When to Quit?

[YosemiteSam]

I've been looking up some academic papers discussing CA's blacktail & mule deer herds.  Looks pretty dire.  One of the reasons that I gave up deer hunting in CA 20 years ago was the lack of deer.  Seeing more deer and, frankly, 'cause I wanted to, I took it back up again.  But, according to the data, our populations have been cut in half since 1990 (about the time I stopped).

CA DFW obviously relies on tag sales to fund its operations.  A moratorium would be against their interests since it would affect departmental revenues.  Yet, continued pressure isn't helping either.  

So my question is one of ethics.  This is not a prescription for all hunters, just your personal choice.  If your state had only 10% success rates and rapidly thinning herds, would you give up hunting deer in your state?

[Trenton G.]

No, I would just be more selective in what I harvested. Let the younger bucks go, as well as does. If I were with the fish and game department, I would try and get some different regulations made. For example, a 3 on a side rule like we have here, limiting hunters to one buck per year. Maybe even going a few years with no doe tags sold. I'm no conservation expert, but it seems to me that this might help a little bit.

[Trumpkin the Dwarf]

Not necessarily. I would however set a self imposed rule not to shoot a buck that wasn't at or past his prime.

[pdk25]

Self imposed rules generally do little as far as game management.  Things won't change without a legislative action

[McDave]

Coincidentally, the year you stopped hunting, 1990, was also the year mountain lion hunting was banned in California.  Under the current political climate in California, I'm sure the DFW would prefer to manage deer populations by feeding mountain lions, and perhaps wolves, if they can be reintroduced, rather than by human hunters.  The current head of CA DFW has said as much publicly.  Granted, mountain lions and wolves don't buy hunting licenses, but I don't see reduced fees as an effective deterrent to idealistic fervor.

Unlike the early part of the 20th century, DFW has qualified wildlife biologists who are capable of counting the numbers and protecting the viability of the deer herd, and I don't believe they will issue more deer tags to humans than the population will stand.  So my advice would be to go ahead and hunt while you still can.  If the deer herd falls below a huntable level, I don't think it will be the fault of human hunters who are legally hunting.

[YosemiteSam]

Good thoughts.  But keep in mind that CA is well past those measures.  Outside selected lottery "special hunts," we haven't been able to shoot does for many decades.  Although I've talked to a couple people over the years who will pass up a forkie if it's opening weekend, most take whatever buck they find since they know that they may not see another buck of any size (let alone get a shot) for another few years.

Not trying to argue your points -- just setting the stage with a little more detail.

[Michael Arnette]

Yes I would! I would be hunting elsewhere, believe me if Oklahoma has a major CWD kill or something otherwise I'll be hunting in other states. It's one of the reasons I have spread out my hunting endeavors. I have good spots for Whitetail in Oklahoma Kansas Arkansas and Missouri. Multiple spots for elk in Colorado and hopefully expanding my Whitetail hunting to eastern Colorado soon.
If I were you I would be giving Oregon, Washington, and Idaho a good hard look

[jsweka]

Originally posted by pdk25:
Self imposed rules generally do little as far as game management.  Things won't change without a legislative action

That is correct.  At some point you need to trust the biologists making the harvest recommendations and the legislature to accept their recommendations.

[Cory Mattson]

Traditional equipment does not negatively impact herds. All other modern tools do with their varying degrees of ease and destruction.
10% success was common in the 70s
Herd reduction would be from poor habitat - and or predators?
In all cases I only hunt if there is a surplus - so if there was not a surplus and game needed a break I might support that - but gun season must stop first to prove to me there is serious effort to help a herd
<><
<--------------<<<<<<<

[Cyclic-Rivers]

I would not quite but I would take more out of state hunts.

[Rob W.]

Honestly the things I love to do with my life are a good enough reason for me to live where I can do those things well.

[BAK]

I do that all the time.  I can tell if numbers are up or down as I'm in the timber daily.  If the year is low, I will be very picky or take nothing.

[Sam McMichael]

Yes.

