are becoming more interested in trying wild game. I think a lot of it is tied to increased awareness to being healthy and making healthy food choices. It's not people that buy all their groceries and meat from Costco that are interested it's the ones shopping at farmers markets and making informed choices on what they eat. It seems like more and more information out there about the benefits of pasture raised/ wild meat and fat. Hopefully this keeps gaining momentum.

 

[Runnin_Chupacabra]

Grab the CA deer population numbers, and feed them into the chart, CA deer herds have for lack of a better word collapsed.

Lions have been wrecking havoc on the deer population. Last year on the MeatEater Podcast they had a lion biologist who stated that they eat a deer every 7-10 days.

In regards to the original post, I've heard that the average age of a hunter increases by one each year. Really reflects your plot as well.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Lions have been wrecking havoc on the deer population. Last year on the MeatEater Podcast they had a lion biologist who stated that they eat a deer every 7-10 days.

In regards to the original post, I've heard that the average age of a hunter increases by one each year. Really reflects your plot as well.

Colorado has the same number of lions as CA... Montana has more, Wyoming 1/3 less and both those states have wolves.

I don’t really by the lion argument, also the 7-10 day per deer isn’t really reflective of reality for estimating deer harvest. Meaning, say a female lion has 4 kittens, are they killing a deer every 2 days? What about prey substitution, rabbits, domestics, etc? Juveniles v. Big males. What portion of the lion population falls into each age category?

I don’t know how many lions there are now versus 40 years ago, but I can’t fathom that even an additional 2000 lions has a greater effect adding 20 million humans.

 

[Non-resident Hunter]

I truly believe there are some mind opening points here, but I know personally a lot of hunters that have moved out of state for one reason or another.

Living in SoCal is tough for the big game hunters.

That is why we seek other states for big game. Although I know we have some real trophies here, I prefer to hunt out of state for big game.

But the saltwater action here is insane!

 

[Runnin_Chupacabra]

Colorado has the same number of lions as CA... Montana has more, Wyoming 1/3 less and both those states have wolves.

I don’t really by the lion argument, also the 7-10 day per deer isn’t really reflective of reality for estimating deer harvest. Meaning, say a female lion has 4 kittens, are they killing a deer every 2 days? What about prey substitution, rabbits, domestics, etc? Juveniles v. Big males. What portion of the lion population falls into each age category?

I don’t know how many lions there are now versus 40 years ago, but I can’t fathom that even an additional 2000 lions has a greater effect adding 20 million humans.

I can speak from experience that I've seen mt lions have a population effect in a small sample size (12k acres). Drawing what I've seen on the ranch and applying it to the rest of the state could be a reach and that is fair, but in this specific location they definitely have an effect. To extend this theory to the rest of the state is an assumption that may or may not be correct, but in this specific location it is a fact.

A deer every 7-10 days per lion reflected a pregnant female on the 7 side and a various range of older males on the 10ish side with all other subgroups of females with kittens, juveniles etc. in between. Predators want to optimize their energy output and get the most bang for their buck (no pun intended). It takes a lot of rabbits and house cats to equal the number of calories of a single deer provides so economically they're better off focusing their energy on the deer population. Now, there are an estimated 4000-6000 mt lions in CA (CA DFW) and say there are 5,000 lions. If they eat a deer a week that is 260,000 deer a year. Let's say they eat a deer every two weeks, it is still 130,000 deer a year and with the average success rate for a kill being 50% how many of the unsuccessful kills die from their wounds? I can't speak to why it is different in other states bc that would be pure speculation but I do know when you have a balanced ecosystem, ie. typically the same amount of lions over the last few hundred years, vs a large increase of lions since the 70's, there will be a swing of lower prey populations for a period of time. How long will that be? No clue.

