my outlook has changed what do you think?
So with the current situation with our wildlife populations its made me do some serious thinking...... I think it would be in the interest of our wildlife to eliminate all antlerless cow/doe seasons.... the reason being is quite simple killing one cow or doe kills many more future animals then that. I could be completely off my rocker but the stats show moose for instance can live for up to 10yrs in the wild realistically let's say 7 (i did get info back on a tooth once saying my moose was 9) of that 7yrs say 5 yrs of breeding of that 5 say 2 yrs she may have possible twins that's 7 calves..... so shooting 1 cow you have potentially killed a possible 7 moose plus the offspring of those 7 and so on!?!?!? So i very well may be an idiot but IMO shooting females has really lost its luster to me especially in the current situation of declining populations . I never really sat and thought much about it but it seems really easy to me it doesnt take many males to service plenty of females so we we kill the ones that replenish the herds makes very little sense in todays world...... what do you think am I nuts??
Re: my outlook has changed what do you think?
Makes sense.
I don't see any ranchers killing cows to increase their herd sizes either......
Re: my outlook has changed what do you think?
The province is too big for blanket edicts like that IMO. There has been and will be the need to control some populations using antlerless seasons as one of the tools.
Re: my outlook has changed what do you think?
I seen no point removing females from any declining population counter productive really
If you are trying to keep a population stable and a surplus of females exist than femal harvest is fine
Re: my outlook has changed what do you think?
I agree with the basic logic, but not all populations are declining.
I certainly agree for moose.
I think we should have a total closure on 1 species for one hunting season and rotate them for species that are on the decline in BC as a whole.
You can't close a species in one area without closing it entirely, it just moves all the hunters into areas where it's open.
Particularly for moose because it's such a high value animal and people will go the ends of the earth to get them.
Re: my outlook has changed what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
curt
So with the current situation with our wildlife populations its made me do some serious thinking...... I think it would be in the interest of our wildlife to eliminate all antlerless cow/doe seasons.... the reason being is quite simple killing one cow or doe kills many more future animals then that. I could be completely off my rocker but the stats show moose for instance can live for up to 10yrs in the wild realistically let's say 7 (i did get info back on a tooth once saying my moose was 9) of that 7yrs say 5 yrs of breeding of that 5 say 2 yrs she may have possible twins that's 7 calves..... so shooting 1 cow you have potentially killed a possible 7 moose plus the offspring of those 7 and so on!?!?!? So i very well may be an idiot but IMO shooting females has really lost its luster to me especially in the current situation of declining populations . I never really sat and thought much about it but it seems really easy to me it doesnt take many males to service plenty of females so we we kill the ones that replenish the herds makes very little sense in todays world...... what do you think am I nuts??
How about we manage by science instead of emotion?
Science says wildlife herds are strongest when there is harvest across all age and sex classes. It's foolproof, has been studied to death across North America, and it works.
Emotion says let's throw some shit against the wall and see if something sticks.
Harvest of male only components of a population is the absolute worst thing we could possibly do.
Politicians love guys like you - it's cheap to screw with seasons, even though seasons won't affect wildlife numbers. Habitat and predator control will help populations, but those cost money, and politicians hate that.
Re: my outlook has changed what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fisher-Dude
Harvest of male only components of a population is the absolute worst thing we could possibly do.
can you elaborate , I am interested in your perspective on this
Re: my outlook has changed what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wideopenthrottle
can you elaborate , I am interested in your perspective on this
See below...double post.
Re: my outlook has changed what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wideopenthrottle
can you elaborate , I am interested in your perspective on this
Wildlife management 101.
Harvesting only one component of a population places undue strain on that segment.
Harvesting across age and sex classes provides stability in sex ratios and increases fawn/calf recruitment ratios.
ETA: Study this:
I've posted this before. Study by well-known BC biologist Ian Hatter on whitetail management options.
%Male.......%Female....Buck/doe.....Fawn/doe....Stable Herd.....Sustained
harvest.......harvest.......ratio.............rati o.............size............harvest
0%...........0%...........50/100...........24/100.............10,000.............0
25%..........0%..........19/100...........24/100.............10,000..........333
50%..........0%...........9/100............24/100.............10,000..........322
25%.........13%.........43/100............56/100..............8,160........1,242
50%.........25%.........32/100............97/100..............5,875........1,674
Note the far healthier fawn to doe and buck to doe ratios under the harvest models with does being hunted. Also note the sustainable harvest levels under each scenario.
Do we want the opportunity to harvest 1500 deer a year or take just 300 and have poor fawn and buck to doe ratios? Pretty simple answer.
Re: my outlook has changed what do you think?
FD:
Correct me if I'm wrong. I often hear that we don't need a bunch of males because one male can inseminate a bunch of females. We also assume that a bigger herd will allow for a bigger harvest. Your numbers suggest something quite different, and that a smaller herd with a 1:3 buck doe ratio actually sustains a larger harvest.
Do you know if there are similar studies to this for other species? I did a quick search for the study (your 2009 post was the first result) but do you happen to have a link?
And I'm with you on the science thing. We all owe it to each other to become clearer on that.