Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > OUTDOORS, HUNTING AND SURVIVAL > Hunting and Fishing
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Hunting and Fishing Rifle, Shotgun, Handgun, Archery, Blackpowder Saltwater and Fresh Water

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-19-2017, 5:51 AM
AGGRO's Avatar
AGGRO AGGRO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,681
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

We have doe only seasons, you guys don't up North?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-19-2017, 6:20 AM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,370
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefly-2 View Post



But if you want to collapse the herd...


Then you do exactly as kalifornistan has done. Which they would only do if that’s what they wanted.

The purpose of all laws is never stated. It is always revealed in the law’s results
.
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-19-2017, 7:57 AM
stonefly-2 stonefly-2 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: sacramento
Posts: 2,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
Then you do exactly as kalifornistan has done. Which they would only do if that’s what they wanted.

The purpose of all laws is never stated. It is always revealed in the law’s results
.
It's pretty much either that or being incredibly inept at accomplishing their stated goal isn't it?

the "fragmented habitat" dodge is just cover.
__________________
What do you call the people that abandoned the agenda of John Kennedy and adopted the agenda of Lee Oswald?

i was born under a wandrin star
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-19-2017, 2:11 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,370
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefly-2 View Post
It's pretty much either that or being incredibly inept at accomplishing their stated goal isn't it?



the "fragmented habitat" dodge is just cover.


Ineptitude is always a good excuse whenever government does anything. But never overlook nefariousness.

Case in point. Many years ago the MLPA was sold as closing off areas to fishing so as to increase the fish populations which would cause them to spread out. In particular the kelp and inshore fisheries. The argument went that there’d be these connected closures that would grow and be able to create new fisheries in between. But even the most cursory look showed that there was no habitat available in between. Once the current habitat reached carrying capacity, that was it.

It wasn’t even difficult to understand. But what was the goal? Close of the coast to fishing. We argued for greater management instead. Well guess what? After the closures, DFG increased the size and reduced the bag limit on bass. Which is what we wanted all along.

The task force people argued the closures left open like 80-90% of the coast to fishing. And they used maps that anglers submitted to show how much fishing was left open. But here’s the catch. The map included surf fishing as well as off shore. And that’s two entirely separate fisheries. What thy actually did was close off the vast majority of fishable structure off the coast. Once past the surf, there is nothing.

It’s always been about destroying fishing and hunting. Period. Look at the finding. The MLPA was funded by the Monterey bay aquarium and the packard foundation. MB aq wants to close the coast to fishing. Their people were on the committees and task forces.

Same with the FnG commission. Nothing I a bunch of antis funded by anti groups.
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-19-2017, 2:39 PM
stonefly-2 stonefly-2 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: sacramento
Posts: 2,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
Ineptitude is always a good excuse whenever government does anything. But never overlook nefariousness.

Case in point. Many years ago the MLPA was sold as closing off areas to fishing so as to increase the fish populations which would cause them to spread out. In particular the kelp and inshore fisheries. The argument went that there’d be these connected closures that would grow and be able to create new fisheries in between. But even the most cursory look showed that there was no habitat available in between. Once the current habitat reached carrying capacity, that was it.

It wasn’t even difficult to understand. But what was the goal? Close of the coast to fishing. We argued for greater management instead. Well guess what? After the closures, DFG increased the size and reduced the bag limit on bass. Which is what we wanted all along.

The task force people argued the closures left open like 80-90% of the coast to fishing. And they used maps that anglers submitted to show how much fishing was left open. But here’s the catch. The map included surf fishing as well as off shore. And that’s two entirely separate fisheries. What thy actually did was close off the vast majority of fishable structure off the coast. Once past the surf, there is nothing.

It’s always been about destroying fishing and hunting. Period. Look at the finding. The MLPA was funded by the Monterey bay aquarium and the packard foundation. MB aq wants to close the coast to fishing. Their people were on the committees and task forces.

Same with the FnG commission. Nothing I a bunch of antis funded by anti groups.
Oh, i wasn't going with the ineptitude option there.
__________________
What do you call the people that abandoned the agenda of John Kennedy and adopted the agenda of Lee Oswald?

i was born under a wandrin star
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-19-2017, 7:37 PM
AGGRO's Avatar
AGGRO AGGRO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,681
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
Ineptitude is always a good excuse whenever government does anything. But never overlook nefariousness.

