Outdoors, action and adventure

What are the regulations for slingshot hunting?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Game and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: I have been searching for any regulations specifically regarding slingshots but have found no clear reference to them within the Department of Fish and Game hunting regulations. As written, slingshots are not a legal method of take for any game. Yet there are inferences that under certain sections, such as Fish and Game Code, section 4186, that a slingshot would be considered a legal method of take. Further, varmints such as jackrabbit and ground squirrel do not fall under the regulations for fur-bearing mammals. I have not been able to find any source of reference on the DFG website or credible interpretation of the regulations by any warden or lawyer. Can you please provide clear references relating to the use of a slingshot for taking any game or non-game animals? (Ron Rios, Jr.)

Answer: Slingshots may only be used to take nongame birds and mammals (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 475). However, the only nongame birds that may be taken by any method are English house sparrows and starlings (FGC, sections 3800(a) and 3801). There is also a crow hunting season, but crows may only be taken by shotgun, falconry or archery (CCR Title 14, section 485). Common nongame mammals ("varmint" is not a term used in Fish and Game law) that may be taken include coyotes, bobcats, opossums, ground squirrels and orange-belly marmots. Take of bobcat requires possession of a bobcat tag (CCR Title 14, section 478.1).

Rabbits and tree squirrels are game mammals, and their take with a slingshot is illegal. Nongame mammals are those species not otherwise categorized in the law as resident small game (CCR Title 14, section 257), big game (CCR Title 14, section 350) or fur-bearing mammals (FGC, section 4000). The complete Fish and Game Code is available online at: http://dfg.ca.gov/enforcement/.

Q: Is it true that spiny lobsters must be kept whole (and not tailed) until brought into our home and ready for immediate consumption? That’s what I just heard but I thought they just needed to stay whole until they could be brought ashore so that size can be determined. That’s what we’ve always done. Is it OK to tail them once ashore? (Jim A.)

DFG wardens nab arson suspect, may have saved hunters

California Department of Fish and Game wardens may have saved the lives of hunters last Saturday when they arrested a man suspected of setting a fire in a state wildlife area as hunting was in progress—and subsequently evacuated more than 20 hunters.

This occurred in Wister Wildlife Area in Imperial County. Wardens observed Jacob Thogmartin, 26, of Ramona, leaving the brush just outside of Wister without a weapon and "acting suspiciously," according to a news release issued this week by the DFG.

After contact was made with the suspect, a fire broke out just behind Thogmartin, who a day earlier had received a citation for driving on a closed road inside Wister.

The fire burned more than 650 acres, but there were no reported injuries.

"A fire in a wildlife area filled with hunters could have been disaster," DFG Assistant Chief Paul Hamdorf said. "The wardens quickly apprehended the suspect and ensured everyone was evacuated safely."

It may never be known whether the fire was set to deliberately disrupt the hunt.

Thogmarton was booked into county jail on suspicion of felony arson.

Are wild pigs a threat to me or my dogs?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Game and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: I learned recently that some Indians on a reservation in my area released some pigs for hunting purposes and now they are breeding and beginning to populate the area where I walk my dogs in Descanso, California. Are these pigs a threat to me or my dogs? (Sheri M., San Diego)

Answer: We do know that wild pigs inhabit some of the areas around Julian and Descanso. However, we are unable to positively identify the mechanism for their recent introduction.

According to Marc Kenyon, Statewide Coordinator for the Bear, Mountain Lion and Wild Pig Programs at the Department of Fish and Game, wild pigs are timid creatures that simply want to be left alone for the most part. However, they can be very aggressive if approached and they perceive the person as a threat (particularly if they have piglets nearby). If you see a wild pig while recreating in the outdoors, please try to avoid approaching it. You can stand still and maintain your dog close to you on the leash. Pigs are nearsighted and will tend to ignore objects that stand completely still.

Furthermore, pigs have a great sense of smell. They will smell you before they see you. If you walk with the wind at your back, your scent is more likely to be detected at great distances by wild pigs, and they will likely avoid you.

However, there have been some instances where wild pigs have come into contact with people. Usually only one pig will approach while the rest of the group of pigs (known as a sounder) evacuate the area. If this does happen to you, try to stay away from the head of the pig. They have sharp teeth that can cut through clothing. Back out of the area as quickly as possible.

Q: Is it legal to pick up sand dollars on the beaches of San Francisco, with or without a fishing license, even though some are still alive -- purple in color with hair (fuzz)? (Peter R.)

