Killers of BCs Moose

[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=12 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...6%2E1484522332

[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