Case in point. Many years ago the MLPA was sold as closing off areas to fishing so as to increase the fish populations which would cause them to spread out. In particular the kelp and inshore fisheries. The argument went that there’d be these connected closures that would grow and be able to create new fisheries in between. But even the most cursory look showed that there was no habitat available in between. Once the current habitat reached carrying capacity, that was it.

It wasn’t even difficult to understand. But what was the goal? Close of the coast to fishing. We argued for greater management instead. Well guess what? After the closures, DFG increased the size and reduced the bag limit on bass. Which is what we wanted all along.

The task force people argued the closures left open like 80-90% of the coast to fishing. And they used maps that anglers submitted to show how much fishing was left open. But here’s the catch. The map included surf fishing as well as off shore. And that’s two entirely separate fisheries. What thy actually did was close off the vast majority of fishable structure off the coast. Once past the surf, there is nothing.

It’s always been about destroying fishing and hunting. Period. Look at the finding. The MLPA was funded by the Monterey bay aquarium and the packard foundation. MB aq wants to close the coast to fishing. Their people were on the committees and task forces.

Same with the FnG commission. Nothing I a bunch of antis funded by anti groups.
It was rigged from the get go. Reds shirts were a waste of time. We are leaving open the whole ocean, even if what was left was desert under water.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-19-2017, 8:00 PM
tmuller's Avatar
tmuller tmuller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,717
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by racinjason233
there is not enough land to maintain a healthy herd in many many parts of the state
and the OP is a guy from SLO...ya lions are a problem as is too many damn people. I worry about rollin a buck w/ my left front tire every morning...no problem with "herd numbers" in my neighborhood.
__________________
WTB - prelock smith 44's
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-19-2017, 8:09 PM
JustHitIt JustHitIt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Clovis, Ca
Posts: 287
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

This is one of many reasons...


http://www.jesseshunting.com/showthr...This-is-so-sad!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-19-2017, 8:47 PM
stonefly-2 stonefly-2 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: sacramento
Posts: 2,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustHitIt View Post
What is it?
__________________
What do you call the people that abandoned the agenda of John Kennedy and adopted the agenda of Lee Oswald?

i was born under a wandrin star
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-19-2017, 9:38 PM
JustHitIt JustHitIt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Clovis, Ca
Posts: 287
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefly-2 View Post
What is it?
It is assumed that they all slipped on icy terrain after a storm. Freaky as hell but not uncommon. The last major event that cause that much lost in deer population in X9a was back in mid 90’s
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-19-2017, 9:55 PM
stonefly-2 stonefly-2 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: sacramento
Posts: 2,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustHitIt View Post
It is assumed that they all slipped on icy terrain after a storm. Freaky as hell but not uncommon. The last major event that cause that much lost in deer population in X9a was back in mid 90’s
That's a shame.
__________________
What do you call the people that abandoned the agenda of John Kennedy and adopted the agenda of Lee Oswald?

i was born under a wandrin star
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-20-2017, 2:24 PM
Catman Catman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 55
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by furyous68 View Post
Anyone else think there should just be a moratorium on deer hunting in CA for a few years to help bring up the herd numbers... and hopefully the number of legal bucks? Would it help?
I majored in Wildlife Management at Humboldt State in 65, 66 and 70. I took a part time job doing a survey of the local population regarding funeral homes. I got to talk to a lot of local residents. CDFG was trying to open up a doe hunt in the area. One old guy in fortuna when he discovered that I was a student at Humboldt chastised me about the proposed Doe hunt. He told me that he could drive 50 miles back in the hills and not see a single deer. The very next weekend we took a field trip in the back country of Humboldt County and counted around 330 deer from the paved roads. Only one of them had antlers. The Doe hunt did not occur. Nature took over and most of the deer died of starvation that spring with full bellies. They were in such poor shape from the previous winter that they could not digest the grass. Also I think that 1970 was the year CDFG placed a 20 year moratorium on Mountain Lion hunting. We all know how that played out so no I do not think that we should have a moratorium on deer hunting in this state. Also remember that there are at least 2 wolf packs in Northern California.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-20-2017, 3:00 PM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
Then you do exactly as kalifornistan has done. Which they would only do if that’s what they wanted.

