The future of our wildlife management plans.

[boxhitch]

bownut, first off, can you agree with the science that deer pops are being managed to a sustainable reproductive rate with the current hunting regulations, in regard to buck/doe ratios and fawns hitting the ground ?
That seems to be the big hurdle here

I didn't think so

[GoatGuy]

Hunters can only hope that managers are passionate about their jobs, thats why they are hired and what they are getting paid for, and yes mistakes will be made in the process.
Hunters can only hope that they adjust their thinking when these mistakes occur.

You need to understand your position, you are not only a hunter, you are also involved in management. Is that not where your cheque comes from?
You are correct in that the system needs to be fixed, and I am really surprised that you can suggest that the hunting community is at fault for the state we are in.
We join conservation organizations, buy our licence and tags, involve ourselves in projects, voice our concerns when we see a need for change.

If you want to define all of our actions and opinions as veiled threats then that says it all.

Times are changing on and off the mountains, so all I can say is hang on..... And thats not a "Veiled Threat", it's a fact.

Regulations are only a factor in our present situation, but everyone (i.e. management) needs to understand that it is one of the factors we can control.

BTW: Still looking for any notable success story from the last ten years that management has lead....

While hunters have been talking about hunting regulations wildlife populations have declined. That started in the late 70s and early 80s.

While hunters have been talking about hunting regulations politicians decided the fish and wildlife branch has been pulled apart, staff have been cut, and funding has been cut. That started in the 80s.

While hunters have been talking about hunting regulations politicians have changed policy/legislation/regulation to the detriment of fish and wildlife. That started in the 80s.

While hunters were talking about regulations the engineering behind producing, protecting, conserving and growing wildlife was being dismantled. Instead of fighting for fish and wildlife hunters focused on hunting regulations. While hunters changed the regulations the moose harvest in the 4 regions went from 12,000 to 4,000, mule deer harvest in Region 4 went from 4500 to 500, and caribou have almost disappeared.

You choices are to continue to waste time on hunting regulations, ignore science, focus on the minutia and blame everyone else, or start working on fixing wildlife management. Hunters were the ones who were busy fighting over hunting regulations while politicians were busy pulling apart the foundation of wildlife management in British Columbia. While logging changed, highways were built, fire suppression increased, invasive weeds increased, exclusion fencing was built, predator populations increased, houses were built on winter range, road density increased, hunters talked about hunting regulations.

The hunting regulation equation is simple.

Talk about hunting regulations + change regulations = wildlife declines.


The wildlife management equation is simple.

Money + science + people who care for fish and wildlife = increase wildlife populations.


Hunters can continue continue to repeat a 40 year old mistake or fix the problem. The 40 year trend includes complaining about hunting regulations, complaining about biologists, dealing with the minutia and watching the resource disappear. The fix involves looking at the big picture, focusing on changing wildlife management, and growing the resource by engaging politicians.

The choice is yours.

[BCLongshot]

You've got that right 😒😉

[338win mag]

bownut, first off, can you agree with the science that deer pops are being managed to a sustainable reproductive rate with the current hunting regulations, in regard to buck/doe ratios and fawns hitting the ground ?
That seems to be the big hurdle here

I'm not bownut but...this question is confusing....
What does "sustainable reproductive rate" mean? is there an acceptable number? some may have a different idea of what is a sustainable reproductive rate. Is it 2-10-20 deer per sq kilometer?
I thought the whole idea of the liberal GOS on wt doe was to diminish the wt population in favor of the Mule deer, in a nutshell.

[Fisher-Dude]

I'm not bownut but...this question is confusing....
What does "sustainable reproductive rate" mean? is there an acceptable number? some may have a different idea of what is a sustainable reproductive rate. Is it 2-10-20 deer per sq kilometer?
I thought the whole idea of the liberal GOS on wt doe was to diminish the wt population in favor of the Mule deer, in a nutshell.

Here you go:


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.

[Ourea]

Hunters can only hope that managers are passionate about their jobs, thats why they are hired and what they are getting paid for, and yes mistakes will be made in the process.
Hunters can only hope that they adjust their thinking when these mistakes occur.

