How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Recreation
California Outdoors: Keeping hunters off property, throw nets, bringing mountain lions to California
- Details
- Written by: Carrie Wilson
How to keep hunters from hunting on our property?
Question: Our church owns about 700 acres in the foothills of Northern California. We recently had someone shoot at a six-point buck, wound it and screech away off the property. We called the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), who sent out a tracker. They followed the trail of blood but never found the wounded animal.
Meanwhile, we have many deer that reside on our property and we are vegetarians. We do not shoot the deer and they wander freely on the property. You can walk within maybe 20 feet of even these majestic big bucks and they won’t flee. We do not want people shooting the animals on our property.
The Fish and Wildlife person who came out told us it was legal for people to shoot the deer on our property unless we fenced it or posted signs (such as “POSTED NO HUNTING”) all over the property.
Is this really true? For one thing, it isn’t even hunting season (with a firearm, which this was), and second, it’s private property and we’ve not given written permission to anyone to hunt on our property.
We also don’t want to post “NO TRESPASSING” signs because we welcome the public to visit our beautiful community with 85 homes and a number of businesses, including a school.
Can you help me understand what the law states, and what we must do to allow the public on our land but disallow hunting (and fishing) on our land? (Church Administrator)
Answer: Hunters do not need permission to hunt on private property unless the land is under cultivation, enclosed by a fence, or posted in accordance with Fish and Game Code, section 2016.
This section requires that signs “forbidding trespass or hunting, or both are displayed at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering those lands,” and “signs may be of any size and wording that will fairly advise persons about to enter…that the use of the land is so restricted.”
If you would like to pursue trespassing charges (under Penal Code 602) against specific people who have entered the property for any reason, including without permission to fish or hunt, you can do so but the prosecutor generally wants the owner to state they will testify and also show that the suspect was already warned at least once.
Another law to be aware of is one that states “It is unlawful … to hunt or to discharge while hunting, any firearm or other deadly weapon within 150 yards of any occupied dwelling house, residence, or other building or any barn or other outbuilding used in conjunction therewith. The 150-yard area is a ‘safety zone’.” (FGC, section 3004).
You may need to take measures to discourage deer from becoming too comfortable on your property around humans because this makes them vulnerable to unscrupulous poachers.
To do this, remove as many attractants as possible. If the deer are being fed, this is illegal (California Code of Regulations Title 14, sections 251.3 and 251.1).
Also, by encouraging more deer to occupy your property than is normal, this may bring in some additional unwanted side elements (e.g. poachers, Lyme’s disease and mountain lions).
Throw nets to capture live bait
Question: I know round nets can be used to catch live bait like anchovies and smelt from piers, but I am not sure if there is a size restriction for the circumference on the net. I couldn’t find that info in the regs book. (Mike I.)
Answer: There is no size restriction on the circumference of a throw net used in ocean waters at this time. However, throw nets may only be used north of Point Conception (Santa Barbara Co.) and may only be used to take herring, Pacific staghorn sculpin, shiner surfperch, surf smelt, topsmelt, anchovies, shrimp and squid (CCR Title 14, section 28.80.)
Bringing mountain lions into California as 'personal property'?
Question: A friend of mine told me that because mountain lions are not endangered or federally protected, that California cannot prevent a person who has taken one legally in another state from bringing it into the state as personal property. Is California blowing smoke? Thanks (Ken)
Answer: No, your friend is mistaken. Fish and Game Code section 4800, which was added to the code as an Initiative Measure (Prop. 117) in 1990, designates mountain lions as “specially protected” in California, and prohibits their possession or importation into the state.
However, Fish and Game Code section 4800(b)(2) does allow for mountain lion possession if the owner can demonstrate the mountain lion was possessed prior to June 6, 1990.
Carrie Wilson is a marine environmental scientist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. While she cannot personally answer everyone’s questions, she will select a few to answer each week in this column. Please contact her at
- Details
- Written by: Editor
HIDDEN VALLEY LAKE, Calif. – The HVL Men’s Niners Golf Club held a stroke play tournament on Nov. 21.
The results were:
- First flight: Dave Mann took first with net 31. Bill Brewster and Fred Figg tied for second with 33.
- Second flight: Paul Bertlin was first at 30. Mike Higman was second at 32. Randy Brown and Juergen Haller tied for third, 34.
- Third flight: Bruce Hamilton posted the day’s lowest net, 29. Jay Hodges was second, 33. Phil Tyler, Bill Surber and Gary Foote tied for third, 34.
Closest to the par 3 pins were Keith Ipsen and Tom Marshall.
Twelve golfers had chip-ins: Mike Henley, Ned Munger, Phil Tyler, Bill Helt, Dennis Bero, Jeff Markham, Tom Gibbs, Bruce Hamilton, Tom Marshall, Bob Brossier, Doug Carter and Hal Weber.
Forty-seven men participated the this event.
- Details
- Written by: Carrie Wilson
Did game warden have the right to search my car?
Question: I was out fishing at Lake McSwain. A man was there before me but didn't catch anything. I got lucky and caught two trout right away, then decided to go try out a different spot.
I was planning on doing a whole day of fishing and didn't want the two fishes to spoil, so I gave them to the man that had not caught any.
As I was leaving, a game warden showed up. I told him I caught two but gave them away because I'm heading to a different spot. He wanted to search my car and I let him because I didn’t have anything to hide.