The purpose of all laws is never stated. It is always revealed in the law’s results
.
I think you're giving bureaucrats too much credit for (1) understanding ecology and (2) being able to successfully execute a plan to achieve their intended results.

Most good scientific discoveries are purely accidental and the result of tinkering. Taking medicine as an example, most pharmaceutical "miracles" were pure accidents. The good results happened while they were trying to do something else. Wayfarin, used for some heart patients, was originally rat poison. Viagra was laughing gas. Some chemotherapy drugs were once chemical weapons. Nitro glycerin, also used for some heart patients, is an explosive. And all these are the "successful" drugs -- the graveyard of failed experiments is big. Very big. In the case of medicine, the word "graveyard" isn't purely metaphorical. LOTS of people have died from well-meaning doctors and scientists. Until the advent of antibiotics (which are becoming obsolete), there were more deaths from modern medicine than lives saved.
Bloodletting, "hospital fever," ingestion of mercury, lack of proper sanitation are just the tipping point. So if doctors, pharma and chemical companies can't even predict their results when they have a clear financial interest in them, I'm skeptical that bureaucrats can do much either than fuss around and look important while blundering from one failure to the next.

Besides, if results are the measure of intention, then we'd have to call into question everything about our economic and political system. And we'd have to concede nearly ever point made by political activists regarding racism, crime, environmental damage, etc. In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, it's more likely that we're bad at doing what we want to do than it is that we're good at doing intentionally bad things. Most of us, but especially bureaucrats, think we're acting ethically and morally even when the results are both unethical and immoral.

Last edited by CVShooter; 11-20-2017 at 4:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-20-2017, 3:38 PM
Bull Elk Bull Elk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,776
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

No on the proposed moratorium. More deer are killed by lions, bears and other predators, and by cars than hunters. All a moratorium would accomplish would be to provide the predators with more food to eat.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-20-2017, 3:41 PM
Bull Elk Bull Elk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,776
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default Fawns

Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefly-2 View Post
It's not the fawns.
Bears take kills from lions, lions then take more than a deer a week like they otherwise would.

They are just pilfering the license fees anyway.
According to CA F&W, bears kill more than 40% of all new born fawns during the first 15 days they are born. Yes.......bears have a huge impact on the deer population, but nothing close to what the lions do to our deer.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-20-2017, 3:42 PM
Bull Elk Bull Elk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,776
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default Lions

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGGRO View Post
Lions take a lot of solitary bucks. Too many of the bastards.
Solitary bucks? Lions are opportunist. They will kill any deer at any time, buck, doe or fawn.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-20-2017, 3:44 PM
Bull Elk Bull Elk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,776
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JagerDog View Post
Even before the bears and lions were a significant factor the lack of doe hunting has been a huge negative. Lot of old baran does out there taking up feed. Doe hunts are largely left to local legislators vs. DFW. There's absolutlety no science involved, just emotions. Same as bear and lions.

In Socal, I'd agree on the fragmentation of suitable range. In Norcal, that's not a significant issue.
What doe hunts? That's such a misnomer that local politics play into doe hunts. ALL deer hunts are regulated by the state fish and wildlife commission. Why on earth would anyone want a doe hunt anyway? We need MORE fawns, not less.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-20-2017, 3:58 PM
Bull Elk Bull Elk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,776
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egerland View Post
I'm not sure mountain lions are a major problem. I've heard that between depredation permits and other "official" kills, the number shot annually is about what it was before the ban. The ban will never be overturned.

Fragmented habitat and drought are the main issues. Wolves are not a big factor yet, but lets hope they acquire a taste for juvenile bears and young lions.
You must be a young hunter to think that lions "may" not be a major problem. Let's do a little math shall we:

According to just about everything I've read, mountain lions need to kill one deer a week to survive. But, because we know that they eat animals other than deer, lets say that one lion kills one deer every other week. That means that on lion will kill approximately 26 deer a year. F&W biologist state that there are approximately 5,000 lions in California. Of course, that's what they said when the ban was passed around 1990. I guess they don't breed. But for argument sake, let's stick with the 5,000 lion number: 5,000 lions will kill approximately 130,000 deer a year. CA hunters kill around 20,000, vehicles a similar, if not larger number. Yes...........lions are the largest factor.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:01 PM
Bull Elk Bull Elk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,776
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lewdogg21 View Post
DFG has been stating that the lion population is about 5,000 since the 90's. Printed studies have shown a lion takes a deer sized animal every 5-7 days.