Why are refuge hunting reservations so difficult to draw?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Game and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: How are waterfowl reservations picked and how are they kept random? There seems to be something wrong with the system because it doesn’t seem to be randomly selecting people. Several of my neighbors and I have put in for the season draw for multiple refuges for the last few years without much success. One person has not been drawn in the past two years. Some people may get drawn only once while other people are getting drawn quite a bit. Can you please shed some light on this for us? (Rod H., Norco)

Answer: Unfortunately, the competition for waterfowl reservations is enormous! More than 750,000 hunt choices have been submitted for the 2011/2012 season so far. Some areas are extremely difficult to draw.

According to Department of Fish and Game License Program Analyst Glenn Underwood, reservations are issued by random drawings. Each drawing is independent and does not affect the outcome of any other drawing. The likelihood of being drawn does not increase when you were not drawn for a previous hunt. Odds are determined solely by the number of applicants who apply for an area on that date.

In a series of random drawings, some people are likely to be drawn more than once, and some may not be drawn at all. The results should look somewhat like half of a bell curve.

Can padlocks be used on crab traps to discourage theft?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Game and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: Isn’t it illegal for someone other than the owner of a sport crab trap to pull, move or tamper with the trap and then take the crabs from inside? What about taking someone else’s traps and buoys or cutting off the attached rope? A lot of crab thefts have been going on along the California Central Coast this year and so I have resorted to using padlocks on my trap doors to discourage the theft of the crabs inside. Is there an issue with this? (Mike W.)

Answer: It is illegal to disturb, move or damage any trap, or remove any saltwater crustacean from a trap, that belongs to another person without having written permission in possession from the owner of the trap (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 29.80 (a)(3) and Fish and Game Code, section 9002(a)).

Regarding the use of padlocks to secure your trap doors and discourage theft, there is no law against it but it is not advised. Unlike commercial crab traps, sport traps are not required to contain a destruct device to allow the crabs to escape in the event the trap is lost. Without this device, a lost trap will remain closed and continue fishing/killing crabs for many years to come.

From an ethical standpoint to ensure this doesn’t happen, we suggest using a closing mechanism that will eventually disintegrate and allow any trapped crabs to escape. One suggestion is to tie the lid shut with a single strand of untreated cotton twine size No. 120 or less. If you want to keep using padlocks, another option is one that commercial crabbers use. You can cut away part of the wire mesh for the trap, and then weave cotton twine in the hole large enough for the crabs to escape (for commercial traps the opening has to be five inches in diameter). This way you can still secure the trap, and if your trap is lost it will not continue fishing/killing crabs for years. It will also allow you to remove crabs should your padlock get rusted shut.

If you suspect someone is illegally disturbing your traps, be sure to report this to your local warden or through CalTIP at 1-800-334-2258.

Q: The current waterfowl season regulations show a special speck and snow goose season from Feb. 18-22 for the Balance of the State. Do people like me who belong to a duck club located in the speck closed zone (usually after Dec. 15) get to hunt specks into February? (Andre)

Why are there shot shell limits in refuges and wildlife areas?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Game and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: During the four duck limit era, the 25 shot shell limit in refuges and wildlife areas made sense. However, now that the limit is seven ducks, and in some cases the goose count can be six, why aren’t we allowed to carry more shells into the field? Inevitably, that limitation leads to one of us doing the "walk of shame" back to the truck to retrieve another 25 shells for a full day of hunting in a blind. That is not the most fun task given some of the walks at refuges like Little Dry Creek can be more than a mile in one direction. (Russ L.)

Answer: This is a rule that applies to many National Wildlife Refuges and Wildlife Areas in the state. It was put into place to increase effective shooting by waterfowl hunters on public hunting areas, thus ensuring a more enjoyable hunting experience for all hunters on the area. By limiting the amount of ammo a hunter can carry into the field, the goal is to reduce possible unsportsmanlike behavior (e.g. excessive and/or less discriminating shooting) which will improve the hunting experience.

According to Department of Fish and Game Waterfowl Biologist Shaun Oldenburger, Los Banos Wildlife Area established the first shotgun waterfowl shell restrictions in 1977 with a limit of 50 shells per day. In 1978, this regulation was expanded to Kern NWR (25 shells) and in 1979 expanded to nearly all San Joaquin Valley National Wildlife Refuges and Wildlife Areas (25 shells). Grizzly Island was included in 1980. By 1985, shell restrictions expanded to all Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley National Wildlife Refuges and Wildlife Areas, and in 1986 San Jacinto was included.

In 1979, when the 25 shotgun shell restrictions were first established in the San Joaquin Valley, the waterfowl season length was 93 days with a seven bird bag. By 1988, waterfowl populations had declined and so the season was reduced to 59 days and four duck bag limits. Still, the primary purpose of the 25 shotgun shell restrictions is to increase both the hunting experience and improve overall shot selection by waterfowl hunters. Daily bag limits will not dictate these restrictions, since removing them may increase the unsportsmanlike behaviors that caused their introduction to begin with.

