2017 deer tag proposals (Some DRASTIC cuts possible!)

Mass-n-trash

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
499
Reaction score
4
Just thought I would start a new thread on this. The proposed standouts I saw were...

X9a, from 650 to 270 - Archery from 140 to 30
X9b. from 325 to 230 - Archery from 300 to 210
X12, from 680 to 350 - Archery from 100 to 40

G3 (Goodale), from 35 to 25

Here's the link...
http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2016/360-361_Deer_Data_Supplement.pdf
 

6x7

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
1,308
Reaction score
12
Save your points and it will be a great hunt in two or three years last year seemed off for 9a.
 

ChrisAMX

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
735
Reaction score
12
I see they kept D13 at a healthy 4000! too bad there's only 1000 deer.
 

CL&RR

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
682
Reaction score
7
J12 round valley went from 10 to 2 also...why even have a hunt.
 

Mjp62

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
Deer numbers that low? Gotta be a joke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Bankrunner

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
11
One would assume it is based on sound management practices but it would still be nice to see the logic behind the cut in tags. The DFG Commission and the DFW are public entities so their records are available to the public.
 

CL&RR

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
682
Reaction score
7
I'm all for the deer if the heard is that bad. But I agree we need to see the reasoning behind that drastic of cuts.
 

mezcan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
812
Reaction score
0
I'm all for the deer if the heard is that bad. But I agree we need to see the reasoning behind that drastic of cuts.
Because the mountain lions have to eat too. If hunters are over harvesting deer, what will the kitties eat? Mountain lions are resorting to crawling in bedroom windows to eat pet dogs, and sneaking into neighborhoods for cats and other likely little pet critters. Hunters need to see that liberals and their causes come first. Keep the deer tag numbers high in the zones where no deer are harvested in any great numbers so they can keep generating revenue from the hunting population. And for crying out loud don't ever hunt mountain lions , that would be exercising too much common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

d10hunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
[emoji115] [emoji121]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

zacajawea

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
48
Reaction score
1
I'm going to take a stab at this and guess that it must be the fawn survival rate this winter in the X9A and X9B units. That area saw more snow than it has seen in ages and I bet winter survival and fawn survival was really poor. The harvest last year was good and consistent with other years. The CDFW is just being a bit proactive, which is fine as long as the tag numbers go up on modest snow years...
 

dustin ray

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
28
I think the tag numbers have been to high in 9A this change can be a good long term.
 

basshol

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
The fawn survival rate i don't think so.the deer winter in bishop.theres deer everywhere right now. That means at 35 tags for a16 it you would draw about every 14-15 years
 

basshol

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
The initial reports show low deer numbers.had the same amount of deer 4 years ago.didnt cut the numbers then
 

Plain ol' Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
671
Reaction score
1
We've been through several years of severe drought followed by a severe winter (heavy snow pack). I have no doubts that the adjustments are appropriate. Whether they give us the tags back as the heard recovers or if it recovers is another question.

Some of my research leads me to believe that bears are at or near carrying capacity, so I feel that I will be doing my part by pursuing bear this season. Please give it some thought. It may help speed up recovery of the deer heards.
 

mezcan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
812
Reaction score
0
We've been through several years of severe drought followed by a severe winter (heavy snow pack). I have no doubts that the adjustments are appropriate. Whether they give us the tags back as the heard recovers or if it recovers is another question.

Some of my research leads me to believe that bears are at or near carrying capacity, so I feel that I will be doing my part by pursuing bear this season. Please give it some thought. It may help speed up recovery of the deer heards.
My research indicates that the carrying capacity in the state for liberals has been exceeded long ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

hntnnut

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
1,814
Reaction score
6
The fawn survival rate i don't think so.the deer winter in bishop.theres deer everywhere right now. That means at 35 tags for a16 it you would draw about every 14-15 years
It IS fawn survival rate not to mention adult survival rate, and there is real good reason for the cuts. That winter range your referring to had a lot of snow on it for weeks. Shoot there was snow on the valley floor as at south as about poverty hill for a few weeks. I have friends that shed hunt that are finding an incredible number of winter kills mostly fawns. One found 6 in one afternoon. When was the last time you were on this side of the range and saw all these deer first hand?

Richard
 

Mass-n-trash

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
499
Reaction score
4
As bad as this last drought was, I wouldn't be surprised if the deer went into the winter with way less than optimal fat reserves. Throw in the snow we had this year and I'm sure it was difficult for some of the herds to cope.
 

JoeC

Active member
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Winter kill was an issue and not just fawn mortality was high. However, I am having a hard time understanding why they want to cut 79% of the archery tags but only 58% of the rifle tags in 9A. I don’t understand why the cuts are not evenly distributed, and I don’t understand why they are so deep in that unit. My understanding is that lots of deer in 9A winter in Nevada, and lots of the deer that winter in Round Valley migrate in from the park or the western mountain range. No one can argue that a lot of deer died, and I don’t have an issue making quota reductions to save the herd. But, the uneven distribution of the proposed cuts in the same unit raises a red flag for me. I would like to see the science behind the proposal including data on migration before they implemented it. If the cuts are really needed they should cut archery and rifle by the same percentage.
 


Top Bottom