The future of our wildlife management plans.

[bearvalley]

Yep, it can be broken down if you want, same with Washington state.

As said in another thread ... break it down.
All stats.
Deer populations, harvest stats, predator numbers, an ecosystem break down....and whatever else you think I may have missed.
While you're at it do BC.
You give us all these stats and then we can fairly evaluate and compare.

[GoatGuy]

As said in another thread ... break it down.
All stats.
Deer populations, harvest stats, predator numbers, an ecosystem break down....and whatever else you think I may have missed.
While you're at it do BC.
You give us all these stats and then we can fairly evaluate and compare.

Ok, will take some time, but will do it in a new thread.

[Bugle M In]

We can't be looking entirely to the south.
We are not dealing with the entirely the same list species nor do our southern neighbours have the predator load we contend with...other than exceptions such as Yellowstone.
Yellowstone is a prime example of a crash.
Look what 20 years of wolves did there.

Is there a particular "species" who's #'s crashed due to wolves there, in which you refer to?
Is that "all the species" which crashed inside that park, or, are you reffering mainly to the
"crash in Elk #'s there".
If it pertains to Elk in Yellowstone, it isn't just the wolves that have caused the crash.
It is a lot more complicated than that.
It actually goes all the way into the loss of "Cut Throat Trout", due to an invasive species.

All I am saying here, it is a "pot of problems" which are causing problems for our Ungulates and
their "lowering numbers/decline"

[GoatGuy]

Is there a particular "species" who's #'s crashed due to wolves there, in which you refer to?
Is that "all the species" which crashed inside that park, or, are you reffering mainly to the
"crash in Elk #'s there".
If it pertains to Elk in Yellowstone, it isn't just the wolves that have caused the crash.
It is a lot more complicated than that.
It actually goes all the way into the loss of "Cut Throat Trout", due to an invasive species.

All I am saying here, it is a "pot of problems" which are causing problems for our Ungulates and
their "lowering numbers/decline"

Yep, more than one issue for sure.

Need to get on to the mindset of increasing/recovering wildlife populations in the long-run.

[Bugle M In]

Yep, more than one issue for sure.

Need to get on to the mindset of increasing/recovering wildlife populations in the long-run.

That was actually a very well done program that I watched on tv about the declining elk herds in Yellowstone.
It seemed from the onset of the problem (declining elk #'s) coincided with the introduction of Wolves into the Park.
It seemed like a "slam dunk".....wolves were the problem.
But, after "Research", it was not adding up.
And if you had thought it was "not" the wolves, but rather a different Predator,.. well..., you were somewhat correct,
and wrong".
Turned out bears do not like to travel long distances to find there diminishing food sources somewhere else.
Instead, they will focus on a "New Food Source".
And well, it was the bears that were hitting the elk hard.
BUT, why suddenly were the bears going after elk....what changed?
Well, it turns out an Invasive Fish Species (can't remember off hand which one it was), had taken over, and were
causing a huge decline in the Cut Throat Trout Numbers, almost obliterating their numbers completely.
But, why would one species of trout be so much different than the other?
Bears aren't fussy, they go there each year to fill up on them, like always.....right?
Well, there was difference between the species of fish and how it impacted the bears and their normal eating habits.
Cut throat travel up streams to spawn.....
The invasive species "did not" travel upstream to spawn.....in fact....the invasive species dropped their eggs way
out in the lake in deeper water.
So, now the bears no longer could fill up on fish....to hard to for them to obtain.
So, because of that, bears went after elk instead, way more than they would have normally.
So, as you can see, things aren't always as they seem, and who would have guessed that....
Elk #'s dropping due to an invasive species of fish!!

Sorry for the long winded post, but, I thought it might interest and inform some of the members on here,
and give them a scenario, of how problems can be so complicated, and not so easy to say....let's just do this,
and everything will get on track again like the "old days"

The main point I actually wanted to make here was this.....
It took "Research" and "Studies" to see this problem in Yellowstone.
And Research and Studies cost money!
To have good research you need 2 main things...
People who actually know what they are doing and are good at it, and money to pay for it.

And the money doesn't just stop there....you now need money to implement the changes needed from these studies
to correct the underlying problem...or in BC's case..."Problems"...with an "s".

And that will take a lot of user groups sitting at the table....and ....working together.
That is a big endeavor to have happen, and for the wildlife, they just continue to struggle.
I wonder, does the wildlife really stand a chance? Can we actually get our acts together.
It is no longer us over them attitude, and can we actually all get together and agree to make it happen???

Funny, the same thing that can benefit/help the wildlife is... money.....but.....isn't it money
(in the name of special interests by all user groups) that has created the problem to begin with????

Hmmmmmmm.....

[Walking Buffalo]

Bugle,

The fish theory is rather weak. But it does make for a potential scapegoat other than the wolves.
Maybe this was the intent?

For sure there is some level of correctness to the conclusions, but it does not add up to accounting for the drop in Elk numbers without heavy predation by wolves and the Increasing Grizzly bear population throughout the Yellowstone ecosystem.
Note that the cutthroat/lake trout event predates the increase in wolf and grizzly bear populations.
Recent surveys are showing that moose have declined over 90% since the reintroduction of wolves.
There is serious concern that moose will be extirpated in the near future.
Much of the Yellowstone elk and moose populations are well away from influence of these fish spawning streams.

There is a need to salt some research before swallowing.
Check out the desired management goals of particular researchers.
You may see a connection.

Point is, sometimes the problem is Not so complex.
But expect someone to say it is, don't look at that, look at this.

[two-feet]

On the latest Meateater podcast with Steve Rinella was a bear biologist and they covered the cut throat trout/grizzly issue. In his opinion the trout were not a major factor. I would post a link but can't figure out this new phone

[Buck]

Here you go http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts...rank-vanmanen/

[bownut]

So true Water buffalo, but it does show one thing, and thats how predators will turn to a alternate food source.
Thats why I have a hard time when I hear statements like cougars prefer Mule deer over White Tail.
When predators are hungry they eat whats in front of them and we don't need science to prove that one.
All factors will effect whats left standing including hunter harvest.

[Dannybuoy]

So true Water buffalo, but it does show one thing, and thats how predators will turn to a alternate food source.
Thats why I have a hard time when I hear statements like cougars prefer Mule deer over White Tail.
When predators are hungry they eat whats in front of them and we don't need science to prove that one.
All factors will effect whats left standing including hunter harvest.

I think that it is not so much that they "prefer" mule deer but rather Mulies are just much easier to catch (anecdotal). Of course I have no scientific proof of that but think about it !
Actually that's a good reason to allow Mulies have "excess" population numbers as to allow for the higher mortality rate .