5,000 lions x 1 deer a week = 5,000 deer a week x 52 weeks a yeah = 260,000 deer a year. A generally more accepted population of lions here in Ca is 15,000 - 20,000.

So on the low end, 15,000 x 1 x 52 = 780,000 deer a year.

Other studies have shown that bears frequently (through learned behavior, instinct, whatever) steal kills from lions. Thus that number can only go up.
Lew............I see where you are going with this, but the problem is the latest information I have from CA F&W is that there are only about 500,000 deer in the state. In 2002, there were close to 700,000 deer. Yes....the impact by lions and bears is huge. Wait until the wolves start catching up.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:03 PM
JagerDog's Avatar
JagerDog JagerDog is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South SF Bay Area
Posts: 8,455
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bull Elk View Post
What doe hunts? That's such a misnomer that local politics play into doe hunts. ALL deer hunts are regulated by the state fish and wildlife commission. Why on earth would anyone want a doe hunt anyway? We need MORE fawns, not less.
It's called buck to doe ratio. And there's a lot of baren (past breeding age) does eating up food.

And no...doe hunts are largely authorized by County BOS.

From the horse's mouth to your ears:

.https://californiaoutdoorsqas.com/20...-no-doe-hunts/
__________________
Dems are better at corruption cuz they have so much practice.



#Blackolivesmatter
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:03 PM
Bull Elk Bull Elk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,776
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HUTCH 7.62 View Post
I think it’s time for a doe only season.
I don't get it. Why would you want to kill doe's? That's your future breeding stock. The CA deer population is dropping fast, why make it happen faster. Yes, in some circumstances killing doe's makes sense.......just not in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:26 PM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,593
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Kill a doe and subtract 3 deer from next years herd...

Mother doe has 2 fawn each estros..

Fish and game need to sharpen some pencils.
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:31 PM
DSMeyer's Avatar
DSMeyer DSMeyer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Just south of Los Angeles.
Posts: 2,514
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Doe hunting in California, I think I just pee’d my pants laughing so hard. So...... where are all of these doe?? No seriously, where are they in the numbers to justify a Doe/fawn hunt??? Then to top it off, I challenge the majority of hunters to take a “barren” mature doe out of this supposedly large herd.
The fact is there isn’t crapolla of deer numbers in this state to even think of a doe/fawn/antlerless deer hunting for the masses.
I do a lot of doe/meat hunting in other states that have it. These states HAVE deer up the wazoo, literally everywhere you look there is a herd of 15-35 deer, then you go about mile down the road and there’s another herd off into the distance. This last trip I ran into herds of deer that were darn near 100 head deep( granted they were two miles away and made it hard to close the gap). Nowhere have I seen this in California. So doe hunting in California, ha! Seriously hahaha!

Oh and to top it off, there where close to 800 WT doe/fawn tags left over for OTC purchase in the area I hunted when I left with about two weeks of hunting left in the season.
Again ROLFMAO!
__________________
We'll just give them the 'ol number 6.

Last edited by DSMeyer; 11-20-2017 at 4:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:41 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 5,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSMeyer View Post
Doe hunting in California, I think I just pee’d my pants laughing so hard. So...... where are all of these doe?? No seriously, where are they in the numbers to justify a Doe/fawn hunt??? Then to top it off, I challenge the majority of hunters to take a “barren” mature doe out of this supposedly large herd.
The fact is there isn’t crapolla of deer numbers in this state to even think of a doe/fawn/antlerless deer hunting for the masses.
I do a lot of doe/meat hunting in other states that have it. These states HAVE deer up the wazoo, literally everywhere you look there is a herd of 15-35 deer, then you go about mile down the road and there’s another herd off into the distance. This last trip I ran into herds of deer that were darn near 100 head deep( granted they were two miles away and made it hard to close the gap). Nowhere have I seen this in California. So doe hunting in California, ha! Seriously hahaha!

