Killers of BCs Moose

[BCWF]

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/10/Killers-of-BC-Moose/


The main killers of moose in an ongoing study in British Columbia have been wolves, unlicensed hunters and starvation.

As of April 30 last year, a progress report says, researchers had put GPS radio-collars on 336 cow (or female) moose in five areas of central B.C. as part of a study begun in 2012, “Determining Factors Affecting Moose Population Change in British Columbia: Testing the Landscape Change Hypothesis.”

With moose populations observed to be in decline in the province, the aim was to study how the changing landscape affected moose numbers, particularly in forests hit hard by the mountain pine beetle.

Researchers recovered 49 of the collars from animals that had died. In 21 of the cases, they determined that predators had caused the death, with grey wolves responsible for 18 of them. There were also two moose killed by cougars and one by a bear.


Nine moose were killed by human hunters, only one of whom was licensed. Eight moose had died of “apparent starvation.”

Study authors included Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource operations staff in Cranbrook, Prince George, Kamloops, Williams Lake and Smithers, as well as a professor from the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George.

The researchers’ hypothesis is that moose will be more likely to survive when forest cutblocks regrow enough to obstruct the view of predators and hunters, resource roads become impassable, and moose become more dispersed.

“We will address that hypothesis by identifying the causes and rates of cow moose mortality and examining factors that contributed to their vulnerability,” the progress report said.

Researchers at UNBC and the University of Victoria are analyzing the data, and already the authors are recommending extending the study until 2023, five years past the currently planned end date.

In October, the B.C. government announced it would spend $1.2 million, on top of the $750,000 per year it already spends on moose management, to help increase moose populations.

At the same time, the government said it would act on all 21 recommendations in forester Al Gorley’s “Strategy to Help Restore Moose Populations in British Columbia.”

Immediate actions included cutting the number of cows and calves to be hunted to 200, down from 1,792 in 2011, and preparing moose management plans for the Peace, Omineca and Cariboo regions.

In his July report for the ministry, Gorley wrote that moose populations had been declining for a decade, significantly in the central interior of the province.

“There is uncertainty about the underlying causes, which are likely a combination of altered habitat, hunters and predators, and perhaps even climate change,” he wrote.

“Many people point to a need for the province to modernize the way it manages for wildlife, taking a more integrated, ecosystem-based approach. Although this report is focused on the immediate matter of moose, it could be a first step toward more holistic change

[BgBlkDg]

Hmmm, eight moose were killed by unlicenced hunters, now, WHO would they be?????

We MUST change the policies and institute EQUAL access/laws for ALL and rigidly enforce this.

If, I see a "poacher", my reaction might well be "traditional".

[Ride Red]

"The researchers’ hypothesis is that moose will be more likely to survive when forest cutblocks regrow enough to obstruct the view of predators and hunters, resource roads become impassable, and moose become more dispersed."

This exactly.

[russm86]

So aren't those 3 factors exactly what resident hunters have been going on about for a decade or more? Could have just taken our word for it rather than spend a bunch of money on "research", though it is nice to see they might actually be putting money towards this stuff now...

[Big Lew]

So aren't those 3 factors exactly what resident hunters have been going on about for a decade or more? Could have just taken our word for it rather than spend a bunch of money on "research", though it is nice to see they might actually be putting money towards this stuff now...

That's pretty much it in a nut shell!

[Spy]

So aren't those 3 factors exactly what resident hunters have been going on about for a decade or more? Could have just taken our word for it rather than spend a bunch of money on "research", though it is nice to see they might actually be putting money towards this stuff now...
Lol exactly :-)

[Walking Buffalo]

BCWF,

Any chance you can provide us with a copy of the Progress report on the“Determining Factors Affecting Moose Population Change in British Columbia: Testing the Landscape Change Hypothesis."


A quick crunch of the numbers.

49 mortalities

Predation - 21 - 43% of total mortalities
Wolves - 18 - 85% of predation mortalities
Cougars - 2 - 10%
Bears - 1 - 5%

Hunting - 9 - 18%
Unlicenced - 8 - 89%
Licenced - 1 - 11%

Starvation - 8 - 16%

Unclassified in article - 11 - 23%


It would be good to know the suspected/known cause of mortality for the unclassified 11 moose.

Was it determined if a moose Starved due to lack of food, or other causes such as parasites, disease, injury, etc..... ?

[BgBlkDg]

Excellent point, would like to see such stats.

[horshur]

there is evidence that moose will use marginal habitat to avoid predation ..certainly play into the starvation stats.

[Linksman313]

Hmmm, eight moose were killed by unlicenced hunters, now, WHO would they be?????

We MUST change the policies and institute EQUAL access/laws for ALL and rigidly enforce this.

If, I see a "poacher", my reaction might well be "traditional".

I strongly agree, can we save some of the money spent on the study to hire more C.O.'s please


So aren't those 3 factors exactly what resident hunters have been going on about for a decade or more? Could have just taken our word for it rather than spend a bunch of money on "research", though it is nice to see they might actually be putting money towards this stuff now...

Amen Brother!!

[jagen mit DDrs]

"The researchers’ hypothesis is that moose will be more likely to survive when forest cutblocks regrow enough

This exactly.

It doesn't help either that they nuke the shit out of every cutblock.Maybe they should ask CN Rail about the number of moose get killed each year in BC.

[HarryToolips]

"The researchers’ hypothesis is that moose will be more likely to survive when forest cutblocks regrow enough to obstruct the view of predators and hunters, resource roads become impassable, and moose become more dispersed."

This exactly.
Yup....if they put some of that $$ every year into de-activating a certain amount of forest service road - spur roads, which will limit poachers and FN's, I believe it will help greatly...

[HarryToolips]

there is evidence that moose will use marginal habitat to avoid predation ..certainly play into the starvation stats.

Exactly...through some FSR deactivation and a predator reduction program, it would help that aspect of their survival as well...

[IronNoggin]

... Immediate actions included cutting the number of cows and calves to be hunted to 200, down from 1,792 in 2011.

But but but... In several recent management threads, were not some suggesting that any efforts to reduce the harvest of female ungulates were a waste of time as far as addressing population downturns? :lol:


... Although this report is focused on the immediate matter of moose, it could be a first step toward more holistic change

One can Hope...

Cheers,
Nog

[Walking Buffalo]

... Although this report is focused on the immediate matter of moose, it could be a first step toward more holistic change


One can Hope...

Cheers,
Nog


What does this Holistic change look like?

:confused:

[walks with deer]

Sample is still biased..leave the collAR off and insert a chip...I'll bet the results will be different.

[markomoose]

Sample is still biased..leave the collAR off and insert a chip...I'll bet the results will be different.Good call WWD.I agree the chip method would bring out a different outcome but maybe not a positive prognosis?

[Whonnock Boy]

Can you elaborate please?


Sample is still biased..leave the collAR off and insert a chip...I'll bet the results will be different.

[houndogger]

But but but... In several recent management threads, were not some suggesting that any efforts to reduce the harvest of female ungulates were a waste of time as far as addressing population downturns? :lol:



One can Hope...

Cheers,
Nog

lol funny eh!

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

Please post data to indicate what constitutes their definition of "Unlicensed Hunter"?

Collaring and chipping beasts is a reprehensible factor and a bad idea. Best not to mess with them until it's time to collect BACKSTRAPS!!!

Reduced opportunity is almost always a bad idea. That's ALOT of tags to tug, dang!

[walks with deer]

Well I dont know anybody who has shot a collared animal... I have seen yota pass on collared animal, I have, and so has my dad... in addition if you know a surveys going on and your a unregulated resale hunter your not going to pop a colared animal. If your a poacher not hiding behind blood line you definately will not shoot a collared animal if you can see it... multiple reasons, negative data, get caught, tainted meat.

That said I would like to see some data on herbicide spray killing decidous... I am not the only hunter that will vacate a spray zone to find a moose...

My findings in region 3 and 8 are pretty simple beattle kill, =access=dead moose. No winter range. These thing dont migrate like deer and it can be nasty up there without timber. Not to mention only sanctuarys become ravines which become wolf highways.

Back to whonnock boys question I will bet a years wages the outcome would be different with a chip than a collar. Can t see a hip tell its hung for a few days stopped moving and gone cold...track that.

[Whonnock Boy]

Very good points, but I believe the only problem is, they don't have chips that can send the data that they require. The collars provide constant data in regards to the animals location, and when the animal ceases to move, a message is sent, they know something is up, and 911 it to the scene. Literally as fast as they can. And on a side note, currently they are asking hunters to disregard the collar if you are authorized to harvest moose.

[walks with deer]

Oh I assumed they would have chips that can communicate. I am aware of hunters being aloud to harvest collared game the truth is..We only get so many tags so to tag something and find out its not fit for consumption would be devastating. My family does not buy any meat year round so even to give up a deer that you cant eat someyears would really hurt...I would hope the bio/co would grant you another tag but that still takes time and money...And a poacher would have to be blind and drunk to shoot a collared animal. The amount of moose kills I see in region 3 and 8 tell me the survey requres more work.

[1899]

But but but... In several recent management threads, were not some suggesting that any efforts to reduce the harvest of female ungulates were a waste of time as far as addressing population downturns? :lol:



One can Hope...

Cheers,
Nog

Interesting article out of Alaska...

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=52

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

Interesting article out of Alaska...

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=52

Great link, thanks for posting!

[Whonnock Boy]

Yes, thanks for the link. I understand the rationale, but I do not understand the management strategy for when moose populations are at a concerning level. I have read many people defending the Peace calf hunt, but I don't believe this strategy applies to this region now. Someone tell me I'm wrong, and why. “Calf hunts are not the appropriate management tool in all locations, but a combination of high moose density, poor habitat, and an intensive management mandate make Unit 20A an ideal location,”

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

Yes, thanks for the link. I understand the rationale, but I do not understand the management strategy for when moose populations are at a concerning level. I have read many people defending the Peace calf hunt, but I don't believe this strategy applies to this region now. Someone tell me I'm wrong, and why. “Calf hunts are not the appropriate management tool in all locations, but a combination of high moose density, poor habitat, and an intensive management mandate make Unit 20A an ideal location,”

I figured that part was just schpiel to sell the idea on that particular area. Other rationale could well apply in the Peace, the article doesn't focus on any area in BC. Then again, can be silly to extract something without considering context. The article as a whole can show us more.

[Mulehahn]

As a basic rule in healthy moose populations, with adequate habitat human hunting is compensatory (reflective of the percentage thar would die anyway), hiwever I think we can all agree that in much of the province the moose populations are not healthy and habitat is lacking. There is countless studies that show these conditions, combined with high predator numbers, human hunting is actually additive. What makes it even more complex is that 100 years ago away from the rockies there were hardly no moose in the bottom 2/3rds of the province. Are moose numbers returning to their proper historical levels? If so should we stop it or should strive to have their numbers at the artificially inflated numbers that were brought about by logging and predator extermination done in the early to mid 1900s?

[Bonz]

so that unlicenced hunter...poacher or dont need licences? why so afraid to put blame whee it belongs?

[Bonz]

just reading through that moose management plan. so if they are going to run with all the plans in that, loks like white man just loss out moose hunting opportinities. first nation comes first apperently, then us, then guides

includes the following goal:
“ensure moose are maintained as integral components of natural ecosystems throughout their range, and maintain sustainable populations that meet the needs of First Nations, licensed hunters, and the guiding industry in BC.”

REASONS:

The existing guidance to decision makers responsible for regulating hunting is to place the highest priority on conservation, followed by the right of First Nations to hunt. Hunting done under the Wildlife Act may then occur and is split (allocated) between resident hunters and guide outfitters.

[horshur]

Recruitment is the primary issue.The lack of recruitment leads to an older population. High cow mortality is a symptom of this.

If there was good recruitment all the management scenarios would still work.

[FLHTCUI]

Hmmm, eight moose were killed by unlicenced hunters, now, WHO would they be?????

We MUST change the policies and institute EQUAL access/laws for ALL and rigidly enforce this.

If, I see a "poacher", my reaction might well be "traditional".

Unlicensed hunters are POACHERS.
BCWF knows this, and it if where the Natives they would say that too.

[northernbc]

Oh reading that burns my butt. You work hard all your life , your taxes pay their wages. Sorry it's to early to get me started. Just packing to leave for camping trip. Breathe deep and refocus.

[Bonz]

well if the "unlicened are not native, then they missed a massive hole in thier report then...once again.

[GoatGuy]

Lots of "why don't they" in the replies. For my perspective this is a shared resource, owned by everyone in BC.


If I got a vote and a question for all the people in the thread it would be: How do WE make more moose?

[LeverActionJunkie]

Lots of "why don't they" in the replies. For my perspective this is a shared resource, owned by everyone in BC.


If I got a vote and a question for all the people in the thread it would be: How do WE make more moose?

Repair and restore the habitat. Curtail and enforce access issues. Go back to government run predator control with a target level of predators managed based on science. Excess predators removed by govt trapper/poison control. I'd also be in favour of more "real time" for lack of a better term management, ie if there's a sever winter, or moose count shows low survival, then seasons are amended before the fall season.

Thats my uneducated solution. Interested to see how it's handled in real life.

[M.Dean]

Boy, you sure sling the racist slurs, eh! I can recall you calling me a "stupid whiteman" and several other such racist, bigoted and offensive slurs in your posts.

Funny, given your supposed "concern" over racism......... Holy Shit! I guess I'm a Racist too? Any other immigrants on here I can offend???

[Ride Red]

I believe the number 1 issue to be dealt with is access. Deactivating roads after reforestation would be a huge improvement.

[BgBlkDg]

Holy Shit! I guess I'm a Racist too? Any other immigrants on here I can offend???