Fortunately, waterfowl populations in California are currently healthy and so a more liberal bag limit is now in place. Hopefully, with this combination of healthy waterfowl populations and the 25 shotgun shell restrictions in place within the National Wildlife Refuges and Wildlife Areas throughout the state, hunters are enjoying their hunting experiences now and will continue to do so well into the future!

Q: Is it legal to use SCUBA equipment to catch Dungeness crabs? (David B.)

Hornady offers Z-Max ammo...for vaporizing zombie varmints

The living dead are back -- but this time instead of human zombies lurching about it's those pesky varmints (who knew we had to worry about flesh-eating gophers!).

To be prepared for Zombiegeddon: when varmints attack, Hornady Manufacturing has introduced Z-Max bullets to its arsenal of offerings.

Following the introduction of Zombie Max ammunition last year, Hornady has augmented its line of green-tipped bullets by adding five calibers "specifically designed to vaporize zombie varmints."

Guess it's better to be safe than sorry ... just in case!

Z-Max image courtesy of Matt Hodtwalker / Hornady Manufacturing

Image 'likely' that of famous Oregon wolf, now in California

It turns out that a photo of the Oregon gray wolf that crossed into California last week, and is still roaming in the Golden State, most likely does exist (at right).

OR-7, a 2-year-old wolf that made history on Dec. 28 by becoming the first known wild wolf in California in nearly 90 years, has been tracked by Oregon biologists since they fitted him with a GPS collar last February.

They did not take a photo, though, and there were no verified sightings of the predator as it trekked from northeast Oregon to California on a zig-zagging path spanning more than 700 miles.

But Allen Daniels, a deer hunter, has come forward with an image produced via his trail camera last Nov. 1 in the woods east of Butte Falls in Southern Oregon.

Roblyn Brown, assistant wolf biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, told the Ashland Daily Tidings that satellite tracking technology confirmed OR-7's presence in that area at the time the image was captured.

She added that the image was "likely" that of OR-7.

The wolf remains in California and has been ranging in a large area within Siskiyou County.

Its presence has ranchers concerned that others might follow and establish a new population in California. The state Department of Fish and Game is working on a plan that deals with the eventual return of wolves.

OR-7, who also became the first wolf west of Oregon's Cascades in 65 years, is believed to be searching for a mate if he didn't find an un-collared companion in Oregon.

Arizona deer hunters stumble upon 126 pounds of marijuana

Two hunters tracking a deer in the border community of Sasabe, Arizona, were stopped in their tracks when they noticed what one of them first thought was a body beneath some burlap wrapping.
 
It turned out to be 126 pounds of marijuana, stacked in seven bundles, wrapped in foil and plastic.

Pierre Mondotte and Anthony Piazza hiked back to their campsite and the next morning walked into a National Guard post to explain their find. "They didn't want to go at first. They didn't think it was anything," Piazza told the Arizona Republic.

But after following the pair to the pot, the Guards' attitudes changed. "All of a sudden they're loading their machine guns," Piazza added.

To be sure, with the brutal tactics employed by the Mexican cartels and their henchmen, the discovery was not to be taken lightly.

Andy Adame, a spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Joint Field Command placed the value of the marijuana at $101,480. He said drugs sometimes are abandoned by smugglers who think they're being followed.

It's not clear whether the hunters ended up bagging their deer.

Wolf from Oregon is first to roam California in nearly 90 years

The cry of the wolf may now be heard in California for the first time in nearly 90 years, thanks to the presence of young gray wolf that entered state territory on Wednesday from Oregon.

The 2 1/2-year-old male wolf, named OR7 by Oregon wildlife officials, had already gained notoriety for a zig-zagging trek that spanned more than 700 miles from northeast Oregon, across the Cascades, to the southwestern part of the state.

The California Department of Fish and Game announced Thursday that OR7 had entered Siskiyou County, just south of the Oregon border. He becomes the first known wild wolf to have ranged in California since 1924, when the last verified gray wolf was killed by a trapper in Lassen County.

OR7's trek is believed to have been sparked by a desire to find a mate and new territory. It remains unclear whether the wolf, which has a GPS collar unit that sporadically relays his position, found an un-collared mate during his travels.

OR7 has avoided large towns and there have been no verified sightings of the predator since he was collared last February. There are no photographs of the animal, adding to its mysterious allure.

While some might find this news exciting, California ranchers are wary about the possibility of wolf expansion into the state, because of the threat that would pose to livestock, and the California DFG is already formulating a plan to deal with the eventual return of wolves.

"Whether one is for it or against it, the entry of this lone wolf into California is an historic event and result of much work by the wildlife agencies in the West," said DFG Director Charlton H. Bonham. "If the gray wolf does establish a population in California, there will be much more work to do here."