You need to understand your position, you are not only a hunter, you are also involved in management. Is that not where your cheque comes from?
You are correct in that the system needs to be fixed, and I am really surprised that you can suggest that the hunting community is at fault for the state we are in.
We join conservation organizations, buy our licence and tags, involve ourselves in projects, voice our concerns when we see a need for change.

If you want to define all of our actions and opinions as veiled threats then that says it all.

Times are changing on and off the mountains, so all I can say is hang on..... And thats not a "Veiled Threat", it's a fact.

Regulations are only a factor in our present situation, but everyone (i.e. management) needs to understand that it is one of the factors we can control.

BTW: Still looking for any notable success story from the last ten years that management has lead....

If I threw u the keys to the shop.....what is ur solution?

There are very bright, passionate people, that have taken on this task.....invested in their education and purpose in life to try and help in support of their value system and beliefs in wildlife sustainability.

How do plan on helping the cause?
There is a saying in business....."analyze and criticize until ur paralyzed".

[bownut]

While hunters have been talking about hunting regulations wildlife populations have declined. That started in the late 70s and early 80s.

While hunters have been talking about hunting regulations politicians decided the fish and wildlife branch has been pulled apart, staff have been cut, and funding has been cut. That started in the 80s.

While hunters have been talking about hunting regulations politicians have changed policy/legislation/regulation to the detriment of fish and wildlife. That started in the 80s.

While hunters were talking about regulations the engineering behind producing, protecting, conserving and growing wildlife was being dismantled. Instead of fighting for fish and wildlife hunters focused on hunting regulations. While hunters changed the regulations the moose harvest in the 4 regions went from 12,000 to 4,000, mule deer harvest in Region 4 went from 4500 to 500, and caribou have almost disappeared.

You choices are to continue to waste time on hunting regulations, ignore science, focus on the minutia and blame everyone else, or start working on fixing wildlife management. Hunters were the ones who were busy fighting over hunting regulations while politicians were busy pulling apart the foundation of wildlife management in British Columbia. While logging changed, highways were built, fire suppression increased, invasive weeds increased, exclusion fencing was built, predator populations increased, houses were built on winter range, road density increased, hunters talked about hunting regulations.

The hunting regulation equation is simple.

Talk about hunting regulations + change regulations = wildlife declines.


The wildlife management equation is simple.

Money + science + people who care for fish and wildlife = increase wildlife populations.


Hunters can continue continue to repeat a 40 year old mistake or fix the problem. The 40 year trend includes complaining about hunting regulations, complaining about biologists, dealing with the minutia and watching the resource disappear. The fix involves looking at the big picture, focusing on changing wildlife management, and growing the resource by engaging politicians.

The choice is yours.

I think your confused on the difference between the Regulations and the Management Plan.
If the Management Plan has it flaws the Regulations will reflect it.

Knowing that a new model is needed why have we not backed up on our regulations.
We cannot keep drawing from our limited and declining resources and expect it to recover,.

I do agree that we need the Money and Science, but when we are running on fumes we need to back off on the throttle.

[bownut]

Here you go:


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.

Thats a great formula did they do this study in a high fenced pen?
I don't see any predators anywhere in that equation.
Nice but irrelevant.

[Whonnock Boy]

Will it help ungulate populations if sex ratios are 40 or 50 bucks or bulls for every cow and doe? Please explain how.

Knowing that a new model is needed why have we not backed up on our regulations.
We cannot keep drawing from our limited and declining resources and expect it to recover,.

[bownut]

If I threw u the keys to the shop.....what is ur solution?

There are very bright, passionate people, that have taken on this task.....invested in their education and purpose in life to try and help in support of their value system and beliefs in wildlife sustainability.

How do plan on helping the cause?
There is a saying in business....."analyze and criticize until ur paralyzed".

Its all about exposer at this point.
I think we are getting closer to the root of our problems.
I spent my time at the post trust me, and it's very frustrating to hear that all the efforts from the past are being slammed and disregard.