Killers of BCs Moose

[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/6...-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/ne...723/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?