I seem to recall that you posted some time ago, that you are from Mennonite ancestry? If so, I would be a bit cautious about calling others born here "immigrants", but, I expect such ignorance from you.

[Caribou_lou]

Unlicensed hunters are POACHERS.
BCWF knows this, and it if where the Natives they would say that too.

Im not sure they would. Unlicensed hunters isn't a great description in my opinion.

[Caribou_lou]

I would like to see how much $$$ was spent on this study. Including collaring. To tell us what we were already guessing. Habitat, access, predators, FN harvest.

[HarryToolips]

^^^^^x2................

[HarryToolips]

If they started to put that $$ right away here into just habitat and access deactivation, we'd see start to see great results in the near future I'd bet..

[horshur]

If they started to put that $$ right away here into just habitat and access deactivation, we'd see start to see great results in the near future I'd bet..
What are they going to do for habitat? Which roads?

[Xenomorph]

Hmmm, eight moose were killed by unlicenced hunters, now, WHO would they be?????

We MUST change the policies and institute EQUAL access/laws for ALL and rigidly enforce this.

If, I see a "poacher", my reaction might well be "traditional".

Just carry your .50 cal and target their pochermobile? Might be a new Olympic sport "tag a poacher".

[walks with deer]

hmm I offered to help for free with my own machine to deactivate some roads.

I was told its not that simple.

[LeverActionJunkie]

hmm I offered to help for free with my own machine to deactivate some roads.

I was told its not that simple.

Unfortunately you'd probably face stiffer punishment than somebody quadding over and or around a deactivation.

[Whonnock Boy]

1.2 million. http://www.myprincegeorgenow.com/37301/bc-takes-steps-protect-moose-populations/
I would like to see how much $$$ was spent on this study. Including collaring. To tell us what we were already guessing. Habitat, access, predators, FN harvest.

[Bonz]

wow, that april green commenting is right off her meds...lol

[killman]

Pretty sure the real problems won't be looked after, instead something they can control like the law abiding licensed hunter will take the hit. Trains weren't even mentioned let alone automobile collisions..

[Lucky77_]

well if the "unlicened are not native, then they missed a massive hole in thier report then...once again.
Their is always the Massive hole they don't want to count.

[stinkyduck]

Anything the government does is all propaganda and deception, i don't believe their studies one bit!

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

This report just seems way off base and biased against BCRH.

[horshur]

Lots of "why don't they" in the replies. For my perspective this is a shared resource, owned by everyone in BC.


If I got a vote and a question for all the people in the thread it would be: How do WE make more moose?

simple solution is to reduce predation by reducing wolf numbers. Any strategy must have wolf population management paramount.

[bearvalley]

simple solution is to reduce predation by reducing wolf numbers. Any strategy must have wolf population management paramount.
This is so very true.

[LeverActionJunkie]

simple solution is to reduce predation by reducing wolf numbers. Any strategy must have wolf population management paramount.

Exactly bring back the govt run predator control 1080, strychnine the works. I personally don't have a problem with a private company predator control but this province seems to loath privatization of anything. Manage the works, predators and game based on science and facts. No PC bull crap one way or the other. Wildlife, habitat, predator, prey, forests, timber, water and fish, all of it managed based on science without appeasing interest groups one way or the other. That'd be such a breath of fresh air I'd probably shit bricks

[Drillbit]

simple solution is to reduce predation by reducing wolf numbers. Any strategy must have wolf population management paramount.

I agree with wolf population management.


The study didn't account for calf numbers. (at least, I didn't see that they tagged calves, I could be wrong)


I personally thing that the abundance of black bears is a major factor in the reduction of moose numbers.


An increase to 4 bears a year, and not having to remove the the meat from the bush would greatly help out our calf moose (calf elk and deer fawns as well).

[Bonz]

Their is always the Massive hole they don't want to count.

funny from reading all the moose management ideas they dont see to concerned about native hunts at all. admit the reporting and hunting has issues. but i didnt realy read any hard action to be taken on them. just the rest of us. and seem to talk to the native the most for recomendations in that report...
way i see this is their slowly taking it all from anyone else. maybe thats what keeper of the land means, keep for themselves.
once again, another wasted chunk of cash and resources, till everyone is counted equal, non of this will ever be solved

[Bonz]

simple solution that would expos the biggest issue in my view, 1 dam law, or at least accountability to native harvests, till thats done, its all lip service
being teased hat crap is ok with little fixes here n there.
and till we come out and tart exposing the crap and what realy goes on out there, nothing will get solved. were the ones being thrown under the bus for ALL poaching or non licenced huntings, general public sees us as he problem, and the others as the group trying to stop that. and once again, this report side step that

and the wolf issues

[LeverActionJunkie]

It is a resource for all citizens of te province, the govt has set their agenda and priority. Our only concern must be how to grow and retain more moose.

[BgBlkDg]

You may not be the most capable prose stylist here, but, you certainly understand the situation and I agree with your opinion based on my experiences working in environmental management.

Where, the Black Bear and other "apex" predators are concerned, I have, years ago, suggested here that Americans, be allowed a form of LEH or even OTC wolf, BB and Yote tags and then be allowed to DIY hunt these species as they now can grouse. This, would be VERY tightly regulated and the foreign hunters made to understand that ANY even attempts to kill ANY other wildlife would result in a mandatory FIVE YEAR sentence in Her Majesty's gaols.

I think it COULD work, WOULD probably work and should be at least tried as NO BC government will now spend the $$$$$ on the level of wildlife management that we really require. There could be a "hunter host" issue here, the tags should cost enough to return $$$$$ to our wildlife funding and NO expansion into other species even contemplated.

When, I suggested this here several years ago, there was such an uproar that I left it, laughing, but, it could be a way of lowering the BB, wolf, yote populations which we must do.

[Bonz]

then its all right back in the hands of the wealthy to hunt and foriengers again, what does that do for the resident hunter? especialy those that can barely afford to hunt now as it is? id assume that will all cost per use

[Bonz]

if they want help with wolf issue or pred. maybe a reward like selling furs. doesnt need to be massive. just something to help our cost of getting out to do that. or they do culls on all our tax dime.,and costs way more than us doing it
for me i cant afford to go hunt preds and not have food back, so i dont. if i see them while hunting other, hell ya, dead dog. maybe if we got small compensation that would help get more out to do that work.......did they

[souwester]

If we could take the "baby step" of having money from license fees put back into the resource,Raising the cost of licenses and tags would actually be a great way to raise some money.
Maybe only for people still in the working part of their life and over a certain dollar amount per year.

That idea will probably piss a bunch of people off but nothing is going to be done about first nations and the wolf cull should have begun years ago.

If a predator management plan is unacceptable to the general public of BC, seems to me about all residents can do is raise some money to do some habitat work (road deactivation etc.)

[1899]

Lots of "why don't they" in the replies. For my perspective this is a shared resource, owned by everyone in BC.


If I got a vote and a question for all the people in the thread it would be: How do WE make more moose?

The million dollar question, isn't it?

We need to:
Get together with FN and come to an understanding that everyone needs a haircut and that every user group needs to be involved. Part of this would be FN harvest and sighting reporting.

Lobby for increased government funded predator management/control. This should include funding to FN so they can pay someone to carry out traditional denning practices. In the old country there used to be a rule within the hunting club - you had to shoot a certain number of predators and pests per season. For example 2 foxes and 2 magpies. If you did not want to, could not, or did not have the time, you would pay the club an extra fee which the club would use to hire a professional to do the job. Maybe the BCWF could specifically ask for donations as well - 40,000 members giving $10 each annually would equal a pile of wolves trapped.

Lobby government to create real road deactivations - not the piddly stuff where you can cross with a quad - and reduce the road density that has shot through the roof in the last decade. Combine it with no vehicles for hunting in certain areas if necessary.

Increase black bear tag availability in certain areas and maybe even remove requirement to take meat in areas where bear/moose predation is high. Add $2 onto each bear tag and put 100% of it back into moose management programs.

Take a look at the effects of spraying herbicides in cutblocks. How does this affect moose browse? Is this a factor in the "apparent" starvation cases? How does the herbicide affect reproduction and general health? A moratorium on herbicide use until these questions are answered may be helpful.

The oft quoted saying - "A true conservationist is a man who knows that the world is not given by his father, but borrowed from his children" - rings especially true these days. I look at my young son and ask myself, "will he be deprived of these things I hold dear due, even in part, to my action or inaction?"

Typing stuff in a hunting forum is not enough.

[Bonz]

"Typing stuff in a hunting forum is not enough."

that right there is the biggest issue i feel, we all just sit in here and post suggestions or ideas and thats the end of it everytime, the other side, seems to be in the news weekly and forcing their views or beliefs of general publicand i highly doubt we will every get natives to work with us. everything seems o keep going in their favour, so why would they give that up?

[LeverActionJunkie]

You may not be the most capable prose stylist here, but, you certainly understand the situation and I agree with your opinion based on my experiences working in environmental management.

Where, the Black Bear and other "apex" predators are concerned, I have, years ago, suggested here that Americans, be allowed a form of LEH or even OTC wolf, BB and Yote tags and then be allowed to DIY hunt these species as they now can grouse. This, would be VERY tightly regulated and the foreign hunters made to understand that ANY even attempts to kill ANY other wildlife would result in a mandatory FIVE YEAR sentence in Her Majesty's gaols.

I think it COULD work, WOULD probably work and should be at least tried as NO BC government will now spend the $$$$$ on the level of wildlife management that we really require. There could be a "hunter host" issue here, the tags should cost enough to return $$$$$ to our wildlife funding and NO expansion into other species even contemplated.

When, I suggested this here several years ago, there was such an uproar that I left it, laughing, but, it could be a way of lowering the BB, wolf, yote populations which we must do.

I think this would be a hell of a good idea that could at least increase black bear harvest and raise money. With our lower Canadian $ it'd be a low cost DIY hunt for loads of Americans that would love the chance. Not sure if you directed this at me but I'm all for the idea.

[338win mag]

Why not simply offer a bounty on Black bears, and especially Wolves, and offer them to RESIDENT HUNTERS instead of foreigners?
Giving opportunities to non-residents? I would re-think that.
Where would the money come from for the bounties, maybe it could come from the money resident hunters already put into the system instead of it being diverted to general revenue or who really knows where it go's.

[Rob Chipman]

"Unlicensed hunters isn't a great description in my opinion."

It's not a great description, but I was happy to see it at least enter the conversation. It leads to the question "What is an unlicensed hunter?" My first response is "A poacher", but my second is "code for FN".

We're not going to get one law for all Canadians as far as I can see. If we can accurately track and then discuss the impact of FN harvest we'll be making progress, so I think throwing the term "unlicensed hunter" out in a scientific report is a great thing to see. The next step, obviously, is to clarify if we're talking about poaching (which requires more enforcement) of FN harvest, which is a completely different challenge/opportunity (and I'm pretty sure we all know we're really talking about unregulated FN harvest, not old time poachers, although I could be wrong).

Why opportunity? Well, if, as someone said, moose weren't in the lower 2/3 of the province until we brought in lots of predator control, and if, as we know, there are FNs with a traditional right to harvest moose that weren't on their traditional territory in 1916, but got there as a result of predator suppression, maybe there's an opportunity there to get the stewards of the land to present an op[posing view to Friends of the Wolf.

[Bonz]

all the public see`s in that unlicened, is white man no being licenced and full on poacher. gauranteed i doubt the general public see`s it a possible FN, in fact i know. ive asked 3 people that dont hunt what their take was...all said just a reg poacher. didnt even clue in that it may reffer to the FN, in fact all 3 had no clue what realy goes on out there, nor even a clue on their rights around this


again, as above. all we all seem to do is sit in hunt forums or groups and talk about it. and the general public never hears anything from our side, ever.


i doubt well ever bee on same page nor ever change their rules/rights, but we at least need to enforce accountability, that isnt in their rights an have gotten away with it way to long, and the anti`s will grab that statement and run with it, again throwing us under the bus

[338win mag]

What some guys are missing is this.....
The BC government can suspend the Moose hunting for FN anytime it wants, regardless of what the Feds say, if its a conservation issue, as far as I know, thats the only reason for a shutdown of any aboriginal right to be temporarily suspended, and they can be charged just like anyone else.
I would say the situation is critical and time for some action on the part of the BC government.

[338win mag]

I too am puzzled about what "unlicenced hunter" means and how do they know anyways? and if its FN then what happened to the Moose where FN dont hunt?
How does having a license help to stabilize or help in Moose recovery? so they know how many have been shot? really? and how do they know how many have been shot, I haven't been asked in 10 years.

[bearvalley]

What some guys are missing is this.....
The BC government can suspend the Moose hunting for FN anytime it wants, regardless of what the Feds say, if its a conservation issue, as far as I know, thats the only reason for a shutdown of any aboriginal right to be temporarily suspended, and they can be charged just like anyone else.
I would say the situation is critical and time for some action on the part of the BC government.

Our hunting is suspended first.
That the pecking order....right or wrong.

[Bonz]

ya they did that this past summer on the fraser for the salmon, worst sockeye return in 120 years. didnt stop them at all.
61 gill nets and 18 vessels seized in couple months, Sixteen individuals, all caught using gill nets, have been issued appearance notices and have subsequently been charged with offences under the fisheries act and are currently awaiting trial.


and i dont see them stopping for animals either

[Bonz]

the conservation shut down would be last resort, after residence first, then guides, then conservation

[bearvalley]

The big question is what did the 11 cow moose with the undiagnosed cause of death die from?
That being known could change the picture....big time.

[338win mag]

the conservation shut down would be last resort, after residence first, then guides, then conservation
Yes, that would be correct, I think we are there now, I simply wanted to point out that there are options and there is no
"right that is absolute" and there are options. If the FN choose not to obey the law then they can/will be charged.
If the courts are reluctant to enforce with deterring penalties then thats another problem.

