Mule Deer and Antler point restrictions

[DawsonCreedmoor]

Hey Jesse, empty your inbox

[OutWest]

Trouble is, even though science has identified the 2 major requirements to help boost Mule deer and other ungulate populations, both options are tough sells.

Controlled burns don't always stay under control, especially when fire has been surpressed for so long, not to mention timber licence holders aren't gonna be keen on burning up timber and have a lot of financial(Read that Pollitical pull) to oppose it.

A wolf cull, as in aerial gunning and poison, will likely never get off the ground in this day and age, as the majority of the voting population lives in places with absolutely zero clue about BC wilderness.

So, as is human nature, we HAVE to do SOMETHING, so we manage a depleting resource with regulations.

Know all about the liability surrounding broadcast/prescribed burns as well as licensees not wanting to see their dollars going up in smoke. Like GG has said, if HBCers spent a tenth of the time they do going in circles bitching about meaningless antler point restrictions as they did getting in touch with their MLA, the hunting community might actually achieve something.

[Husky7mm]

When you can't support anything you say when dates, seasons, harvest data, hunter opportunity data, sex ratios, recruitment rates you haven't explained anything. We can however agree, it was painful.

I know it was painful.
I did give some rough dates and seasons. Harvest info was anecdotal. I could be like others and just cut and paste the info that supports my beliefs and disregard what's in there that doesn't. Here's the the thing , how many of the studies in the past have come up inconclusive, how many are revised or just proved wrong, Ie reducing moose to save caribou?
Faster than habitat enhancement could ever create more game people will be damaging longer seasons and larger bag limits, I will be shocked if "managing" hunters ever stops. I wish I could be more optimistic about it.

[GoatGuy]

I know it was painful.
I did give some rough dates and seasons. Harvest info was anecdotal. I could be like others and just cut and paste the info that supports my beliefs and disregard what's in there that doesn't. Here's the the thing , how many of the studies in the past have come up inconclusive, how many are revised or just proved wrong, Ie reducing moose to save caribou?
Faster than habitat enhancement could ever create more game people will be damaging longer seasons and larger bag limits, I will be shocked if "managing" hunters ever stops. I wish I could be more optimistic about it.

There have been dozens of studies and papers on antler restrictions for mule deer. They all come up with the same conclusion: THEY DON'T MAKE MORE DEER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BC, Alberta, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon and on and on and on and on.

Was just talking to one of the guys in the States today who is one of the top mule deer researchers in NA. He's done the research on cougar control, coyote control, antler restrictions and his work is showing the biggest constraint is.......... HABITAT!!!!!!!!!!! It's funny, hunters have the most potential to increase mule deer populations yet are the biggest barrier all at the same time.

You can focus on making more deer or you can focus on making more hunting regulations.

I give.

[Husky7mm]

Geez Frenchie, do you ever get tired of being right all the time?

On another note, it's unfortunate that even in light the science and studies, there are still those out to manage the way others hunt, how they hunt etc. There's 2 paths hunters can choose to go down, one is a positive for wildlife and the other they think will benefit their personal hunting experience. Husky, it's clear which one you're on.

I don't think that's a fair assumption. I am not against an anybuck season. I do believe season timing and restrictions need to be used to produce escapement if the demand is higher than the supply. When you see a buck to doe ratio of 2-100 even if there was error , escapement was next to nil. Sorry I don't drink from the same cool aid as you.

[Husky7mm]

There have been dozens of studies and papers on antler restrictions for mule deer. They all come up with the same conclusion: THEY DON'T MAKE MORE DEER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BC, Alberta, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon and on and on and on and on.

Was just talking to one of the guys in the States today who is one of the top mule deer researchers in NA. He's done the research on cougar control, coyote control, antler restrictions and his work is showing the biggest constraint is.......... HABITAT!!!!!!!!!!! It's funny, hunters have the most potential to increase mule deer populations yet are the biggest barrier all at the same time.

You can focus on making more deer or you can focus on making more hunting regulations.

I give.

I believe you, habitat enhancement will make more deer!

[Sitkaspruce]

I believe you, habitat enhancement will make more deer!

But............

Cheers

SS

[wolf]

Well said Goat Guy

cheers see you soon

[dracb]

The following comments are based on my memory and while I may be mistaken on precise numbers the generalities of the comments and the shapes of the arguments are correct.

Actually the license fees, tag fees and LEH fees go back into general revenue. I used to buy every tag available until I learned that fact of life. The amount of revenue from license fees is a drop in the bucket amounting to about $12 million including angling fees. I just totaled up the cost of the hunting license and tags in my wallet and the total is approximately $150. Assuming all +/-100,000 BC resident hunters bought the same value of licenses and tags, license sales would only bring in $15 million in revenue if such revenue was sent directly to Fish and Wildlife budgets. Relatively few BC resident hunters spend that much on BC provincial hunting licenses and tags. It is important to remember that even at our peak resident hunters totaled only +/-170K in the early 1980's. The population of hunters started decreasing when the Government increased the licenses fees suggesting we are in general sensitive to license price increases. In fairness it could also be argued that hunting lost most (+/-80%) of its recruitment in the year when the CORE program was taken out of the school system and privatized.

Historically BC Government has not given resident hunting credit for the economic activity generated by the sport. This was recently estimated at $230 million per annum. I am surprised it was so low, but again it is a relatively small fraction of the economy of the province and perhaps explains at least in part why Government has not committed the resources we would like to see committed to maintain wildlife resources.

Back in 2002 all resource ministries budgets totaled on the order of $1.4 billion but have recently fallen to around $0.625 billion. This at the same time that legislated responsibilities have increased by about 25% and personnel have been decreased by 25% to 30%.

Looking back through time from the mid-1980's the inflation adjusted budget for renewable resources has remained more or less flat when compared to the dramatic growth of the inflation adjusted provincial budget to +/- $9.5 billion. The Devil being in the details the inflation adjusted budget for renewable resources in 2002 was of the order of $350 to$380 million and was more recently +/-$170 million. So while it is true that the bureaucracies managing fish and wildlife resources have been rather badly treated in recent years with regards to budgets, it is also true that previous governments have not been materially more open handed. BC is known to have one of the most underfunded Fish and Wildlife agencies in North America and it has been known as such from the very early days of wildlife management in BC.

Soooo the long and the short of the funding issue is that we are a segment of the population that indulges in a sport that is far less than universally appreciated by the remainder of the population. That population is more and more comprised of persons for which hunting is not part of their culture and of little interest to them. The hunting population is a rather small voting block that will continue to have minimal political clout except in a few rural ridings and contributes only in a peripheral way to the economy of the Province.

Now how does one attack these fundamental issues in order to improve wildlife management in BC?

[bacon_overlord]

This point has been made, but to repeat... the number of bucks regardless of age, antlers, etc, has only a minimal effect on the population. Boys don't make babies, only girls. If you want to increase a population, make sure there are lots of pregnant ladies, and the offspring survive to reproduce.
This is probably best done by not having antler less seasons, ensuring lots of good habitat, and decreasing predation. Go kill wolves and coyotes, and restrict logging.