Found this lion kill recently, they usually get the nice bucks too

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It takes a lot of rabbits and house cats to equal the number of calories of a single deer provides so economically they're better off focusing their energy on the deer population. Now, there are an estimated 4000-6000 mt lions in CA (CA DFW) and say there are 5,000 lions. If they eat a deer a week that is 260,000 deer a year. Let's say they eat a deer every two weeks, it is still 130,000 deer a year and with the average success rate for a kill being 50% how

I think when Biologist give out those kind of numbers it's stupid.
My suspicions is that he's saying a big tom kills a deer every 7-10, not the average lion. The average meaning the full population kittens to adults, on average killls XYZ deer.

Kitten's don't kill deer, I doubt juveniles do, they probably make up a decent portion of the population so of that 5000 lions your talking about it's maybe 1000? 2000? that are actually killing deer at those rates?

These are so WAGS, so take them as that, this isn't based on any article I'm just guess based on what I think makes sense.

CA has 400,000
30,000 are killed by hunters
50,000 are killed by lions
10,000 bears and coyotes
10,000 cars
40,000 other sources ( starvation, hunting loss, accidents, disease)

Like I said WAGS... and this would be 35% total annual mortality. I'm not actually sure what the max sustainable mortality of a deer herd is, I think my estimates are likely on the high end, but I do think you have to back into the lion number.

Total deer--> likely total mortality of the statewide herd-->likely percent lion kill of that mortality

260,000 is just a stupid number as is 130,000. Unless you can find me a paper I'm never going to believe CA has 55% deer mortality every year.


So based on some common sense, I'm thinking the biologist should have said:

"The average adult lion kills a deer every 7-10 days, but the average for all lions is 1 deer per 40 days"

 

[Runnin_Chupacabra]

I think when Biologist give out those kind of numbers it's stupid.
My suspicions is that he's saying a big tom kills a deer every 7-10, not the average lion. The average meaning the full population kittens to adults, on average killls XYZ deer.

Kitten's don't kill deer, I doubt juveniles do, they probably make up a decent portion of the population so of that 5000 lions your talking about it's maybe 1000? 2000? that are actually killing deer at those rates?

These are so WAGS, so take them as that, this isn't based on any article I'm just guess based on what I think makes sense.

CA has 400,000
30,000 are killed by hunters
50,000 are killed by lions
10,000 bears and coyotes
10,000 cars
40,000 other sources ( starvation, hunting loss, accidents, disease)

Like I said WAGS... and this would be 35% total annual mortality. I'm not actually sure what the max sustainable mortality of a deer herd is, I think my estimates are likely on the high end, but I do think you have to back into the lion number.

Total deer--> likely total mortality of the statewide herd-->likely percent lion kill of that mortality

260,000 is just a stupid number as is 130,000. Unless you can find me a paper I'm never going to believe CA has 55% deer mortality every year.


So based on some common sense, I'm thinking the biologist should have said:

"The average adult lion kills a deer every 7-10 days, but the average for all lions is 1 deer per 40 days"

Interesting peer reviewed paper below from 2012. I will say, the lions don't have as much of an effect as I previously thought. Def a good read with some interesting points.

"Our results demonstrate that top-down forcing from multiple predators may limit population growth but does not always regulate prey populations. Mountain lions and other large carnivores in our study area slowed, but did not regulate, the growth of a mule deer population."

https://www.uwyo.edu/haub/_files/_docs/about/pubs/monteith/2012-pierce-et-al-mammalogy.pdf

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Interesting peer reviewed paper below from 2012. I will say, the lions don't have as much of an effect as I previously thought. Def a good read with some interesting points.

"Our results demonstrate that top-down forcing from multiple predators may limit population growth but does not always regulate prey populations. Mountain lions and other large carnivores in our study area slowed, but did not regulate, the growth of a mule deer population."

https://www.uwyo.edu/haub/_files/_docs/about/pubs/monteith/2012-pierce-et-al-mammalogy.pdf

Nice!

So per the article and your judgement what's your WAG at lion deer predation?