[Bonz]

a start is enforcing. something that has been lacking that ive seen personaly, maybe once the court start seeing the change, then maybe the court system will change and not play favourtism also,,,kinda doubt that will ever happen though unfortunatly, to much politicly correct crap and our gov scared of the race card

[1899]

a start is enforcing. something that has been lacking that ive seen personaly, maybe once the court start seeing the change, then maybe the court system will change and not play favourtism also,,,kinda doubt that will ever happen though unfortunatly, to much politicly correct crap and our gov scared of the race card

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/first-nations-lose-legal-fight-to-hunt-endangered-elk-1.575182

[Bonz]

ya ive seen that, and others. more on other news and not our bc news outlet though..lol
theirs a few, not enough though

[LeverActionJunkie]

Why not simply offer a bounty on Black bears, and especially Wolves, and offer them to RESIDENT HUNTERS instead of foreigners?
Giving opportunities to non-residents? I would re-think that.
Where would the money come from for the bounties, maybe it could come from the money resident hunters already put into the system instead of it being diverted to general revenue or who really knows where it go's.

I would say because black bear are a very under utilized game species by residents and the wildlife management and enforcement branches are severely underfunded as is. By charging aliens extra $$ to hunt here it would add $ to the coffers to fund magement and enforcement.

Wolves are kind of a mute point as no amount of hunting will ever contain their numbers to a level that will help ungulates. I don't think anyways but could easily be wrong. If enough people wanted to come and pay to hunt em though all the better we can take that $ too.

All just options batted around the interweb.

[Rob Chipman]

Bonz::

"all the public see`s in that unlicened, is white man no being licenced and full on poacher."

I can't disagree. I'm just saying that now that the term has entered the conversation as a result of scientific studies on moose numbers we can start talking about it more easily. When you ask a non-hunter what it means and they say "some white guy without a license" you can ask "And not FN traditional harvest, which is currently not monitored, but which should be in order to help conservation?".

Same question can be asked to the reporter processing the story.

[Bonz]

Bonz::

"all the public see`s in that unlicened, is white man no being licenced and full on poacher."

I can't disagree. I'm just saying that now that the term has entered the conversation as a result of scientific studies on moose numbers we can start talking about it more easily. When you ask a non-hunter what it means and they say "some white guy without a license" you can ask "And not FN traditional harvest, which is currently not monitored, but which should be in order to help conservation?".

Same question can be asked to the reporter processing the story.

ya, at least its been slipped in their. time to make it clear on meanings now. and a few others i read in that and the moose recomendations, i see alot of open, vague info there on enforcing on their end

[horshur]

What needs to be done can't because of the public sentiment. Somehow this has to be changed I am at a loss as how to achieve this. It is a battle for common peoples minds.

[killman]

It heard a truck driver say today that he had seen 6-8 road kill moose on his trip. I believe he was coming from Edmonton.

[LeverActionJunkie]

It heard a truck driver say today that he had seen 6-8 road kill moose on his trip. I believe he was coming from Edmonton.

I heard two seperate individuals talk about how they had to shoot a couple moose over the Christmas break "cause the freezer was a little thin".

Add 4 more to the total for region 3

[bearvalley]

What needs to be done can't because of the public sentiment. Somehow this has to be changed I am at a loss as how to achieve this. It is a battle for common peoples minds.
It's a tough one.
I beleive there's hope of something coming together but for it to work it'll take a lot more players at the table than the BCWF and government.
Some of the participants needed are either not fully on track or on their own agenda.

[Dannybuoy]

Last years status report on the study Did name aboriginals/hunting/poaching as one of the causes . Vancouver sun article
an excerpt :
So far, 19 collared moose have died: nine were killed by wolves, three by unregulated hunting (aboriginal hunting/poaching), three due to starvation, one by a vehicle collision and three due to unknown causes.
Forty to 50 dead moose are required to get a good handle on how they are dying. Research, which has found no evidence of diseases, will continue through 2018.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Biologists+seek+clues+moose+deaths/11005958/story.html

[Mulehahn]

Has anyone got a response from the FLNR about the defintion of an "Unlicensed hunter"? I emailed when this thread started and am still waiting for a response. To me it most likely implication is that the moose was clearly shot but they have no idea by who. Someone shot a moose, walked up, saw the collar and walked away. The ministry is trying to walk the line with by calling it an "unlicensed hunter" because if it was First Nations no crime may have been committed, but if it wasn't they are poachers. Without knowing who pulled the trigger it is a guess so they just call all shot, but unretrieved, moose hunted.

Now what group is going to go around and shoot moose first without taking a close look at it and what is around is anyone's guess...

[Dannybuoy]

Has anyone got a response from the FLNR about the defintion of an "Unlicensed hunter"? I emailed when this thread started and am still waiting for a response. To me it most likely implication is that the moose was clearly shot but they have no idea by who. Someone shot a moose, walked up, saw the collar and walked away. The ministry is trying to walk the line with by calling it an "unlicensed hunter" because if it was First Nations no crime may have been committed, but if it wasn't they are poachers. Without knowing who pulled the trigger it is a guess so they just call all shot, but unretrieved, moose hunted.

Now what group is going to go around and shoot moose first without taking a close look at it and what is around is anyone's guess...

If you would have noticed the previous post , aboriginals/hunting/poaching was changed to ""Unlicensed hunter"

[horshur]

At the current time getting first nations on board is probably the best hope. They as a group actually have political pull whether you all like it or not and can act without political reprisals. I have no idea what that would look like or whether they would even entertain the idea.

[338win mag]

At the current time getting first nations on board is probably the best hope. They as a group actually have political pull whether you all like it or not and can act without political reprisals. I have no idea what that would look like or whether they would even entertain the idea.

This the most simple and accurate post so far, exellent idea, the concept coming to fruition is another matter, it can be achieved I think.

[Whonnock Boy]

Tsilhqot'in Band would be a good bet, and a great location. Fund a helicopter for a couple of members, and let them have at it for a couple years. See what happens. They could take out a few bears while they're at it.

[horshur]

This the most simple and accurate post so far, exellent idea, the concept coming to fruition is another matter, it can be achieved I think.

I don't think it is an original idea....

[1899]

I don't think it is an original idea....

Nope, folks have been working on it for some time now.

[bearvalley]

I don't think it is an original idea....

Youre right, it's far from original but it's the best direction to take.
Not only do they have political pull but if they are behind a management plan the political correctness will be there to possibly gain the publics support....or at least enough of the public to make it fly.

[Bonz]

personaly i feel they only have pull with the past crap and the race card as leverage to the publics eye/. something we never fight for. we all have them same food rights., white man didnt come here with ave on foods on them ships did they?
our gov is chicken shit of them, plain and simple

[Bonz]

why is their 2 diff reports, dates are diff on top. both start same time of 2012, but end 1 year apart, diff people involved, less people on this one that i read
wonder how close the numbers are in this one? just starting to read it


http://www.bvrodandgun.ca/index_266_1076948904.pdf

[mpotzold]

[QUOTE=BCWF;1866134]https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/10/Killers-of-BC-Moose/
The main killers of moose in an ongoing study in British Columbia have been wolves, unlicensed hunters and starvation.



An incomplete study!
I would say BEARS killing the very young are the main culprits in the dwindling moose numbers.
Less bear=more moose. PERIOD!

Bears are moose calf killers –some studies indicate that over 50% (some up to 75%)are killed when most vulnerable. Read that they can differentiate the smell between calf and adult from a long distance. Once found it’s not difficult to catch & kill it when very young.

Article-Bears are thought to have the best sense of smell of any animal on earth. For example, the average dog’s sense of smell is 100 times better than a humans. A blood hound’s is 300 times better. A bear’s sense of smell is 7 times better than a blood hound’s or 2,100 times better than a human.

Moose study in Denali Park in the 1980s and ’90s- the moose calf survival rate was only 10 to 20 percent. Grizzly bears were the main predator of newborn moose calves, killing approximately 51 percent of calves that were killed during the first two months compared to only 6 percent killed by wolves.
The biologist concludes-the dramatic decrease in the moose population in the 1990s is a result of heavy bear predation on moose calves.
http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/as-calving-season-gets-into-full-swing-so-does-the/article_6be84be0-3258-5289-911a-1087af4f9ba2.html


Another study where 54 calves were collared -45 died
Bears killed 26 & wolves/coyotes only 1.
http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/2012-10-23

From our limited observations in the 5-03 region over the last 6 years or so the moose numbers are way, way down & the bear(mostly black) are way up. As I said before could have shot 14 black bears in less than 3 days couple of years ago.

[Bonz]

lol, whats thats supose to mean, this is at top of their info

Wildlife Working Reports frequently contain preliminary data, so conclusions
based on these may be subject to change. Working Reports receive little review.

[bearvalley]

When the bred cow percentage is 78% and the calf survival in February/March ranges from 8 to 37% a problem is obvious.
These surviving 9-10 month old calves are in a vulnerable stage of life and a long ways from being productive moose in regards to increasing numbers as part of the breeding herd.
Of these calves only 50% can be a producing cow moose one day....so now we have a 9-10 month old female calf moose recruitment ranging from 4 to 18.5%.
Whats the survival number of female calves that make it to 2 and 3 years of age....my bet is that it's pretty bleak.
Another 5 year extension to the studies will not stop the decline in moose numbers.
One thing it will do is suck up the money that's been earmarked for a recovery.

[Walking Buffalo]

I'm still curious as to what "Holistic Change" would look like.
Is this similar to killing moose to starve wolves to save caribou?


BCWF, do you respond to questions on your own threads?
Will you provide a copy of the progress report?

[LeverActionJunkie]

I used to feel disappointed that I've only ever had the chance to kill one moose. Beginning to look like it's best to leave the poor things alone.

[bearvalley]

I'm still curious as to what "Holistic Change" would look like.
Is this similar to killing moose to starve wolves to save caribou?

Either that or extend the studies until the problem goes away.
The moose will be what's gone.
Killing moose to starve them off or relocate them away from mountain caribou has to be one of the all time stupids in wildlife management.

[Bonz]

and by the time the extend the study the other side will cry its old and outdated, like their doing to the bear data, thats what they want. more funding and more research an do nothing
anyone heard when these recomedations are going to begin. r4eports old already and havent began anything that ive seen. just more talk about more research

[GoatGuy]

I'm still curious as to what "Holistic Change" would look like.
Is this similar to killing moose to starve wolves to save caribou?


BCWF, do you respond to questions on your own threads?
Will you provide a copy of the progress report?


Here's a link to the "A STRATEGY TO HELP RESTORE MOOSEPOPULATIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA" report:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/Restoring-and-Enhancing-Moose-Populations-in-BC-July-8-2016.pdf

Progress report:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eirs/finishDownloadDocument.do;jsessionid=vbFQY5FhVS2Pn fVRg32rSh2sQ5PKM5bhGVxcrmQQRKh29mSmy7rz!2064073576 ?subdocumentId=10381


One more link lol: www.google.ca

[GoatGuy]

Got at least a page of responses, seem to be getting back to complaining. Would like to hear more about the question below......


Lots of "why don't they" in the replies. For my perspective this is a shared resource, owned by everyone in BC.


If I got a vote and a question for all the people in the thread it would be: How do WE make more moose?

[Bonz]

nothing in that explains what their opinion of holistic is. and a few others with vague meanings in that

[Bonz]

Got at least a page of responses, seem to be getting back to complaining. Would like to hear more about the question below......

WE dont. nothing we can do, if WE tried, we`d be charged lol

[Bonz]

this has already been sitting for almost a year. what the hold up to implement that plan they claim they will do, more years to study on how to implement it?

[Dannybuoy]

Got at least a page of responses, seem to be getting back to complaining. Would like to hear more about the question below......Lots of "why don't they" in the replies. For my perspective this is a shared resource, owned by everyone in BC.
If I got a vote and a question for all the people in the thread it would be: How do WE make more moose?[/QUOTE]

There is no " we" at the moment .... there is us and them ... and They are calling the shots when it comes to what wildlife they want to manage (or have us manage for them ) whether it is bear or moose or ? Your perspective is overly optimistic but you are entitled to it
I will continue to hunt what I am legally able to for however many years that is ...

From one of your links : "The province is responsible for stewardship of natural resources, including wildlife, and has jurisdiction to regulate most land-based activities. The province does not have power to regulate hunting by First Nations, each of whom have a unique approach to stewardship and self-regulation. "

[bearvalley]

this has already been sitting for almost a year. what the hold up to implement that plan they claim they will do, more years to study on how to implement it?
May 9 2017 is the hang up.

[338win mag]

The province does have the power to infringe upon the "section 35 rights bearing community", alls they have to do is shut it down for the G/O, resident hunters, then the FN.
Seems like the thing to do, heads would roll and I bet the FN would be on board with any conservation measures taken to bring back the Moose pops, including a long term strategy with conservation in mind.

I do wonder what the strategy is when LEH are still being sold, there are still general open seasons, yet there aren't any Moose in many of those area's, I personally get tired of what I and many others consider nothing short of bungling.

[horshur]

Guys, read the reports goat posted...

[Walking Buffalo]

Here's a link to the "A STRATEGY TO HELP RESTORE MOOSEPOPULATIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA" report:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/Restoring-and-Enhancing-Moose-Populations-in-BC-July-8-2016.pdf

Progress report:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eirs/finishDownloadDocument.do;jsessionid=vbFQY5FhVS2Pn fVRg32rSh2sQ5PKM5bhGVxcrmQQRKh29mSmy7rz!2064073576 ?subdocumentId=10381


One more link lol: www.google.ca (http://www.google.ca)

Thank you.