Oh and to top it off, there where close to 800 WT doe/fawn tags left over for OTC purchase in the area I hunted when I left with about two weeks of hunting left in the season.
Again ROLFMAO!
I remember seeing herds of 15-35+ here all the time when I was a kid, mostly just see 4-5 in a bunch now days.

Don't see Porcupine anymore either, wonder if the lions eating them all up.
__________________

Last edited by TMB 1; 11-20-2017 at 4:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:54 PM
gusbusterluvsguns gusbusterluvsguns is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nowhere in these post have i seen probably is more of a problem than mt lions, coyotes or bears......The lack of sustainable habitat.

Its just not deer, but all of our animals that we harvest.

Deer......well if you were getting shot at or chased, wouldn't you move?.....I look at the area around the s.f.refuge area around the san andreas resivor in SanMateo county.....I see tons and tons of deer. for the Longest time, there was a beautiful Mule Deer Buck that would bed down next to one of the busiest intersections in San Bruno. The only reason I know is I would see him at dawn browsing for grass and saw him a couple times get scared by a walking/jogger and their dog.

I just really think the issue is not so much harvesting by man and animals, but the lack of sustainable habitat/food
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:56 PM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bull Elk View Post
Solitary bucks? Lions are opportunist. They will kill any deer at any time, buck, doe or fawn.
Yes. But solitary deer are easier to kill. Fewer eyes and ears to catch them sneaking up. They'll take whatever opportunity would present itself, as would I. But solitary deer, which are mostly bucks, are easier to catch unaware on the average.

That being said, most of the kills I've found have been fawns. Slower, less alert, young & dumb. But I've also read that the solitary bucks are easier for lions than does since does tend to stick together with other deer. Makes sense. But I've never found a buck carcass from anything I didn't kill myself.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-20-2017, 5:05 PM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gusbusterluvsguns View Post

I just really think the issue is not so much harvesting by man and animals, but the lack of sustainable habitat/food
I agree. It's particularly true where the deer are migratory. And if they have to cross a busy road, there's going to be blood in the streets (literally -- deer blood).

On some BLM land nearby, deer are very hard to find. but 15 miles away, they're feeding on people's front lawns in a subdivision in the middle of the day. These deer have adapted. If I were in their hooves, I would too.

Lots of factors going on. It's too nuanced to let bureaucrats or even voters make such a black/white kind of decision.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-20-2017, 5:38 PM
DSMeyer's Avatar
DSMeyer DSMeyer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Just south of Los Angeles.
Posts: 2,514
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
I remember seeing herds of 15-35+ here all the time when I was a kid, mostly just see 4-5 in a bunch now days.

Don't see Porcupine anymore either, wonder if the lions eating them all up.
Of course, California was a completely different state when you and I were kids, but that was the past. The now is a completely different story., with the explosion of people, the destruction of habitat created by urban sprawl, the elimination of controlled burns through AQMD statutes and budget cuts, the advent and proliferation of eco-activists and their fraudulent litigations, the destruction of a science based wildlife management to become a feelings based wildlife sanctuary, and then the systemic mainstream elimination of anything outdoors related in favor of progessialism.
Unfortunately I can see the California deer species becoming put on the endangered species list, all from the insane activist that think they actually doing them good by introducing a whole slew of apex predators and also the ways and means of controlling the predator populations. I’ll give it 40 years and deer hunting will be kaput in this state.
__________________
We'll just give them the 'ol number 6.

Last edited by DSMeyer; 11-20-2017 at 5:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-20-2017, 7:17 PM
pennstater's Avatar
pennstater pennstater is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Diamond Bar,Ca.
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

DS, and folks here want to know why you and others choose to hunt out of state. Me included, altho it's for upland birds only. This state has just gotten awful for big game. It's another reason I stopped deer hunting in 2012.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-20-2017, 7:57 PM
stonefly-2 stonefly-2 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: sacramento
Posts: 2,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=DSMeyer;20929586]Doe hunting in California, I think I just pee’d my pants laughing so hard. So...... where are all of these doe?? No seriously, where are they in the numbers to justify a Doe/fawn hunt??? Then to top it off, I challenge the majority of hunters to take a “barren” mature doe out of this supposedly large herd.
The fact is there isn’t crapolla of deer numbers in this state to even think of a doe/fawn/antlerless deer hunting for the masses.
I do a lot of doe/meat hunting in other states that have it. These states HAVE deer up the wazoo, literally everywhere you look there is a herd of 15-35 deer, then you go about mile down the road and there’s another herd off into the distance. This last trip I ran into herds of deer that were darn near 100 head deep( granted they were two miles away and made it hard to close the gap). Nowhere have I seen this in California. So doe hunting in California, ha! Seriously hahaha!

