Killers of BCs Moose

[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/...a0060001.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/...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/wildlife...n/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.