For those that keep on wondering.
Unlicensed Hunting = Aboriginal Hunting.
While not surprised, I find it weak that the authors would not describe this with proper clarity.


From the progress report,
Probable cause of Mortalities.
21 predation (18 wolf, 2 Cougar, 1 bear),
9 hunting (1licensed, 8 unlicensed),
14 health-related (8 apparentstarvation, 2 septicemia, 4 unknown health-related),
1natural accident, 4 unknown




This accounting differs from the article,
The eleven unaccounted mortalities in the article are:
2 septicemia, 4 unknown health-related),
1 natural accident, 4 unknown

A quick reviews of the progress report reveals some interesting data.

ZERO mortalities from capture/handling, VERY Impressive!



Collared Cow Moose mortality was not unusual.
"The annual survival rate of cow Moose for all study areas was 92 ± 8% in2013/14, 92 ± 5% in 2014/15 and 86 ± 5% in 2015/16. "



What was noteworthy is the relatively low cow/calf pairs at capture.

"Moose for whom calf status at capture was recorded,
68% (n = 19 were not accompaniedby a calf,
32% (n = 93) had one calf
and <1% (n= 2) had twins "

"4.6 Late Winter Calf Surveys
From 2014–2016, we conducted a total of 10 latewinter (February and March) Moose calf surveysto determine survival rates of calves associatedwith the radio-collared cows. Results variedamong study areas with calf/cow ratios rangingfrom 8–39 calves/100 cows "


In addition is the Very low number of Young Cow moose in the capture pool.

"Of the 336 cow Moose captured to date, weassessed 332 for age via tooth wear patterns with
81% (n = 26 classified as adults(4.5 – 7.5 years old),
16% (n = 53) as old (8.5 –14.5 years old)
and 3% (n = 11) as young (1.5 –3.5 years old). "


Back to the mortalities.

Causes of potential starvation mortalities is undetermined at this time.
Ticks likely played a significant role in some of the deaths.
One case of spetimecia was likely due to infection resulting from injuries received during a wolf attack.



It certainly appears that calf recruitment is a serious issue negatively effecting population growth.


How do we make more Moose?
Increase recruitment, probably best achieved by culling bears and wolves, in a holistic way. :)

[bearvalley]

We can talk science, funding and habitat restoration until we are blue in the face.
The number one turning tool in the areas covered by this study is a predator reduction.
Wolves first....that will bring the downward moose population spiral under control.
Bears can be kept in check to boost recruitment.
Then the habitat restoration to support the moose that come back.
We don't really need to spend a bunch more money to study......

[Drillbit]

That's my thoughts too.

The bears are the main problem for the calves.


[QUOTE=BCWF;1866134]https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/10/Killers-of-BC-Moose/
The main killers of moose in an ongoing study in British Columbia have been wolves, unlicensed hunters and starvation.



An incomplete study!
I would say BEARS killing the very young are the main culprits in the dwindling moose numbers.
Less bear=more moose. PERIOD!

Bears are moose calf killers –some studies indicate that over 50% (some up to 75%)are killed when most vulnerable. Read that they can differentiate the smell between calf and adult from a long distance. Once found it’s not difficult to catch & kill it when very young.

Article-Bears are thought to have the best sense of smell of any animal on earth. For example, the average dog’s sense of smell is 100 times better than a humans. A blood hound’s is 300 times better. A bear’s sense of smell is 7 times better than a blood hound’s or 2,100 times better than a human.

Moose study in Denali Park in the 1980s and ’90s- the moose calf survival rate was only 10 to 20 percent. Grizzly bears were the main predator of newborn moose calves, killing approximately 51 percent of calves that were killed during the first two months compared to only 6 percent killed by wolves.
The biologist concludes-the dramatic decrease in the moose population in the 1990s is a result of heavy bear predation on moose calves.
http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/as-calving-season-gets-into-full-swing-so-does-the/article_6be84be0-3258-5289-911a-1087af4f9ba2.html


Another study where 54 calves were collared -45 died
Bears killed 26 & wolves/coyotes only 1.
http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/2012-10-23

From our limited observations in the 5-03 region over the last 6 years or so the moose numbers are way, way down & the bear(mostly black) are way up. As I said before could have shot 14 black bears in less than 3 days couple of years ago.

[LeverActionJunkie]

We can talk science, funding and habitat restoration until we are blue in the face.
The number one turning tool in the areas covered by this study is a predator reduction.
Wolves first....that will bring the downward moose population spiral under control.
Bears can be kept in check to boost recruitment.
Then the habitat restoration to support the moose that come back.
We don't really need to spend a bunch more money to study......

We gotta get off the I Internet and get hunting. Easiest way for rh's to do their part is easier than we think, donate some $ to local and provincial organizations, kill our two bears each year and hopefully kill some wolves. Sound more than do able, maybe not so much the wolves, but $50-100 and some bear meat and fresh air in the woods to help some moose. Ill Take that anyday of the week

[Brno22F]

there is evidence that moose will use marginal habitat to avoid predation ..certainly play into the starvation stats.

like the one that walked into Safeway in Smithers a few years back. Straight to the veggie aisle. And bonus--No wolves!

[HarryToolips]

we can talk science, funding and habitat restoration until we are blue in the face.
The number one turning tool in the areas covered by this study is a predator reduction.
Wolves first....that will bring the downward moose population spiral under control.
Bears can be kept in check to boost recruitment.
Then the habitat restoration to support the moose that come back.
We don't really need to spend a bunch more money to study......
x2............

[GoatGuy]

We can talk science, funding and habitat restoration until we are blue in the face.
The number one turning tool in the areas covered by this study is a predator reduction.
Wolves first....that will bring the downward moose population spiral under control.
Bears can be kept in check to boost recruitment.
Then the habitat restoration to support the moose that come back.
We don't really need to spend a bunch more money to study......


The reason we have to study it is because policy makers don't truly support moose recovery.

Why?

[bearvalley]

The reason we have to study it is because policy makers don't truly support moose recovery.

Why?
It's pretty sad when a critical solution to fix a wildlife problem is put on the back burner due to fear of the dis connected, misinformed voter.
How are we going to change this?

[GoatGuy]

It's pretty sad when a critical solution to fix a wildlife problem is put on the back burner due to fear of the dis connected, misinformed voter.
How are we going to change this?


I asked the question first lol!

There is a fundamental failure and it's on our end.

[1899]

I asked the question first lol!

There is a fundamental failure and it's on our end.

Seems like getting the right people into office is the first step.

[guest]

Or ...... Those in office listening to the Right people.

[LeverActionJunkie]

I asked the question first lol!

There is a fundamental failure and it's on our end.

Give us a hint.


Please:)

[bearvalley]

Give us a hint.


Please:)

I agree....please Jesse....tell us.
Ive pretty well said what needs to be done and a lot of others have as well.
Lets hear it from the Fed.
How do we recover moose?
What is the holdup on getting the recovery underway?
What is the fundamental failure we are faced with?
Everyone needs to know so we can reverse this failure....if possible.

[Whonnock Boy]

"BC conservationists need to grow up. We need to advocate for increased funding, science and social support system that puts everyone who cares about the" wildlife, "at the same table and on the same page." "The" wildlife and habitat "is going downhill; unless we can advocate for and share the resource it will continue to disappear. Our collective rights become very hollow without any" wildlife on the landscape.

Did I get it right?

[Phreddy]

Unlicensed hunters are POACHERS.
BCWF knows this, and it if where the Natives they would say that too.

In your wildest dreams. That wouldnt be politically correct.

[bearvalley]

"BC conservationists need to grow up. We need to advocate for increased funding, science and social support system that puts everyone who cares about the" wildlife, "at the same table and on the same page." "The" wildlife and habitat "is going downhill; unless we can advocate for and share the resource it will continue to disappear. Our collective rights become very hollow without any" wildlife on the landscape.

Did I get it right?
You got it....now how are we going to do it?

[GoatGuy]

Have to convince politicians recovering moose, and wildlife, is the right thing to do.

Meet them, write them, tell them, talk to your friends, family and coworkers, then vote based on people who say they will support fish and wildlife.

This issue really isn't about managing wolves, FN, hunting seasons, etc, it's about giving wildlife managers a mandate, some money, and the ability to recover wildlife.

Believe it or not we know how to recover moose populations and what it takes, we just don't have the political support to do it.

[bearvalley]

Have to convince politicians recovering moose, and wildlife, is the right thing to do.

Meet them, write them, tell them, talk to your friends, family and coworkers, then vote based on people who say they will support fish and wildlife.

This issue really isn't about managing wolves, FN, hunting seasons, etc, it's about giving wildlife managers a mandate, some money, and the ability to recover wildlife.

Believe it or not we know how to recover moose populations and what it takes, we just don't have the political support to do it.

There you go....wildlife management is not based on science or what is right or wrong.
The way wildlife is presently managed in BC is as a ballot initiative.

I get the part about talking to politicians....but how do we get away from that old pattern that has not worked?

There are politions that get it and their hands are tied...frustrated bios and resource managers that have been put on hold all due to the voting mass that does not truly understand what is wrong.

We need to pull together and figure it out that we will all need to lose a bit to win.
By losing...for some it may be a share of allocation...or we may have to put up with a blocked road...either way, when we're clawing something back from the other guy..in the end..we are all losing.

We need to be on the same page...passing on the same message.
I know you get it and so do others....but a lot do not.

You're the resident priority guy...draft up the message and post what the politicians need to be told.

Maybe we can generate enough enthusiasm to have a rally or two....after all, aren't the moose what allocation is all about?

[GoatGuy]

There you go....wildlife management is not based on science or what is right or wrong.
The way wildlife is presently managed in BC is as a ballot initiative.

I get the part about talking to politicians....but how do we get away from that old pattern that has not worked?

There are politions that get it and their hands are tied...frustrated bios and resource managers that have been put on hold all due to the voting mass that does not truly understand what is wrong.

We need to pull together and figure it out that we will all need to lose a bit to win.
By losing...for some it may be a share of allocation...or we may have to put up with a blocked road...either way, when we're clawing something back from the other guy..in the end..we are all losing.

We need to be on the same page...passing on the same message.
I know you get it and so do others....but a lot do not.

You're the resident priority guy...draft up the message and post what the politicians need to be told.

Maybe we can generate enough enthusiasm to have a rally or two....after all, aren't the moose what allocation is all about?


By and large I don't think there is an 'old pattern' of talking to politicians. I don't think "we've" tried.


Agreed on all the rest of it, good ideas.

[bearvalley]

By and large I don't think there is an 'old pattern' of talking to politicians. I don't think "we've" tried.
Your right....the we hasn't happened...its been yours and mine.
Any suggestions on how to change it?
Or would you prefer it just remain status quo?
Remember Jesse...the part where I said we are all going to have to lose a bit to win.

[HarryToolips]

There you go....wildlife management is not based on science or what is right or wrong.
The way wildlife is presently managed in BC is as a ballot initiative.

I get the part about talking to politicians....but how do we get away from that old pattern that has not worked?

There are politions that get it and their hands are tied...frustrated bios and resource managers that have been put on hold all due to the voting mass that does not truly understand what is wrong.

We need to pull together and figure it out that we will all need to lose a bit to win.
By losing...for some it may be a share of allocation...or we may have to put up with a blocked road...either way, when we're clawing something back from the other guy..in the end..we are all losing.

We need to be on the same page...passing on the same message.
I know you get it and so do others....but a lot do not.

You're the resident priority guy...draft up the message and post what the politicians need to be told.

Maybe we can generate enough enthusiasm to have a rally or two....after all, aren't the moose what allocation is all about?
In my opinion, the first thing the politicians need to be told is ALL of the $$ from tags etc goes back into wildlife.. they did it for fisheries..apparently hunting tags etc generated $14 mil last year, and only around $2 mil went back into wildlife, what a travesty..so once the bios etc have $$ to work with, let's get the public educated that a wolf cull in many areas of the province is urgently needed, and let's deactivate some FSR's spur roads to inhibit a bunch of 2 and 4 legged preds..

[1899]

In my opinion, the first thing the politicians need to be told is ALL of the $$ from tags etc goes back into wildlife.. they did it for fisheries..apparently hunting tags etc generated $14 mil last year, and only around $2 mil went back into wildlife, what a travesty..so once the bios etc have $$ to work with, let's get the public educated that a wolf cull in many areas of the province is urgently needed, and let's deactivate some FSR's spur roads to inhibit a bunch of 2 and 4 legged preds..

And they will listen to what they are "told" because...

[LeverActionJunkie]

I don't know how we're ever going to convince the majority of people, not hunters, British Columbians, that moose are worth saving and they need to pressure elected officials. The majority of the electorate lives in the lower mainland and they decide for the rest of the province. Even though they'll never see or experience most of it. This is the BC story the issue doesn't matter. The lower mainland decides for all. And we wonder why they don't care about moose? How could they not care about logging practices? Habitat loss? How could they not care about predator/prey relationships and balances?

Because they have no clue.

Because they experience it in provincial parks, ski hills, the shushwap, okanagan lake, from a wake boat, from the windshield driving the coquihala. They experience it on long weekends and once or twice a year on vacation. They go for a hike and think how great things are, all this untouched wilderness.

This is not meant as a slander against readers/members from the lower mainland, it is just the way BC is. Society is. It's just the same in kamloops or kelowna. Most people don't fully experience it so don't worry, wonder or frankly care about it. Obviously some go right off their meds and want to preserve it all without recognizing their own impact.

What we need is BC's Teddy Roosevelt or a Don Peay or some similar personality. As we've talked about we need to get together, get focused. We'll have to give up some things, we might not even see equal compromise from other sides. That doesn't really matter if what we do we do for wildlife (moose in this case) because without critters, we're just gun owners with camo cloathes.