Youv'e answered your own question.

They have doe hunts and they have deer "up the wazoo".

if you have a ratio of 40 to 1 you have every little buck that can doing his part but some does won't be bred, they are barren. (for all practical purposes)
But they still eat the available food.

Does that get bred drop a 50/50 ratio of male/female, do the math.
Bring the ratio back up this way and recruitment of bucks will increase, number of bucks increases the number of does that get bred increases.
__________________
What do you call the people that abandoned the agenda of John Kennedy and adopted the agenda of Lee Oswald?

i was born under a wandrin star
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-20-2017, 8:01 PM
Bull Elk Bull Elk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,776
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Unless someone hunted deer and pheasants in the 60's, 70's and 80's, they really don't have a clue how good the hunting was then, and how awful it is now. Scott gives it 40 years before the end of deer hunting in our state. I think it will be much sooner than that. What in the hell happened to California? Seriously, what happened? Liberals have destroyed everything good about California. They've killed hunting opportunities, enacted crazy gun and ammo laws. It's sad.....really sad.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-20-2017, 8:12 PM
JagerDog's Avatar
JagerDog JagerDog is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South SF Bay Area
Posts: 8,455
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

A good read:

http://www.deerfriendly.com/deer/cal...eer-population
__________________
Dems are better at corruption cuz they have so much practice.



#Blackolivesmatter
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-20-2017, 8:27 PM
DSMeyer's Avatar
DSMeyer DSMeyer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Just south of Los Angeles.
Posts: 2,514
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=stonefly-2;20930387]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSMeyer View Post
Doe hunting in California, I think I just pee’d my pants laughing so hard. So...... where are all of these doe?? No seriously, where are they in the numbers to justify a Doe/fawn hunt??? Then to top it off, I challenge the majority of hunters to take a “barren” mature doe out of this supposedly large herd.
The fact is there isn’t crapolla of deer numbers in this state to even think of a doe/fawn/antlerless deer hunting for the masses.
I do a lot of doe/meat hunting in other states that have it. These states HAVE deer up the wazoo, literally everywhere you look there is a herd of 15-35 deer, then you go about mile down the road and there’s another herd off into the distance. This last trip I ran into herds of deer that were darn near 100 head deep( granted they were two miles away and made it hard to close the gap). Nowhere have I seen this in California. So doe hunting in California, ha! Seriously hahaha!

Youv'e answered your own question.

They have doe hunts and they have deer "up the wazoo".

if you have a ratio of 40 to 1 you have every little buck that can doing his part but some does won't be bred, they are barren. (for all practical purposes)
But they still eat the available food.

Does that get bred drop a 50/50 ratio of male/female, do the math.
Bring the ratio back up this way and recruitment of bucks will increase, number of bucks increases the number of does that get bred increases.


Your seariously missing the point. These states that have game also have a human population for the entire state that the city of LA and San Francisco have with 10x the amount of useable habitat. Wide open Doe hunting in California as your sugesting would completely and irreversibly devastate deer herds here in this jacked up state.
You do realize that doe are born at a slightly higher ratio than their male counterparts. Also it only take one buck to insiminate a herd.
The reality of this whole matter is that California hunters need to accept the fact that they’ve lost! The liberal eco nazis have pulled the rug from under you and then burned it. They’ve passed insane legislation and laws taking your rights away bit by bit and now that there’s a sliver left, your all up in arms. I sure as hell have.
__________________
We'll just give them the 'ol number 6.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-20-2017, 8:54 PM
JagerDog's Avatar
JagerDog JagerDog is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South SF Bay Area
Posts: 8,455
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=DSMeyer;20930498]
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefly-2 View Post



Your seariously missing the point. These states that have game also have a human population for the entire state that the city of LA and San Francisco have with 10x the amount of useable habitat. Wide open Doe hunting in California as your sugesting would completely and irreversibly devastate deer herds here in this jacked up state.
You do realize that doe are born at a slightly higher ratio than their male counterparts. Also it only take one buck to insiminate a herd.
The reality of this whole matter is that California hunters need to accept the fact that they’ve lost! The liberal eco nazis have pulled the rug from under you and then burned it. They’ve passed insane legislation and laws taking your rights away bit by bit and now that there’s a sliver left, your all up in arms. I sure as hell have.
What exactly are you blaming here? It looks like horse poop (all over the road).

