CA Deer population has dropped by 50% since 1990 according to DFG

[chicoredneck]

In 1990 the deer population had exceeded the carrying capacity. It takes several decades for those things to re-adjust. The current population is by no means scarce.

The article blames habitat loss as a contributing factor, but its not the only culprit. Nowhere in the article is "POACHING" mentioned as a possible contributing factor.

The only time hunting had a negative impact on the population was during the Gold Rush. Domestic food cultivation was abandoned in favor of unregulated commercial hunting to feed the hungry citizens (Unregulated?? kind of akin to poaching).

I think that is a major factor. In having conversations with several game wardens they related several stories of guys poaching several hundered deer a year! They said that this problem is becoming very wide spread as there is now an underground black market for wild venison. The fines and punishment that many of these guys get is not enough to keep them from going back out and doing it again after being caught.

I also know that there was a large die off last year from disease in my area.

[IVC]

I also know that there was a large die off last year from disease in my area.

I thought Bambi-Care was supposed to fix this problem. No?

[ucsdryder]

In the early 90s I would see 17 deer come up to the house to feed every night. Now there is 1 doe that hangs out. She stays close to the house and sleeps next to the barn. No habitat change at all. Only change are lions. At 1 deer per week it doesn't take long for one or two lions to clean out an area and move onto the next.

[jmonte35]

I think everyone has brought up valid reasons for the low deer population in CA in comparison to some other states (though I tend to disagree with the doe harvesting logic, but thats a seperate topic).

Most if not all these conditions existed in 1990, however. The question remains, what has changed since 1990 to induce a 50% herd loss?

Ahhhhh....the disagree with the doe harvesting comment has been like a time bomb on my brain....I can't let it go.....

How do you disagree??? Proper game management involves managing BOTH sexes. It should be area specific just like any other properly managed state. Some areas have too many does some too little. The ratio's are way out of wack in many areas. If you can't shoot does because of a population problem you damn certain shouldn't be able to shoot bucks. I don't think I've ever seen a property that was overran by bucks. Property owners don't even have an option to control their herds....it's F@#King terrible. The reason the populations going to have huge up swings and huge down swings is because of improper management (lion's included). There's too many politics in California's system and not enough science and enforcement. Poachers are only issued a slap on the wrist. We caught a poacher literally red handed called the Sheriff's and DFG. They were able to get a confession that he knowingly poached a deer. The DA wouldn't convict for reasons we never knew. Go to Alaska, the midwest, the northeast, etc. etc. these offenses are very harsh....even small mistakes are very harsh but you will never make the mistake again.

Edit: You guys saying it isn't DFG is correct....they are under funded and aren't backed by the court systems. I would think that with all the Anti's in this state that the DFG would be fully backed but they aren't....

I love this state for what it's worth but wow could it be so much better.........The only area I believe they have right is their duck reg's...I think these reg's are spot on but I think that's because of the work of CWA and DU.

[lewdogg21]

Duck regs are set by the Feds (for max levels). States can go under them but not over. Honestly the goose triangle by Sac refuge is a piece of poo and I have beef with the management of that.

[chicoredneck]

Duck regs are set by the Feds (for max levels). States can go under them but not over. Honestly the goose triangle by Sac refuge is a piece of poo and I have beef with the management of that.

I'm not up on the current waterfowl politics, but a few years ago CA's total duck limit was based on the population of mallards. If it dipped below a certain level they could shut down all duck hunting in the state. That's just ridiculous!

I don't want to get into the doe harvesting argument as it has been hashed out before. I will simply state that obviously shooting does will change the doe to buck ratio. Shooting does will also abviously bring down the total number of deer in the state. It's simple math. Doe tags are available to PLM ranches and some do use them. Usually, the reason is to lower the herd count in order to increase feed avialablity. Doing this increases the health of the remaining deer and prompts larger anter growth for the bucks that they are trying to sell for big money. They shoot the does to decrease the population, not to increase it.