If we went to govt with a plan on how to recover moose, how to help fund it, why it's important, who we are asking to help us ( FN's, bios, conservation groups), as well as what we are willing to give up because WE CARE and want to see the best for the resource. Then we could have a chance. We take a message of positive action to the news media and social media and govt maybe we could turn it around.

I for one would be willing to give up all GOS for Moose south of region 6&7A. Put it all on bull only LEH. I've seen enough dead cows and 3 & 4 point bulls to know that season does our image no good. Every time it's picked up in the news it looks bad on us.

Might all just be wishful thinking but if we can turn our image from one of a group wanting more and in conflict with others, to a group bringing positive change and sacrificing for something so that others down the road can have more. Then even the leaf lickers won't wanna protest lol

[mpotzold]

More on –BEARS ARE THE REAL CULPRITS
Interesting study in Alaska’s unit 19A
From one of the best to one of the worst areas for hunting moose.
So they tried a wolf cull since 2004 & it had little or no effect on moose population in the unit.

Tried a different approach.
ADFG(Alaska Department of Fish & Game) conducted a 2 year (2013 to 2014) bear predator control program in only a portion of the unit 19A (5% of the unit area)
Data collected so far showed excellent calf survival in the entire unit 19A.

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/programs/intensivemanagement/pdfs/pr-05-29-2014.pdf

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

We gotta get off the I Internet and get hunting. Easiest way for rh's to do their part is easier than we think, donate some $ to local and provincial organizations, kill our two bears each year and hopefully kill some wolves. Sound more than do able, maybe not so much the wolves, but $50-100 and some bear meat and fresh air in the woods to help some moose. Ill Take that anyday of the week Bingo! This a fine example of living with balls and spirit by BCRH!!!

Let's all get out and get what we can! To the best of our situations, opportunities and abilities.

[338win mag]

Curious, what is the cause in the increase of bears populations?

[bearvalley]

I don't know how we're ever going to convince the majority of people, not hunters, British Columbians, that moose are worth saving and they need to pressure elected officials. The majority of the electorate lives in the lower mainland and they decide for the rest of the province. Even though they'll never see or experience most of it. This is the BC story the issue doesn't matter. The lower mainland decides for all. And we wonder why they don't care about moose? How could they not care about logging practices? Habitat loss? How could they not care about predator/prey relationships and balances?

Because they have no clue.

Because they experience it in provincial parks, ski hills, the shushwap, okanagan lake, from a wake boat, from the windshield driving the coquihala. They experience it on long weekends and once or twice a year on vacation. They go for a hike and think how great things are, all this untouched wilderness.

This is not meant as a slander against readers/members from the lower mainland, it is just the way BC is. Society is. It's just the same in kamloops or kelowna. Most people don't fully experience it so don't worry, wonder or frankly care about it. Obviously some go right off their meds and want to preserve it all without recognizing their own impact.

What we need is BC's Teddy Roosevelt or a Don Peay or some similar personality. As we've talked about we need to get together, get focused. We'll have to give up some things, we might not even see equal compromise from other sides. That doesn't really matter if what we do we do for wildlife (moose in this case) because without critters, we're just gun owners with camo cloathes.

If we went to govt with a plan on how to recover moose, how to help fund it, why it's important, who we are asking to help us ( FN's, bios, conservation groups), as well as what we are willing to give up because WE CARE and want to see the best for the resource. Then we could have a chance. We take a message of positive action to the news media and social media and govt maybe we could turn it around.

I for one would be willing to give up all GOS for Moose south of region 6&7A. Put it all on bull only LEH. I've seen enough dead cows and 3 & 4 point bulls to know that season does our image no good. Every time it's picked up in the news it looks bad on us.

Might all just be wishful thinking but if we can turn our image from one of a group wanting more and in conflict with others, to a group bringing positive change and sacrificing for something so that others down the road can have more. Then even the leaf lickers won't wanna protest lol

This is post is how it is and basically what is needed....even though some will never agree.
Well said, LeverActionJunkie.

[horshur]

Have to convince politicians recovering moose, and wildlife, is the right thing to do.

Meet them, write them, tell them, talk to your friends, family and coworkers, then vote based on people who say they will support fish and wildlife.

This issue really isn't about managing wolves, FN, hunting seasons, etc, it's about giving wildlife managers a mandate, some money, and the ability to recover wildlife.

Believe it or not we know how to recover moose populations and what it takes, we just don't have the political support to do it.

Managers could intervene and raise populations but they do not have the social licence....who gives the social licence? Politicians?? Not really. This is an issue with sentimental general public and them being manipulated by media by whomever runs media.

"Oh God, the terrible tyranny of the majority we all have our harps to play. And it is up to you to know which ear you will listen" (Ray Bradbury)

[GoatGuy]

Managers could intervene and raise populations but they do not have the social licence....who gives the social licence? Politicians?? Not really. This is an issue with sentimental general public and them being manipulated by media by whomever runs media.

"Oh God, the terrible tyranny of the majority we all have our harps to play. And it is up to you to know which ear you will listen" (Ray Bradbury)

Not sure I agree with that.

According to the media, 91% of people in BC are opposed to 'trophy grizzly bear hunting', but there is still a hunt.

Most of the public would support changes to land use, and habitat management, yet we are not changing the rules.

Most of the 'media' is opposed to the wolf management program for caribou, yet it is still happening.


Conservationists just haven't tried to convince politicians that fish and wildlife is a priority.

Look south at Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Utah, etc. They are spending hundreds of millions on fish and wildlife, managing habitat, managing predators, ungulates. That is not because of the media (they have antis down there too) - it's because politicians down there are terrified of hunters/anglers.

[Gamebuster]

This is post is how it is and basically what is needed....even though some will never agree.
Well said, LeverActionJunkie.

and why would that be? Why give up hunting for bulls when bull hunting is not at all related to the problems facing moose? Its not like once residents give up hunting, natives will as well. Please explain further.

[bearvalley]

This is post is how it is and basically what is needed....even though some will never agree.
Well said, LeverActionJunkie.


and why would that be? Why give up hunting for bulls when bull hunting is not at all related to the problems facing moose? Its not like once residents give up hunting, natives will as well. Please explain further.

Gamebuster, read what I said.
Basically .....what LeverActionJunkie posted is a framework that could work.
How long do you think the moose numbers in regions 6, 7a and 7b will be sustainable if all moose hunting shifts there?
Do you think all of regions 6, 7a and 7b are not affected by the same moose deline factors as the study areas?
Do you not beleive the over abundant wolf population will follow the food source and shift north?
Right now we have no say in what FN's do...but if an area is closed for conservation concern reasons we do.
Like I said before...we are going to have to lose some to win.
How would you go about getting a recovery underway?

[horshur]

Not sure I agree with that.

According to the media, 91% of people in BC are opposed to 'trophy grizzly bear hunting', but there is still a hunt.

Most of the public would support changes to land use, and habitat management, yet we are not changing the rules.

Most of the 'media' is opposed to the wolf management program for caribou, yet it is still happening.


Conservationists just haven't tried to convince politicians that fish and wildlife is a priority.

Look south at Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Utah, etc. They are spending hundreds of millions on fish and wildlife, managing habitat, managing predators, ungulates. That is not because of the media (they have antis down there too) - it's because politicians down there are terrified of hunters/anglers.

Fair enough though I can't help but feel we are one election away from loosing a lot.

[338win mag]

I asked 2 questions that never got answered, maybe I was too vague, I will simply ask straight.
Why not try to get the Moose closed for a few years for everyone including FN?... and yes it can be done.
Where/what is the cause of the great increase in bears? seems they are eating lots of Moose.

[GoatGuy]

Fair enough though I can't help but feel we are one election away from loosing a lot.


Agreed, and feels as though we've already lost a lot.

At what point is enough, enough?

[Gamebuster]

Thanks BV. I was asking specifically about the idea to shut down hunting for moose in the south. I don't agree with that and it appears you don't either but your response to leveraction seemed to. We need to focus on the problem, which in my opinion is almost entirely related to predation. I realize there's other issues that would be great to address but let's first focus on one big issue and see if we can get there. If we can't address one of the big issues, it's not likely we're going to address the others either. They are all big issues. I don't have the answers on how we achieve that but I'm not sure that removing the value that hunters (moose hunting) and govt have (proceeds from moose hunting) in the interim is a good idea.

[horshur]

Curious, what is the cause in the increase of bears populations?

logging.....

[Bear Chaser]

I asked 2 questions that never got answered, maybe I was too vague, I will simply ask straight.
Why not try to get the Moose closed for a few years for everyone including FN?... and yes it can be done.
Where/what is the cause of the great increase in bears? seems they are eating lots of Moose.

To answer your question regarding bears the short answer is people aren't killing them to the degree they once did.
It was legal to shoot sows, any age cubs and up to five tags per year per hunter with no meat retention laws up to the mid to late eighties. Back then if rural folk, farmers and ranchers decided there were too many bears they shot bears until the abundance went away. Licensed hunters who did not wish to deal with butchering a bear didn't have to even skin them.
When the laws began to change it became more cumbersome for law abiding hunters to bother with bears so they shot less.
I'm sure there are other reasons but those are the most evident to me.

[Whonnock Boy]

Respectfully, I disagree. When the Fraser was completely closed last year in the peak of the Sockeye run, over 100 nets, and a vehicle or two were seized by fisheries. The vastness of the Province, and few CO's compared to one river and a few fisheries officers tells me they would have a hard time enforcing what you propose.



Why not try to get the Moose closed for a few years for everyone including FN?... and yes it can be done.

[LeverActionJunkie]

and why would that be? Why give up hunting for bulls when bull hunting is not at all related to the problems facing moose? Its not like once residents give up hunting, natives will as well. Please explain further.

By closing the GOS for moose south of 7A we are not giving up hunting for bulls. We loose the unicorn season that's all we have now. We turn it over to leh, so bios can more accurately mange the #'s, people still can have a chance to hunt but it's controlled.

I don't care if First Nations give up hunting moose. It's their right. I care about moose and wildlife in general and I feel if we lead by example and say "this is how bad we feel it is", "this is what we are willing to do", "here's the science behind it". Then maybe people come to the table and say " we are concerned about these issues as well, what can we do to help?", "Are there any programs we can take on to move forward?".

Obviously these steps take some faith. But if they're taken with wildlife in mind and backed by science then they'll be doing what's needed on our part. Something has to change and the easiest change to make is the one we make, then help other change.

I also look to the US examples of game management and funding. I'd like to see us achieve the level of success they have there. It's hard to picture without an influx of $ which I don't see how we do without inviting more investors. That's a touchy subject and maybe there's a different way, which would be cool to hear about.

I may be way off base on all accounts just want to see something take shape and develop into a solution.

[338win mag]

Respectfully, I disagree. When the Fraser was completely closed last year in the peak of the Sockeye run, over 100 nets, and a vehicle or two were seized by fisheries. The vastness of the Province, and few CO's compared to one river and a few fisheries officers tells me they would have a hard time enforcing what you propose.
I'm not talking about enforcement, I understand that and thats another issue altogether.
As I understand it the closures for which you speak resulted in charges and are before the courts, so we dont really know.

The way I see it if all the stakeholders are at the table its going to be a good thing, dont you think?? forced to the table if need be

[338win mag]

To answer your question regarding bears the short answer is people aren't killing them to the degree they once did.
It was legal to shoot sows, any age cubs and up to five tags per year per hunter with no meat retention laws up to the mid to late eighties. Back then if rural folk, farmers and ranchers decided there were too many bears they shot bears until the abundance went away. Licensed hunters who did not wish to deal with butchering a bear didn't have to even skin them.
When the laws began to change it became more cumbersome for law abiding hunters to bother with bears so they shot less.
I'm sure there are other reasons but those are the most evident to me.
The access to the land 25 years ago was 1/10th of what it is now, how did these bear hunters access the land to kill these bears?
I'm not trying to be ignorant, just trying to make sense of it, less hunters years ago and I dont remember seeing any great amount of bears getting shot by hunters targeting bears, more incidental than anything.
Is there any studies that show what % bears have increased over the years? I dont see more bears today than I did 40 years ago, if its bears I'll go tag out this spring if it will help.

[Whonnock Boy]

Valid point. Yes, it would be a good thing. Maybe the problem is, the definition of "conservation concern" in terms of ungulates is ambiguous, and up for debate.
I'm not talking about enforcement, I understand that and thats another issue altogether.
As I understand it the closures for which you speak resulted in charges and are before the courts, so we dont really know.

The way I see it if all the stakeholders are at the table its going to be a good thing, dont you think?? forced to the table if need be

[Bear Chaser]

Perhaps I should rephrase as I can only speak for my own corner of the province in the Northeast. Access has increased up here but I don't think to the degree you have mentioned or may be the case in other areas.
As I said before there were no regulations regarding bears in family units until about 25 years ago. If we are to believe what wildlife personnel say regarding the taking of productive sows signifigantly affecting populations then I think back then there would easily have been less population increase occurring amongst bears.
As for actual bear populations and harvest then and now perhaps Goat Guy may be able to provide some numbers.

[Rob Chipman]

Thanks, Goatguy, for those links. Some good reading there.

The report and recommendations made by Al Gorely may not be perfect, but it seems to lay out an effective way to go and it lays out the main problems. I'm no expert but I think if we followed his recommendations we's see some awesome results.

For a long term commitment to a clear and over-arching moose recovery objective we have to change how politicians think about moose, and especially about conservationists/hunters. We can ask for their help and commitment, but we actually need to make all sides both value our support and fear pissing us off. We can't commit to one party over the other, because if we do we'll be outside of power whenever the other side wins. But, as GG points out, there are states south of the 49th that commit much more to wildlife than BC does...because the elected officials don't want to piss off hunter/conservationists.