Population? Habitat? Lion moratorium? Bear with dogs moratorium? Gun control?
__________________
Dems are better at corruption cuz they have so much practice.



#Blackolivesmatter
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-20-2017, 9:16 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 5,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JagerDog View Post
1956 high doe kill year. Deer population down hill since then.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:09 PM
stonefly-2 stonefly-2 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: sacramento
Posts: 2,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=DSMeyer;20930498]
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefly-2 View Post



Your seariously missing the point. These states that have game also have a human population for the entire state that the city of LA and San Francisco have with 10x the amount of useable habitat. Wide open Doe hunting in California as your sugesting would completely and irreversibly devastate deer herds here in this jacked up state.
You do realize that doe are born at a slightly higher ratio than their male counterparts. Also it only take one buck to insiminate a herd.
The reality of this whole matter is that California hunters need to accept the fact that they’ve lost! The liberal eco nazis have pulled the rug from under you and then burned it. They’ve passed insane legislation and laws taking your rights away bit by bit and now that there’s a sliver left, your all up in arms. I sure as hell have.
"Wide open doe hunt"? where would you even get that idea?

Do we have a "wide open " buck hunt? no
We have tags, a given number of tags......based on game management principles.

How many is "a herd"? Are the does not bearing fawns because they don't get bred, because the feed is too poor or because they are old?
__________________
What do you call the people that abandoned the agenda of John Kennedy and adopted the agenda of Lee Oswald?

i was born under a wandrin star
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:11 PM
stonefly-2 stonefly-2 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: sacramento
Posts: 2,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
1956 high doe kill year. Deer population down hill since then.
Doe hunts stopped in 1958.
__________________
What do you call the people that abandoned the agenda of John Kennedy and adopted the agenda of Lee Oswald?

i was born under a wandrin star
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:41 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 5,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefly-2 View Post
Doe hunts stopped in 1958.
Quote:
Also, California has conducted a bucks only harvest in all but a few years since hunting was resumed in 1927.
Poachers kill to many does.. The lumping zones together and issuing 2 tags per hunter doesn't help either.



Open a season on does and the deer are finished in CA.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-20-2017, 11:07 PM
stonefly-2 stonefly-2 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: sacramento
Posts: 2,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
Poachers kill to many does.. The lumping zones together and issuing 2 tags per hunter doesn't help either.



Open a season on does and the deer are finished in CA.
So hunting for does has been closed since 1958 but poachers killing does has caused a decline anyway?

The deer are finished anyway if management doesn't change.
Youv'e read the breakdown of deer mortality comparing hunting to auto collisions and predation?
What percentage of hunt killed deer do you suppose were killed illegally?

Poachers kill does partly because they have about a 40x better chance that the deer they see will be a doe.
__________________
What do you call the people that abandoned the agenda of John Kennedy and adopted the agenda of Lee Oswald?

i was born under a wandrin star
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-20-2017, 11:21 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 5,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefly-2 View Post
So hunting for does has been closed since 1958 but poachers killing does has caused a decline anyway?

The deer are finished anyway if management doesn't change.
Youv'e read the breakdown of deer mortality comparing hunting to auto collisions and predation?
What percentage of hunt killed deer do you suppose were killed illegally?

Poachers kill does partly because they have about a 40x better chance that the deer they see will be a doe.
Did you read the part that said they only had doe hunts for a few years? That article has a graph that shows increase in herd from 1927 when it was buck only to a decrease from 1956 on when there was a high doe kill.

A lot more people today then way back when, but there have always been poachers and people hitting them with cars since cars have been on the road. Think the a lot more people increase both?

I agree management needs to change, but a doe season now isn't going to help.
__________________

Last edited by TMB 1; 11-20-2017 at 11:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:22 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.