14 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 



The experience of other states following their first either-sex deer hunts was repeated in California 

 after the 1956 hunts. Reaction against killing of does and fawns, similar in other states, was strength- 

 ened by the ^\•idespread reports of hunter misbehavior. Opposition formed quickly and made itself 

 felt in the form of deer legislation during the 1957 Session. 



Deer Legislation Enacted 



The result of the legislation is that only bucks may be hunted on a general unrestricted basis and 

 antlerless deer may be hunted only on a unit-quota, or controlled, system. Spike bucks or spotted 

 fa\\'ns may no longer be hunted, although spotted fawns are rarely found during the periods when 

 such hunting will be allowed. 



The Legislature provided that antlerless and either-sex seasons must now be ordered on the basis 

 of management units, crop damage, or restricted instances of surpluses only. Unit hunts may be for 

 antlerless deer if held during the regular buck seasons, or for deer of either sex if held at other times 

 of the year. Quotas must be set up for each unit and issued to the public either by drawings or 

 first-come, first-served sale, or a combination of both. In addition, deer are to be managed by herd 

 units and reports on the condition of these herds are made annually to the public by the commission. 



Commission Policy Unchanged 



Through all the debate on the either-sex deer hunts, the Commission's policy on deer management 

 did not change. The policy, and the department's program, is that the deer population must be bal- 

 anced with the carrying capacity of its range. Consequently, deer must be harvested by hunters in 

 numbers equal to their annual increase if this program is to be effective. If they are not harvested, 

 they tend to eat themselves out of house and home and can destroy their own range beyond restora- 

 tion. Harvesting of bucks alone will not keep the herds in balance; hunters must take deer of 

 either sex. 



ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF FISHING AND HUNTING 



In 1955 the department sampled more than 3,000 fishermen and 3,000 hunters with lengthy ques- 

 tionnaires in two separate mail polls to try to obtain some indication of the economic importance of 

 fishing and hunting in California. 



Results of the polls were completed and announced in March, 1957, and showed licensed sports- 

 men in California paid a staggering $487 miUion to pursue their favorite sports in California in 1955. 



By a 4 to 1 margin, this amount overshadows the combined expenditures of all Californians for 

 admission to all sportmg events, including professional, collegiate and high school football, baseball 

 and basketball, as well as movies, plays and concerts. 



Outlay by Items 



Where did the money go? 



If you fished, it went mostly for transportation and food and drink; if you hunted, the big cost 

 item was equipment, followed by travel and by food and drink, in that order. 



Only 16.5 percent of the fresh water fishing dollar went for equipment, while 29 percent went 

 for travel and 23.7 percent for food and drink. The salt water dollar was similarly proportioned, 

 with 11.2 percent for equipment, 26.3 percent for travel and 20.3 percent for food and drink. 



The average California hunter, on the other hand, was primarily concerned with his equipment 

 and ammunition. Cost of travel and of dining were second and third, respectively, on his expense 

 list. Weapons and ammunition formed his biggest outlay (26.4 percent), followed by automobile 

 expense (19.8 percent) and food (17.7). 



The survey shows anglers paid only 1.1 percent of their total fishing outlay for a state angling 

 license. Hunters paid 1.7 percent — slightly more because of additional duck stamps and deer and 

 pheasant tags. (For more details, see table 13 in the Appendix.) 