- We need to change public perceptions of what goes on in the woods. Jump on Facebook or Google and see how a pretty smart English writer, George Monbiot, has influenced a ton of North Americans over wolves - search "george monbiot how wolves" if you don't already know what I'm talking about. If a writer in London who wants to reintroduce prehistoric predators to the UK can change opinions about wolves on the other side of the world we can change them in our own backyard.

- We need to change how politicians regards hunters/conservationists, and we need to make them worry about who we are and what we want.

Mr. Gorely recommends a clear and overarching objective for moose recovery. We need the same sort of clear and overarching objective on changing the perceptions of the public and politicians. Unless those perceptions get changed we won't be able to get the commitment to the clear and overarching moose recovery objective that Mr. Gorely calls for.

[LeverActionJunkie]

Quick comparison, done on coffee break if you're wondering why it's an incomplete analysis. I was just poking around a bit.

Utah -pop: 3.05million
-total area: 84,899 sq mi
-division of wildlife resource budget $85million
-wildlife habitat account (appears to be revenue from hunting & fishing): $2.43million
https://wildlife.utah.gov/about-us/64-what-we-do/about-us/191-financial-overview.html

B.C. -pop: 4.5-4.7million depending on webpage
-total area: 364,764sq mi
-ministry of environment budget: ? ( wasn't able to locate $ #'s myself, even though when searching Utah I
found it on my first google. This should tell us something off the bat)
-resident hunting generates approx: $7million
(According to http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/news/metro/hunting+generates+million+economic+activity+annual ly+victoria/8875723/story.html

For what it's worth I was just trying to investigate the differences between the two. Would like to know hard #'s on our ministry budget and hunting licence contribution to that. But have to keep looking I guess.

[338win mag]

Dont forest companies contribute to MOE coffers?

[LeverActionJunkie]

I don't know 338win mag. This is all well outside my daily realm.

Good question though.

And if not why? Would also be a good question.

[338win mag]

Valid point. Yes, it would be a good thing. Maybe the problem is, the definition of "conservation concern" in terms of ungulates is ambiguous, and up for debate.

What "conservation concern" means to different user groups will vary according to how it affects them, and I think you have touched on a very important issue, maybe even "critical".

In my view (and others) the time for concern is well past and there is no need to wait until there is 2 Moose left for breeding.
I realize the only group affected by the dwindling Moose pops are resident hunters at this time, thats going to change and the sooner the better.

[338win mag]

I don't know 338win mag. This is all well outside my daily realm.

Good question though.

And if not why? Would also be a good question.

Someone should ask the question.

[Wild one]

There are many locations in BC with an LEH or GOS I have no interest in targeting let alone shoot a moose do to how much the population has dropped. It personal does not feel right to hunt these populations so I won't

I have a conservative mind set when it comes to hunting so I would like to see some hunts shutdown well moose recover. I have heard the arguments that hunters have little impact, it won't stop preds, once we loose the hunt it is hard to get back, and the what about FN arguments.

This may all be very true but should we not lower or remove the impact we as hunters make and try to encourage others to follow suite?

I know there is those who share my opinion and those who do not. Even if the hunt continues I will not target moose in areas I feel should be left to recover this is my personal choice

I just see a healthy species population more important than my right to hunt them

[LeverActionJunkie]

Ok coffee break now let's look at Montana and Idaho.

Montana -pop: 967,440 (2008 )
-total area: 147,165sq mi
-Montana Dept Fish, Wildlife, & Parks budget: $87.08million (2009)
-amount raised by hunting & fishing: $57,165 million
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Department_of_Fish,_Wildlife_and_Parks

idaho -pop: 1.68million
-total area: 83,800sq mi
-total fish and game spending: $79.8million ( this is all from licences and federal grants no $ from state
revenue if I read right)
https://idfg.idaho.gov/old-web/docs/about/2014annualReport.pdf


Never fully read through the Idaho link but what I did was interesting. Very impressed with the $ generated by these small pop and area states that have more people hunting them that ours does. Also very impressed how easy to access the info is on where the $'s going and raised etc. still haven't been able to find f-all about BC in any real budget terms (could be a clue there).

[LeverActionJunkie]

There are many locations in BC with an LEH or GOS I have no interest in targeting let alone shoot a moose do to how much the population has dropped. It personal does not feel right to hunt these populations so I won't

I have a conservative mind set when it comes to hunting so I would like to see some hunts shutdown well moose recover. I have heard the arguments that hunters have little impact, it won't stop preds, once we loose the hunt it is hard to get back, and the what about FN arguments.

This may all be very true but should we not lower or remove the impact we as hunters make and try to encourage others to follow suite?

I know there is those who share my opinion and those who do not. Even if the hunt continues I will not target moose in areas I feel should be left to recover this is my personal choice

I just see a healthy species population more important than my right to hunt them

You're not alone wild one. Maybe there's enough of us out there.

[mpotzold]

More on –BEARS ARE THE REAL CULPRITS
Interesting study in Alaska’s unit 19A
From one of the best to one of the worst areas for hunting moose.
So they tried a wolf cull since 2004 & it had little or no effect on moose population in the unit.

Tried a different approach.
ADFG(Alaska Department of Fish & Game) conducted a 2 year (2013 to 2014) bear predator control program in only a portion of the unit 19A (5% of the unit area)
Data collected so far showed excellent calf survival in the entire unit 19A.

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/programs/intensivemanagement/pdfs/pr-05-29-2014.pdf


Another study in S.E. Alaska based on real evidence derived from Bear Collar Cameras during a month (June/May 2011)


Calf mortality research documents that up to 85 percent of the moose calves born in the study area die before autumn and most are killed by brown bears.


During 30 days Boar 6041 killed and ate another bear, a number of newborn moose calves, a few caribou calves, a hare and a beaver – and he scavenged a dead moose and a pile of winter-killed fish.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=539

[Spy]

Im going to second the bear theory last time I was up moose hunting in 727 I counted on average 15 black bears a day. Many I have spoken to tell me there is a huge decline in moose. Coincidence I don't know, all I know is two bears are going down this year, never hunted bears before should be fun.

[Whonnock Boy]

Bears are a significant factor in some areas, and studies have show fawn and calf mortality is upwards of 50-70% due to bear predation. Go get some sausage boys and girls.

[Caribou_lou]

Im going to second the bear theory last time I was up moose hunting in 727 I counted on average 15 black bears a day. Many I have spoken to tell me there is a huge decline in moose. Coincidence I don't know, all I know is two bears are going down this year, never hunted bears before should be fun.

Good for you. We need more guys heading out and taking some bears. They are calf killers no doubt. I do my part every spring.

[Caribou_lou]

I see more wolves in the spring than fall also. Hides usually aren't great but that not why I'm shooting them.

[Rob Chipman]

Thanks to everyone who posted links. I'm looking at one entitled "DETERMINING FACTORS AFFECTING MOOSE POPULATION CHANGE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA:TESTING THE LANDSCAPE CHANGE HYPOTHESIS Progress Report:February2012– July2015" which I got from a link of Bonz, but which I thinkis one GoatGuy referenced as well (I could be wrong on that).

Here's the link I used: http://www.bvrodandgun.ca/index_266_1076948904.pdf

There is some interesting stuff in it, but I'm not sure that I'm reading things correctly, so rather than quote me I'd like other guys on here to read the report and check my math and then comment.

They did some exhaustive work, checking body condition, age, parasite load, pregnancy. One thing I noticed was on page 10:

"Of the 196 cow Moose monitored for calf status at capture, 65% (n=128) were not accompanied by a calf, 34% (n=66) had one calf
and 1% (n=2) had twins (Figure 4)."

On page 12 I found:
"Pregnancy status was assessed for 207 of the radio-collared cow Moose using serum progesterone testing. Over the five study areas,
the pregnancy rate was 78% (range 69–100%) (Table 4) "

Now, clearly, these are the same moose measured over the same time (ie, they didn't test and find 78% pregnant moose and then later find only 34% of those same moose with calves), but I'm wondering if we can deduce anything from those numbers, like "we found 78% of cows were pregnant, we'd assume that x% would survive". In other words, what's the expected survival rate? Does 34% seem way out of whack? Is 34% good recruitment?

If it is, then I think it's harder to argue that bears are a huge problem, for example, or maybe bears are only a short term problem. If, on the other hand, the 78% pregnancy is expected to turn into, say, 60% calf survival, then there's a stronger argument that something significant is happening to calves.

I'm curious what guys with a better understanding of this can offer as comment.

[LeverActionJunkie]

Great point Rob. Be interesting to see somebody versed in the language of such studies to break in down. I read it similar to you but I'm used to reading welding prints not biological reports.

Im also still trying to find out how much money we spend in this province on wildlife management, where that money goes, where it comes from and who contributes.

Its strange to me how easily Ive been able to look up stats on western states but how futile my efforts have been on BC.

[LeverActionJunkie]

Was just trying to find some total hunter numbers for the states I mentioned as well as BC. While I haven't found them yet I did find this interesting hunting outlook for Idaho 2016.
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/2016-big-game-outlook

While I didn't see a total big game tag sales for the state, if you look at the 2015 success numbers an the average harvest #'s. They are very impressive for a state not even 1/3 the area of BC. If we assume, from that link, that 1 in 3 hunters are successful (which I believe is quite high %) then they're selling north of 150,000 deer tags in a state less than 1/3 the size of bc. They must be raising a lot of $ from tags if they're selling more deer tags than we have hunters. Imagine harnessing that $$$.

[Rob Chipman]

It's mind boggling reading that Idaho report - language like:

"Let’s take a quick look at the 2015 hunt. Deer hunters had a 43-percent success rate in general season hunts and a 61 percent success rate in controlled hunts. They took 68,768 deer, which included a record 30,568 whitetails that topped the previous record of 29,800 whitetails set in 1999. It was also the largest deer harvest since 1991, and 36 percent above the 10-year average harvest.Elk hunters weren’t far behind. They harvested 24,543 elk in 2015, which easily topped the 2014 harvest of 20,700 which was considered a pretty good year. It was also 35 percent above the 10-year average, and the largest elk harvest since 1996. General-season elk hunters had a 22 percent success rate, and hunters with controlled tags more than doubled that with 46 percent success. Combined, the average success rate was 27 percent for elk hunting.
With a little luck, elk hunters this year could top 25,000 elk during fall hunts,which has only happened three times in the last 40 years.
And that new whitetail record may be short-lived. The 2016 harvest could “easily match” last year’s, according to Fish and Game’s big game manager Jon Rachael. With whitetail hunting growing in popularity in Idaho and whitetail populations strong, this year could break another record.
Mule deer hunters won’t get left out of the bounty. Herds are healthy and growing throughout much of the state and should provide an above-average harvest. With a little help from the weather in fall, it could also be an exceptional year for mule deer hunting. "



Maybe I've missed it, but I don't think I've ever seen any publication like that in BC. Thanks for the link.

[Bear Chaser]

Those numbers in Idaho are indeed impressive. Sounds like there is plenty of game there for all who wish to take part.

[Caribou_lou]

Do Idaho studies indicate how they obtain such accurate info?

[GoatGuy]

Stable populations you're looking for 20-30 calves per 100 cows making it to winter so long as cow survival is decent.

The project currently isn't tracking calves, just the cows. They are able to fly the collared cows during the winter to see how many calves they're packing.

[LeverActionJunkie]

Do Idaho studies indicate how they obtain such accurate info?

Page 4 of this link indicates a mandatory report card for deer, antelope, & elk. Bighorn, wolves, cougar, moose, mountain goats and black bear are mandatory inspected.
https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/_layouts/download.aspx?SourceUrl=%2FWildlifeTechnicalReport s%2FBig%20Game%20Harvest%20Statewide%202013%2Epdf&FldUrl=&Source=https%3A%2F%2Fcollaboration%2Eidfg%2Eidaho% 2Egov%2FWildlifeTechnicalReports%2FForms%2FAllItem s%2Easpx%3F%5Fga%3D1%2E109131781%2E1699579486%2E14 84522332

[LeverActionJunkie]

So calf survival in the study is quite acceptable Goat Guy?

It appears to be as I read it, but must admit the language of this stuff is a bit above my head sometimes :)

[GoatGuy]

Do Idaho studies indicate how they obtain such accurate info?

Money

You buy a tag, you can report online or pick up the phone and call in.

https://idfg.idaho.gov/hunt/report


Idaho is 1/4 the size of BC.

Idaho 'game species' are deer, elk, antelope, black bear, cougar, wolf, a couple moose, bh and goats

BC 'game species' deer (4 sub species?), elk (2 sub spp), moose, goats, sheep (4 sub spp), caribou, moose, black bear, grizz, cougar, lynx, bobcat, and probably a couple others.

Idaho has approximately 1/3 the people BC has (1.6M vs 4.6M).


Idaho F&W has an ~$85M budget. BC spends around $20M.


So, fewer species, smaller jurisdiction, fewer people, fewer 'game species', budget 4 times bigger.


Idaho spends more on wildlife habitat then we spend on wildlife as a whole.....

It's all about the money.

[GoatGuy]

So calf survival in the study is quite acceptable Goat Guy?

It appears to be as I read it, but must admit the language of this stuff is a bit above my head sometimes :)


It's variable. Some areas are low, some ok (ie stable), but still much lower density than before and not showing signs of growth (which you would accept if it was a stochastic event).

With cow survival from 85-90% we missed the crash there's no doubt about it.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

Where'd you get the 4.6 milly data for BC's pop?

Last I heard was more like 4 max. Just wondering!

[GoatGuy]

Where'd you get the 4.6 milly data for BC's pop?