[Doug_K]

Originally posted by Cory Mattson:
Traditional equipment does not negatively impact herds. All other modern tools do with their varying degrees of ease and destruction.
10% success was common in the 70s
Herd reduction would be from poor habitat - and or predators?
In all cases I only hunt if there is a surplus - so if there was not a surplus and game needed a break I might support that - but gun season must stop first to prove to me there is serious effort to help a herd
<><
<--------------<<<<<<<

Well said. Most folks I know that complain about never seeing deer will still shoot whatever they do see (Rifle hunters for the most part).

[ChuckC]

Nothing says you have to kill one... just go and enjoy what you do.
CHuckC

[Red Beastmaster]

I don't shoot enough deer to affect anything.

[BlacktailBowhunter]

The cougar population and ballot box measures cut your deer herd down or should I say our deer herd because I plan to hunt CA at some point.

The HSUS outlawed hunting cougars and the bio report I read showed CA is a predator pit. Oregon was becoming a predator pit but hunters put pressure on our fish and game so they developed the cougar management plan and started reducing cat numbers.

[BWallace10327]

Originally posted by Doug_K:
 

Originally posted by Cory Mattson:
Traditional equipment does not negatively impact herds. All other modern tools do with their varying degrees of ease and destruction.
10% success was common in the 70s
Herd reduction would be from poor habitat - and or predators?
In all cases I only hunt if there is a surplus - so if there was not a surplus and game needed a break I might support that - but gun season must stop first to prove to me there is serious effort to help a herd
<><
<--------------<<<<<<<

Well said. Most folks I know that complain about never seeing deer will still shoot whatever they do see (Rifle hunters for the most part). [/b]

I call BULL.  Unchecked hunting harms the herd IE mountain lions.  They're a great animal, but humans are now stewards of the land and its inhabitants. One species can't be hunted while letting the other run wild. People and lions each eating deer makes for less to go around. That's double dipping. What is the solution to that? Ban deer hunting so the lions that are not regulated have enough?

[highlow]

Don't know if this is topic-related, but my club hunted one day in the first muzzleloader season and one day so far during out six day shotgun deer. To date, our tally is 4 coyotes and 3 bucks. Wondering what this says. And, these "yotes" were huge and judging by their hide, were extremely well fed. Can't see how they'd get that way eating only rodents.

[YosemiteSam]

Some of the data  I was reading yesterday indicated about half of the annual fawn kill was due to lions and about a quarter was coyotes (all CA data).  But there were many healthy does also taken by lions, counter-intuitive to the rule of thumb that predators only take the weak, old or sick among the herds.  They also migrate with the herds, overlapping each other's territory, bucking the usual trend to keep to one large area as resident predators.  Like our deer, our lions are always on the move.

Doubtless, the presence and growth of lions isn't helping things.  But I'm curious as to why this would be a significant contributor over many years.  What level of deer population would reduce lion numbers?  How has the lion population stayed in control in the past?  Is the absence of grizzlies or wolves (who may steal lion kills) allowing lions to grow beyond their normal carrying capacity?  Too many questions, for sure.  And dynamic, complex systems can't easily be reduced to singular causes so much as the interplay between many causes.

Personally, I lean toward Daniel Quinn's "law of limited competition."  The basic idea is that in the natural world, animals may compete to the fullest extent of their ability but they may not lay claim to all the food nor may they wage war against their competitors.  All animals follow this rule (including humans before civilized cultures took over).  So the lions and coyotes are safe from me.  Unless, of course, I suddenly decide that I want a nice coyote pelt for some reason.

I appreciate the idea somebody posted about traditional bowhunters not being a significant problem compared with rifle hunters.  I've only taken 2 deer in my life -- both with a rifle.  But I certainly agree that if all hunters were limited to more primitive (and quiet) methods, then there would be fewer hunters and many fewer kills.  My rifle kills were over and done with so quickly, I was left with a slight feeling of disappointment.  I'm more proud of stalking in close to several deer this year (all does, it turned out) than in my kill with a rifle last year.

Now if only we could convince our wise and loving representatives to put a moratorium on rifle hunting only...