After not finding anything, he then told me those two fish count towards my bag limit so I can only catch three more, even if I move to a different spot.
Now my question is, does he really have the right to search my car just like that, and is it correct that I can only catch three more fish after I gave those two away? What happened to the five fish in possession regulation? (Anonymous)
Answer: Good question, but the game warden was correct. No more than one daily bag limit may be taken or possessed by any one person (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 1.17).
There is a difference between the bag limit (the number you can take per day) and the possession limit (the maximum number you can have in your possession). Just because you gave two fish away, this did not set the slate back to zero so that you could take five additional fish that day.
As far as the request to search your vehicle, any officer can ask for your consent to inspect a vehicle. Your question indicates you “let him” inspect your car because you had nothing to hide. This was perfectly legal.
Whether an officer has the authority to conduct an inspection when consent is not given depends upon the specific circumstances of the contact. Wildlife officers have extensive inspection authorities that are unique to their jobs.
For example, it is a crime to refuse to show a wildlife officer “… all licenses, tags, and the birds, mammals, fish, reptiles or amphibians taken or otherwise dealt with under this code, and any device or apparatus designed to be, and capable of being, used to take birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibians” (Fish and Game Code, section 2012).
Also, wildlife officers are authorized to inspect all receptacles, except the clothing actually worn by a person at the time of inspection, where birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibians may be stored or placed (FGC, section 1006).
Challenging the Hunter Education exam
Question: Can I challenge the Hunter Education exam to get my license? (Mark L.)
Answer: Yes, many California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) offices offer a comprehensive equivalency exam, but according to Hunter Education Coordinator Lt. James Kasper, this exam is a difficult examination to pass and the failure rate is high.
There is a nonrefundable, administrative fee required to take the examination. This fee must be paid prior to taking the test. If you fail the examination, you must take a hunter education class or a home study/on-line course to become certified. The equivalency exam can only be taken one time.
WARNING! Not all states accept the equivalency certificates as proof of hunter education. All states will accept the certificate of completion that is awarded upon completion of a hunter education class or home study/on-line course.
If you are still interested in taking the equivalency examination, please contact your local CDFW office to see if they offer it. This examination can only be taken by appointment.
Antique dealer selling animal parts
Question: Can hunters bring mountain goats, brown bears and buffalo into the state (under California Penal Code, section 653(o))? If so, may a California antiques dealer sell animal mounts, skins or rugs from these animals? (Eric L.)
Answer: The Fish and Game Code does not prohibit the selling of animals not found in the wild in California so long as the animals were legally acquired and the importation is declared to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (pursuant to FGC section, 2353).
Antique dealers should be aware of federal laws regulating the importation, possession and sale of some animals.
Questions regarding those laws should be directed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They can be reached online at www.fws.gov/ .
Carrie Wilson is a marine environmental scientist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. While she cannot personally answer everyone’s questions, she will select a few to answer each week in this column. Please contact her at
- Details
- Written by: Editor
At its Nov. 21 quarterly meeting, the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) approved approximately $14.4 million in grants to help restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat throughout California.
Some of the 14 funded projects will provide benefits to fish and wildlife – including some endangered species – while others will provide the public with access to important natural resources.
Several projects will also demonstrate the importance of protecting working landscapes that integrate economic, social and environmental stewardship practices beneficial to the environment, land owners and the local community.
The funds for all these projects come from bond initiatives approved by voters to help preserve and protect California’s natural resources.
Some of the funded projects include:
- A $563,000 grant to Central Coast Salmon Enhancement for a cooperative project with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Fisheries Restoration Grant Program and the County of San Luis Obispo, to improve fish passage on Pismo Creek, six miles south of San Luis Obispo.
- A $681,000 grant to the Tahoe City Public Utilities District for a cooperative project with the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association to rehabilitate the boat ramp at the Lake Tahoe Public Access Facility on Lake Forest Road, two miles northeast of Tahoe City in Placer County.
- A $4.8 million grant to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) and the acceptance of two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation Planning Acquisition grants. The intention is to sub-grant these federal funds to the ECCCHC for a cooperative project with the East Bay Regional Park District to acquire approximately 1,885 acres of land for the protection and preservation of existing regional wildlife linkages, including grassland and oak woodland savannah habitat areas within the East Contra Costa County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan in the Diablo Mountain Range, above the City of Antioch.
- A $2.3 million grant to the California Waterfowl Association to acquire approximately 1,670 acres of land for the purpose of protecting wetlands and associated upland habitat areas in the Goose Lake watershed. This area in the Pacific Flyway migratory bird corridor in the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, south of the City of Wasco in Kern County, supports numerous migratory birds and threatened and endangered species.
- Two grants worth $607,250 to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the acceptance of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation Planning Acquisition grant and the approval to sub-grant these federal funds to the City to acquire two separate properties, approximately 16 acres and 42 acres in size, for the protection and preservation of existing regional wildlife linkages and species located within the Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Plan and the pending Natural Community Conservation Plan.
- A $1.2 million grant to the San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation for a project to construct and rehabilitate trails, provide signs and trailhead facilities, and restore approximately 15 acres of coastal sage habitat on the south side of the Tijuana River Estuary, three air miles south of Imperial Beach in San Diego County.
For more information about the WCB, please visit www.wcb.ca.gov .