State wildlife officials outline statewide deer plan, seek local input in Del Norte County

Sean Freeze, North Coast lands and wildlife program supervisor for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, told the Del Norte County Fish and Game advisory commission that the department is preparing a statewide Deer Conservation and Management Plan intended to provide a “modern science‑based framework to guide the conservation and management of California’s deer.”

Freeze described the plan as a high-level, adaptive‑management document that will organize the state into 11 deer conservation units (DCUs) aligned with hunt‑zone boundaries so strategies can be tailored regionally. The plan will rely on an Integrated Population Model (IPM) that combines multiple data streams — genetic (DNA) transects, GPS collars, camera traps and aerial surveys using helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and drones — to produce baseline abundance estimates and annual trend monitoring for each DCU.

"We will make decisions based on monitoring and research and adjust as conditions change," Freeze said, describing the shift from earlier reliance on hunter‑harvest and road‑survey data to a broader suite of modern methods.

Chapters outlined in Freeze’s presentation include species biology and ecology, a conservation and management framework (identifying threats such as habitat loss, drought, fire and disease), population monitoring (the IPM), additional data sources (genetics, movement ecology and disease surveillance), adaptive management and the resourcing needed for implementation. Freeze said the department aims to release a first draft for full public review in 2026 and encouraged written comments to biggame@wildlife.ca.gov; he identified Brian Leo as the statewide deer coordinator leading the plan’s writing.

Local attendees pressed CDFW staff about several implementation and monitoring issues. Residents and commissioners asked whether recent wildfires and subsequent vegetation changes have increased local deer abundance; Freeze said some post‑fire increases are being observed but that long‑term effects require multiple years of data and that some monitoring equipment was lost in recent fires. Attendees raised predator impacts on fawn survival — bears, cougars and coyotes — and asked how predator–prey dynamics will be incorporated; Freeze replied that predator interactions are a core part of the conservation framework and will feed into DCU‑level management strategies.

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) and interjurisdictional coordination were also discussed. Freeze acknowledged recent CWD detections elsewhere in the region and said the department is investigating transmission routes and will incorporate disease monitoring into the plan. Commissioners asked whether DCU metrics would be shared with neighboring counties and entities tracking wolves and other predators; Freeze said DCU data will be coordinated across regions and that predator data from counties such as Siskiyou will inform the predator–prey analysis for relevant DCUs.

Questions about hunting policy surfaced in the meeting: Freeze said the IPM’s annual estimates of bucks, does and fawns will inform tag allocations. Attendees also asked about the recently lapsed reduced‑price youth tags; Freeze said that fee and program changes originate in Sacramento but expressed support for restoring youth pricing and said he would pass local feedback up the chain.

Several residents urged that the department move beyond writing plans and show measurable implementation — noting past instances where plans were produced but management did not follow. One attendee warned that plans can sit on shelves without adequate staffing or follow‑through; Freeze responded that the plan’s Chapter 7 will specifically address staffing, technology and long‑term funding needs and invited continued local collaboration.

The department said it has been conducting genetic transects and other surveys since 2015 and plans repeat surveys roughly every five years to provide a dynamic baseline for adaptive management. Freeze emphasized the plan is intended as a living document that can be updated as new monitoring and research results warrant.

The commission and residents did not take formal action on the plan at this meeting. Freeze closed by encouraging stakeholders to submit written comments during the plan’s public review and offered to share slides and supplemental technical information with the commission.