Last I heard was more like 4 max. Just wondering!
Was going off the top of my head. Most of that stuff is off the top of my head, so numbers will be out a bit no doubt.

According to BC stats in 2016 it was 4.751M people.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationEstimates.aspx

[LeverActionJunkie]

Am I the only one who feels there's no reason we shouldn't be raising & spending (wisely) more $ than 1/3 as many Yankees are to protect and manage 25% of the territory that we do?

We as citizens let alone as sportsmen really need to demand more of our elected officials! I hate to keep going back to these states but the ease of finding info about what's going on, the clarity of info and the direct accountable manner in which their elected officials are managing their game is light years ahead of our govt.

i mean no disrespect to those civil servants working within govt, but the elected and management class who are running the overall system. Idaho in particular is even self funded, not relying on state budget funds!

can you imagine!

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

I just hit up an internet search and from some unverified (source unnamed) it showed over 4.6 milly as the pop!

Weird. Alot of growth, must be no down payment fleeing Albertans (lolz)! Can't blame them, moved back the BC from Alberta myself though I figure that last move was prior to their election and had much more to do with Merriam's Turkey than politics. Just sayin!

Anyrate - Good data, crazy population here now! That population growth may well have to do with why there's less animals 9Moose) for sure.

[LeverActionJunkie]

How are we going to generate, direct, and ensure more $$ in this province is raised and directed towards wildlife & habitat?

The more I poke around on this the more I get ticked at the squandered opportunity and wasted resources we are letting slip through our hands.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

Am I the only one who feels there's no reason we shouldn't be raising & spending (wisely) more $ than 1/3 as many Yankees are to protect and manage 25% of the territory that we do?

We as citizens let alone as sportsmen really need to demand more of our elected officials! I hate to keep going back to these states but the ease of finding info about what's going on, the clarity of info and the direct accountable manner in which their elected officials are managing their game is light years ahead of our govt.

i mean no disrespect to those civil servants working within govt, but the elected and management class who are running the overall system. Idaho in particular is even self funded, not relying on state budget funds!

can you imagine!Everything in Canada is already WAY too expensive for no value. USD is a drastically superior currency and their economy of scale and entire way of being easily supercedes that of this joint. Raising fees here is a terrible idea, period. Besides Idahoans are not necessarily "Yankees". Traditionally Easter Seaboard Americans might be called such, yet Yankee is more like previous centuries lingo for what I'd now call a lieberal.

[Bear Chaser]

In case anybody wonders where the money comes from to support fish and wildlife management the way they do in the states have a read.
There are some serious dollars being brought in courtesy of the Pittman Robertson Act. Now no doubt there are some out there who will swear up and down that we pay enough taxes in Canada and our government should just take care of us. Sure. Absolutely.
The reason politicians in the states take hunters and shooters seriously is the hunters and shooters are putting their money up to support the programs they want.
Contrast that with BC where we have heated debates amongst ourselves regarding the merits of this pack or the other or the latest ultra expensive ( in my eyes) camouflage gear but most amongst us won't spend money where it really counts.

In Current Rush to Buy Guns and Ammo, Pittman-Robertson Funds Break All Records | Field & Stream
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2013/05/current-rush-buy-guns-and-ammo-pittman-robertson-funds-break-all-recor

[LeverActionJunkie]

Agreed Yankee slang was inn appropriate in this use.

But if you compare BC , to ID, each using their respective currencies, pop, total land avail, hunting participation, $ converted from licence sales to habitat, the two aren't even on the same planet.

[LeverActionJunkie]

In case anybody wonders where the money comes from to support fish and wildlife management the way they do in the states have a read.
There are some serious dollars being brought in courtesy of the Pittman Robertson Act. Now no doubt there are some out there who will swear up and down that we pay enough taxes in Canada and our government should just take care of us. Sure. Absolutely.
The reason politicians in the states take hunters and shooters seriously is the hunters and shooters are putting their money up to support the programs they want.
Contrast that with BC where we have heated debates amongst ourselves regarding the merits of this pack or the other or the latest ultra expensive ( in my eyes) camouflage gear but most amongst us won't spend money where it really counts.

In Current Rush to Buy Guns and Ammo, Pittman-Robertson Funds Break All Records | Field & Stream
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2013/05/current-rush-buy-guns-and-ammo-pittman-robertson-funds-break-all-recor


100% my man! Great post.

I personally pay a crap load of taxes. Probably over the median household income. However paying taxes knowing they're going towards something a person supports? I'll do that any day.

Buy ammo, help game would be great to see

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

100% my man! Great post.

I personally pay a crap load of taxes. Probably over the median household income. However paying taxes knowing they're going towards something a person supports? I'll do that any day.

Buy ammo, help game would be great to seeA very nice sentiment, all this is. Yet IDC how much dough anyone makes - Taxes are WAY too high for no value in this nation. No new taxes, ever for anything! Less tax please.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

Agreed Yankee slang was inn appropriate in this use.

But if you compare BC , to ID, each using their respective currencies, pop, total land avail, hunting participation, $ converted from licence sales to habitat, the two aren't even on the same planet.Of course. US is drastically superior to c-u-next-tuesday-ada in every respect with the possible exception of how awesome the wilderness spaces are up here. and even that depends on the state. BC seems almost entirely polluted/stepped on outside of the Percel Wilderness area. Percel's only like that due to the ruggedness of the country over that way!

It's silly to compare this nation to that.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

In case anybody wonders where the money comes from to support fish and wildlife management the way they do in the states have a read.
There are some serious dollars being brought in courtesy of the Pittman Robertson Act. Now no doubt there are some out there who will swear up and down that we pay enough taxes in Canada and our government should just take care of us. Sure. Absolutely.
The reason politicians in the states take hunters and shooters seriously is the hunters and shooters are putting their money up to support the programs they want.
Contrast that with BC where we have heated debates amongst ourselves regarding the merits of this pack or the other or the latest ultra expensive ( in my eyes) camouflage gear but most amongst us won't spend money where it really counts.

In Current Rush to Buy Guns and Ammo, Pittman-Robertson Funds Break All Records | Field & Stream
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2013/05/current-rush-buy-guns-and-ammo-pittman-robertson-funds-break-all-recorAs I am reasonably, somewhat confident you are aware - Different nation, different Law. The system in the US is more balanced. Ours is politician centric to the max. That and a lil' ol' thing called the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

[bearvalley]

It's variable. Some areas are low, some ok (ie stable), but still much lower density than before and not showing signs of growth (which you would accept if it was a stochastic event).

With cow survival from 85-90% we missed the crash there's no doubt about it.

It looks like there's a problem when only 4% of the collared cows are in the "young" classification and 16% fit in as old.
If the 9-10 month old female calf recruitment doesn't make it to be a 3 or 4 year old she's non productive.
Looking at the cow mortality from known wolf predation and knowing that it is common for bears to reduce a calf crop by as much as 50% ....in this study the numbers support that....78% bred cows and 35% with a calf at side...we come to what I beleive is a crucial question.
How many calves are making it thru the next two years of life when they are the most vulnerable.
My bet is this is when they become a wolf turd.

[GoatGuy]

Am I the only one who feels there's no reason we shouldn't be raising & spending (wisely) more $ than 1/3 as many Yankees are to protect and manage 25% of the territory that we do?

We as citizens let alone as sportsmen really need to demand more of our elected officials! I hate to keep going back to these states but the ease of finding info about what's going on, the clarity of info and the direct accountable manner in which their elected officials are managing their game is light years ahead of our govt.

i mean no disrespect to those civil servants working within govt, but the elected and management class who are running the overall system. Idaho in particular is even self funded, not relying on state budget funds!

can you imagine!

Agreed....

Time for change.

[LeverActionJunkie]

So lord no choke, we should not try and get value for our tax dollars, even if it's small? I need no reminder of how over taxed we are, or how little we get back for what we pay.

This country of ours takes a back seat to none as far as being the best in the world. I wouldn't trade Canada for anyplace.

The second amendment has nothing to do with the Pittman Robertson act, and there is no reason sportsmen can't champion something similar here. Lil bit off a box of shells for wildlife ain't gonna hurt at all.

[GoatGuy]

It looks like there's a problem when only 4% of the collared cows are in the "young" classification and 16% fit in as old.
If the 9-10 month old female calf recruitment doesn't make it to be a 3 or 4 year old she's non productive.
Looking at the cow mortality from known wolf predation and knowing that it is common for bears to reduce a calf crop by as much as 50% ....in this study the numbers support that....78% bred cows and 35% with a calf at side...we come to what I beleive is a crucial question.
How many calves are making it thru the next two years of life when they are the most vulnerable.
My bet is this is when they become a wolf turd.

They might not be making it, or those might be the few survivors from the crash.... lots of ways to look at it. For what we have and how quickly it changed cow mortality was definitely high between the periods when inventory work was done. Low recruitment on its own doesn't explain the change.

I think if we take a step back again, the problem is there aren't enough moose.

Right now we're studying a declining moose population because we have to 'prove something' to politicians.

We should be talking about making more moose... not studying a declining population.

We both agree on that.

Until we have a properly funded wildlife management model, doing any of the above effectively is pretty tough.

[GoatGuy]

So we should not try and get value for our tax dollars, even if it's small. I need no reminder of how over taxed we are, or how little we get back for what we pay.

This country of ours takes a back seat to none as far as being the best in the world. I wouldn't trade Canada for anyplace.

The second amendment has nothing to do with the Pittman Robertson act, and there is no reason sportsmen can't champion something similar here. Lil bit off a box of shells for wildlife ain't gonna hurt at all.

agreed.......

[bearvalley]

They might not be making it, or those might be the few survivors from the crash.... lots of ways to look at it. For what we have and how quickly it changed cow mortality was definitely high between the periods when inventory work was done. Low recruitment on its own doesn't explain the change.

I think if we take a step back again, the problem is there aren't enough moose.

Right now we're studying a declining moose population because we have to 'prove something' to politicians.

We should be talking about making more moose... not studying a declining population.

We both agree on that.

Until we have a properly funded wildlife management model, doing any of the above effectively is pretty tough.

Agree 100%

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

So lord no choke, we should not try and get value for our tax dollars, even if it's small? I need no reminder of how over taxed we are, or how little we get back for what we pay.

This country of ours takes a back seat to none as far as being the best in the world. I wouldn't trade Canada for anyplace.

The second amendment has nothing to do with the Pittman Robertson act, and there is no reason sportsmen can't champion something similar here. Lil bit off a box of shells for wildlife ain't gonna hurt at all.Best in the world? Hahahaaaa!!!!!! WTF? Surely, you're doing me a bomboozling?!

Anyhow, I did not intend to steer the thread away from the Moose issue... None the less I will trade c-u-next-tuesday-ada at my earliest convenience for the actual best in the world, those United States of America as soon as I have raised sufficent capital to bring as many jobs as possible with me via na investors visa. Unfortunately in this wealth depleting socialist shithole, I may never be able to do such. IDK and shall see! In the mean time, I'll have to settle for second (at best) best... If even that.

My point is clear. Yours is that we need value? Agreed.

Yet previously you were suggesting a new tax?

My point is/was that value must be seen for the taxes already implemented. No side track intended and I do have ideas for how to improve matters yet I will not present them until and unless and I choose to divest my own personal funds in that direction.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

So lord no choke, we should not try and get value for our tax dollars, even if it's small? I need no reminder of how over taxed we are, or how little we get back for what we pay.

This country of ours takes a back seat to none as far as being the best in the world. I wouldn't trade Canada for anyplace.

The second amendment has nothing to do with the Pittman Robertson act, and there is no reason sportsmen can't champion something similar here. Lil bit off a box of shells for wildlife ain't gonna hurt at all.P.S. - Yes, yes it will hurt. Too many monkeys, too many mouths to feed and too much required already with next to no economy and the CAD heading rapidly toward Zimbabwe money status.

I REPEAT -

Too many taxes already. No value. NO new taxes, period!

[BgBlkDg]

CANADA, is a "wealth depleting socialist SHITHOLE" ??????

Well, many roads lead south, don't let any Canadian delay you.......

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

CANADA, is a "wealth depleting socialist SHITHOLE" ??????

Well, many roads lead south, don't let any Canadian delay you....... Well said! I won't. Like I said - The hold up surely isn't based in Canada. Yet in 2017 a guy can not just walk across our southern border and take up residence legally nor in good conscience. Especially not a guy like me who must bring jobs!
Then get citizenship.
Then write ottawa and of course, pay the *******s one last time to renounce citizenship.

By the by yes, a downside of a socialist police state is wealth depletion. Another is nanny state bullshit.... Furthermore, looks like BC's out of Moose too?

Dang, what a dump.

[LeverActionJunkie]

Ok, I guess. Enjoy Merica. Spent couple years there myself, decent place.

Some how we got all f'd up on the direction we were going in this thread.

[Gamebuster]

It's variable. Some areas are low, some ok (ie stable), but still much lower density than before and not showing signs of growth (which you would accept if it was a stochastic event).

With cow survival from 85-90% we missed the crash there's no doubt about it.

so if true, what factor causes low cow survival and a crash then just stops and survival rates are good again? And across all the study sites?

[bearvalley]

so if true, what factor causes low cow survival and a crash then just stops and survival rates are good again? And across all the study sites?

The only study area with two data years to compare is Big Creek. The paper states "the role of calf survival affecting population growth in all our study areas remains unknown".
How many of those 9 month old calves are living to be a producing 2 1/2 or 3 1/2 year old cow?
The mid aged cows studied , for the most part were born before the worst of the crash.
Theres still a lot unknown.

[GoatGuy]

so if true, what factor causes low cow survival and a crash then just stops and survival rates are good again? And across all the study sites?

Usually stochastic events, ie bad winter.

