For sure on that one the first step is to open the books and review the management history and maybe hold some individuals accountable for the actions.
I don't mean a headhunt but a question and answer meeting.
For sure on that one the first step is to open the books and review the management history and maybe hold some individuals accountable for the actions.
I don't mean a headhunt but a question and answer meeting.
Logging out for now, once again good stuff people.
Yeah maybe I'm out of whack. I can still go to Aberdeen, Pinaus, Silver Hills, upper Kettle and still see the sign I did 10-15 years ago and get my meat, and in the last 5 years have collected my two largest racks ever. but maybe its just me.
What has changed is the impact of resource extraction. Eliminate that and all this chatter is moot
Last edited by boxhitch; 02-13-2017 at 12:11 PM.
Never say whoa in the middle of a mud hole
So how would that plan work? To achieve a target of X number of which species? All? And who decides what X should be?
Plans need realistic achievable targets, and targets have to be justified. We can't just decide to throw as much money as possible to grow as many critters as possible, its not realistic. Nor is it needed.
The vast majority of hunters are satisfied with the way things are, or the push-back to existing managers would be larger.
Last edited by boxhitch; 02-13-2017 at 12:06 PM.
Never say whoa in the middle of a mud hole
I wonder myself on the plan to solve issues with $ it seems to be what many repeat is needed. I can't give you an answer when I have not heard it myself
In my opinion I would not say most hunters are satisfied. Most don't push management or even realize it's an option. Most don't even know it is possible to contact a regional Bio even
I would say opinions on BCs management is not a cut and dry majority in either direction. I would say I large portion don't think of it and only adjust their hunts to what is available
Not poking at you WO, just rambling on
Nice to live in the country The Creator and Ma Nature favoursonly adjust their hunts to what is available
A couple problems with BVs vision
-getting a room full of special interest groups together to come up with a common goal........exercise in futility
-getting all $$ generated by fish and wildlife back into fish and wildlife......would only be a numbers game. Gov't has commented that they already spend more than is generated, its all in where the lines are drawn
Gov't never wants to be pinned down on budgeting commitments, they always want the smoke-and-mirrors with shells game
Local managers just lost some funds that were earlier committed, like they missed the shelf-life label
Never say whoa in the middle of a mud hole
Thank you wild one for explaining that, I didn't think it was necessary but ,,,,,game pops go through the roof after a fire, it has a spiraling outward effect, benefiting the region at large. When all the legal game is shot up,,,legally, its not much benefit is it?
I never said close any area's, walk in and hunt if you need to hunt, thats where many big bucks are hanging out.
Against vehicle restrictions and deactivating roads and vehicular access...really?
I to see issues with having all interest groups trying to work together with the history between them. If they could play nice yes it could work but I don't trust any of them have the ability to work together at this time. No doubt in my mind there would be dirty deals between each other.
The $ issue you bring up is interesting
I personally believe BCs wildlife management could improve but also understand some of the changes man has done to BC and factors from Mother Nature cannot be controlled or changed. I don't see any magic way to improve everything either no matter the $ availible. Reality is no matter what some will not be pleased.
Truth of the matter is I have watch some populations improve and others crash along with some species expand their range. It has been a mix of negitive and positive over the years. I believe it is many factors that have played a roll in this
Could things be better yes but my opinion of better may not match the next hunter inline
no it doesn't. In fact it has negative effect long term on adjacent areas. It is just like what is posted here regular about whitetails. The burn supports a greater population of ungulates which translates to greater population of predators...predators must disperse due to social structure so adjacent poorer habitat has a greater proportional number of predators then would be pre burn..these adjacent areas suffer greater predation then if they had not been near a burn.
It is well to try and journey ones road and to fight with the air.Man must die! At worst he can die a little sooner." (H Ryder Haggard)