In this case they are testing the landscape change hypothesis (did salvage logging have a role in this?). A link to the original design:

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/wildlife-wildlife-habitat/wildlife-health/wildlife-health-documents/2014_bc_moose_research_design.pdf

Survival rates aren't good, would probably call them ok or decent.

Recruitment is ok in some areas low in others.

Typically after stochastic events you would expect see recovery which is higher survival in cows and better recruitment. We aren't really seeing that in a big way.

There will be another update available by this spring and some of the work on habitat selection etc will start to roll in hopefully by the end of this year to provide more details.

[GoatGuy]

The only study area with two data years to compare is Big Creek. The paper states "the role of calf survival affecting population growth in all our study areas remains unknown".
How many of those 9 month old calves are living to be a producing 2 1/2 or 3 1/2 year old cow?
The mid aged cows studied , for the most part were born before the worst of the crash.
Theres still a lot unknown.

Agreed.

Finally at least we got some winter in the cariboo and they were able to do some flights.

[Walking Buffalo]

It's variable. Some areas are low, some ok (ie stable), but still much lower density than before and not showing signs of growth (which you would accept if it was a stochastic event).

With cow survival from 85-90% we missed the crash there's no doubt about it.


Usually stochastic events, ie bad winter.

In this case they are testing the landscape change hypothesis (did salvage logging have a role in this?). A link to the original design:

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/wildlife-wildlife-habitat/wildlife-health/wildlife-health-documents/2014_bc_moose_research_design.pdf

Survival rates aren't good, would probably call them ok or decent.

Recruitment is ok in some areas low in others.

Typically after stochastic events you would expect see recovery which is higher survival in cows and better recruitment. We aren't really seeing that in a big way.

There will be another update available by this spring and some of the work on habitat selection etc will start to roll in hopefully by the end of this year to provide more details.


Bad winters, or too many warm ones in a row?

Tic, tic, Tick. ?

Surely there is some information to evaluate whether these little killers played a role?

[GoatGuy]

Bad winters, or too many warm ones in a row?

Tic, tic, Tick. ?

Surely there is some information to evaluate whether these little killers played a role?


Should be some more reporting out shortly.

The landscape level change issue revolves around salvage logging.

[mpotzold]

Bears are a significant factor in some areas, and studies have show fawn and calf mortality is upwards of 50-70% due to bear predation. Go get some sausage boys and girls.

A logical conclusion. I would go further & have the gov’t intervene like they did in Alaska. Drastic culling of bears(mostly black) is needed in some areas. No doubt wolves along with bears may be a factor in some other areas.


For example -been hunting most of 5-03 for 50 years & we rarely saw bears until about a dozen years ago. In the last 6 years or so the numbers have gone way up.

They are also losing fear of humans.
On our last hunting trip a hunting party only miles from our camp had problems with black bears every night & sometimes in the daytime. They had a dog/s to warn them.
Same story with all the hunters we met-too many bears.
Had a handful of encounters with black bears while hunting lately & was ready to shoot but they always retreated.

There are many studies that conclusively show that bears are responsible for the dwindling moose numbers. So what are we waiting for??

More proof.(of many)
Another Alaska study from 2001 -Grizzlies are turning out to be unexpected calf killers in a McGrath-area predator study by the ADFG
Biologists collared 68 moose calves in May and June. So far (in less than 2 months), 32 have been killed: 15 by grizzlies, 11 by black bears and five by wolves. One drowned, according to Boudreau.
So the bear calf killing outnumbers the wolf kill by a factor of more than 5 to 1.
http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/062501/ala_062501ala0060001.shtml


Another study-Predation on moose and caribou by radio-collared grizzly bears in east central Alaska from Sept. 1985 to Aug.1986
…..each adult bear killed at least 5.4 moose calves annually.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z88-369?mobileUi=0

[Walking Buffalo]

Should be some more reporting out shortly.

The landscape level change issue revolves around salvage logging.

It doesn't take much to see that Logging practices are in the crosshairs.

And probably should be.

The Holistic approach....

My senses suggest the moose concern is being used as the scapegoat, the next Spotted Owl, Spirit Bear

Moose are thriving on the bald ass Prairies, a moonscape in terms of quality Moose habitat.
The wolves are not doing too well out here. Ticks too.

[Rob Chipman]

mpotzhold:

Thanks for your links. Keep 'em coming.

My initial conclusion looking at pregnancy rates vs calf numbers was exactly yours: bears (or perhaps other predation).

It seems, however, that the calf rates are not out of whack too much, at least if we had a stable population. The problem comes when the calf/cow ratio is where we would want it in a stable/increasing population, but we're in a declining or maybe just starting to recover population (feel free, anyone, if my logic or understanding on this is wrong).

Right now we've got tests showing how many cows are pregnant, and later we've got aerial counts of cows with calves. It's good info, but it's info on cows, not info on calves themselves. If we want solid info on who's killing calves, where and when then it's clear to me that we need collars on calves or we need to accept studies from other jurisdictions (you and me will accept studies from other jurisdictions, but anti-predator control people are a different story).

The bios suggest that as cuts grow in moose will rebound. Your idea of a drastic cull in some areas, if the science supports it effectively enough, could speed that recovery.

[Caribou_lou]

It doesn't take much to see that Logging practices are in the crosshairs.

And probably should be.

The Holistic approach....

My senses suggest the moose concern is being used as the scapegoat, the next Spotted Owl, Spirit Bear

Moose are thriving on the bald ass Prairies, a moonscape in terms of quality Moose habitat.
The wolves are not doing too well out here. Ticks too.

There are areas in BC that never supported moose until there were cutblocks. The Bulkley Valley being one of them. Which may raise the question as to why there is a traditional food hunt for FNs on animals that werent traditionally there...

[Rob Chipman]

^^^^Don't go there! Too much trouble, too much laughter!

[GoatGuy]

There are areas in BC that never supported moose until there were cutblocks. The Bulkley Valley being one of them. Which may raise the question as to why there is a traditional food hunt for FNs on animals that werent traditionally there...

Section 35 of the Federal Constitution does not talk about what was tradtional.

here's a provincial blurb:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlifeactreview/discussion/disc_04.html

[Rob Chipman]

Goatguy:

Looks to me from the blurb you linked to that "traditional" refers to the territory, not whether the use of the animal, the animal itself or the method used is traditional.

If so, it's really a question of who has jurisdiction over a certain piece of land when it comes to FN hunting (and possibly hunting in general) - the province, the Feds or the FN band itself. You've seen the idea of designated areas restricted to FN hunting, so I think it's worth considering. More moose = less bitching about who gets to have a crack at them. Less moose (managing to zero as you so aptly have put it) = we'll be #3 in line.

[Mulehahn]

The "what is traditional" argument has been rendered mute by the courts countless times. What has not however is what the province is managing wildlife for? Should we be managing wildlife according to what we want or what is natural? In effect moose are not native to many areas of the province and only came expanded their territory following extensive logging in the early 20th century. Now that modern environmental practices have changed the area they occupy is retreating back to its traditional boundaries. Should any group, including first nations, be allowed to engineer wildlife to suit their desires?

I have my own thoughts on the issue, but in essence that is what is at stake. Does it matter what kills the moose if they should not be there (historically)?

[GoatGuy]

Goatguy:

Looks to me from the blurb you linked to that "traditional" refers to the territory, not whether the use of the animal, the animal itself or the method used is traditional.

If so, it's really a question of who has jurisdiction over a certain piece of land when it comes to FN hunting (and possibly hunting in general) - the province, the Feds or the FN band itself. You've seen the idea of designated areas restricted to FN hunting, so I think it's worth considering. More moose = less bitching about who gets to have a crack at them. Less moose (managing to zero as you so aptly have put it) = we'll be #3 in line.

1) Correct

2) not about jurisdiction. The rights for food, social, ceremonial refer to traditional territory.

Current hierarchy goes:
1) Conservation
2) First Nations needs for FSC (all needs, even if it's entire surplus)
3) Resident hunters (per allocation policy)
4) Non-res hunters (per allocation policy)

Making more is best approach, but benefits need to be shared.

[Rob Chipman]

Mulehahn:

You pose and interesting question: why does the province spend $$ on wildlife? For us to hunt? To maintain an ecosystem that existed at a random point in time? To provide wildlife for FNs to hunt as provided for under federal legislation? Those are just the first options that come to my mind now that you've raised the issue. It's a really good question. Please fill out any ares I've missed.

[Bonz]

and the guides between FN and above us as residence

[Bonz]

i dont think gov spends on wildlife for us to hunt, i think they INVEST in the hunt for profit themselves, by whoever will pay the most, gets top decisions or influence.
shift that money trail an maybe shift that list of who`s on top

[mpotzold]

An interesting study on pregnant cows before & after birth!

During a five-year study of calf survival in Denali National Park and Preserve in the early 1990s, University of Alaska Fairbanks professor Terry Bowyer radio collared almost 50 pregnant cow moose and followed them through the birthing process.

According to Bowyer-
-Moose often stay at the birth site with their calf or calves for a month or more, seldom venturing more than 100 yards from their offspring.
Grizzly bears are well aware of that, judging from what he saw during his study.
-Only two of the 44 moose calves that he followed survived past six months and 80 percent were killed in the first 20 days, most in the same spot they were born.
-Once a bear makes it to the birth site the calves are toast. A young calf doesn't have a chance against a bear
http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/052902/ala_052902alapm0090001.shtml

Posted this before- Newborn moose calves fight very slim odds
http://www.sitnews.us/0709news/070909/070909_ak_science.html

[40incher]

Yup ... and the BC Wildlife Branch is managing grizzly as an icon instead of a predator!

Is it any wonder our ungulates are having issues!?

We are "California North" and the bureaucrats are the biggest negative influence on biological management in our great province.

Let's fire 'em all ... and make "BC great again"!!

I know a guy ...

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

Yup ... and the BC Wildlife Branch is managing grizzly as an icon instead of a predator!

Is it any wonder our ungulates are having issues!?

We are "California North" and the bureaucrats are the biggest negative influence on biological management in our great province.

Let's fire 'em all ... and make "BC great again"!!

I know a guy ...


Here, here!

If BC/Canada could be made great again, I'd happily recant and do an abrupt about face concerning the subject matter of my prior sidebar rants on display in this thread, for one. In fact I would love to be proven wrong on the matter!

Great post, 40incher.

[HarryToolips]

Yup ... and the BC Wildlife Branch is managing grizzly as an icon instead of a predator!

Is it any wonder our ungulates are having issues!?

We are "California North" and the bureaucrats are the biggest negative influence on biological management in our great province.

Let's fire 'em all ... and make "BC great again"!!

I know a guy ...
X3..............and people gotta get out and harvest black bears, as long as they ain't garbage bears they make good sausage..

[Cordillera]

To answer your question regarding bears the short answer is people aren't killing them to the degree they once did.
It was legal to shoot sows, any age cubs and up to five tags per year per hunter with no meat retention laws up to the mid to late eighties. Back then if rural folk, farmers and ranchers decided there were too many bears they shot bears until the abundance went away. Licensed hunters who did not wish to deal with butchering a bear didn't have to even skin them.
When the laws began to change it became more cumbersome for law abiding hunters to bother with bears so they shot less.
I'm sure there are other reasons but those are the most evident to me.

I'd also add two things
Twenty years ago a pile of bears were killed as nuisance bears. thrpugh changed management practices and education fewer bears are killed now.
Poison was used right up to the eighties. That killed a lot of bears.

[1899]

Poison was used right up to the eighties. That killed a lot of bears.

Not to mention that you had a 5 bear bag limit with no legal requirement to take out the meat.

[LeverActionJunkie]

Maybe somebody can convince FN'S to get out and shoot bears, wolves and cougars. Then we wouldn't have to wait for the govt to drag their heels

[REMINGTON JIM]

Yup ... and the BC Wildlife Branch is managing grizzly as an icon instead of a predator!

Is it any wonder our ungulates are having issues!?

We are "California North" and the bureaucrats are the biggest negative influence on biological management in our great province.

Let's fire 'em all ... and make "BC great again"!!

I know a guy ...


YUP You bet 40 incher ! :wink: RJ

[REMINGTON JIM]

Not to mention that you had a 5 bear bag limit with no legal requirement to take out the meat.

MORE Black Bears in BC then ever now - With the lower bag limit and having to remove the meat has lead to a OVER ABUNDANCE of the Predators ! jmo RJ

[archerylife]

1) Correct

2) not about jurisdiction. The rights for food, social, ceremonial refer to traditional territory.

Current hierarchy goes:
1) Conservation
2) First Nations needs for FSC (all needs, even if it's entire surplus)
3) Resident hunters (per allocation policy)
4) Non-res hunters (per allocation policy)

Making more is best approach, but benefits need to be shared.

hey Goatguy i know this isn't a good place to post this but i tried to message you but your inbox is full!
thanks

[338win mag]

I'm not so sure its the bears, before this province was populated with non-native people there were bears. Wildlife populations were managed by nobody, the pops went up and down for all species, its not going to be any different now, except when it go's down it wont be coming up again without game management.
Its unlikely that Natives kept the bears in check or even cared about them for food, they were hunted in their dens for clothing.
Why has the bear pop gotten to such a high number?
what is the food source that has caused this? Moose?
Bears hang out in calving area's no doubt, I'm not going to be so quick to say that there is a real problem with them, regardless of what science says, its easy to put some of the blame on them.

I think that Moose have simply been hunted to hard for too long by resident hunters, FN, now Wolves, the bungling of our government via the forest industry. With 100,000 resident hunters it would be foolish to believe theres not going to be some impact.

[boxhitch]

regardless of what science sayslike most opinions

[Dannybuoy]

like most opinions

In this case ,because science that ignores a section of data because it is political, is little better than useless .