$$$ = I see the northern US states have comprehensive studies done, and are available for viewing over on GG other thread,Originally Posted by Fisher-Dude
looks like good hunting down there.
HuntingBC Champ
$$$ = I see the northern US states have comprehensive studies done, and are available for viewing over on GG other thread,
looks like good hunting down there.
CoreLokt Fudd
It's only irrelevant to you because it completely destroys what you're preaching.
It's the science used by every jurisdiction in North America to manage whitetailed deer populations.
But you're just too smart to listen to that crap.
Last edited by Fisher-Dude; 02-24-2017 at 10:59 AM.
Originally Posted by chevy
but man how much pepporoni can your arshole take anyways !
Circadian arrhythmia
The management plan right now is a hunting regulation plan. Management plans in other jurisdictions include objectives for population density/recruitment rates etc, and levers that can be pulled to meet those objectives. BC's management plans usually only talk about hunting regulations. Where they include objectives other than sex ratios for wildlife, the reality is managers don't have the funding/capacity/ability to manage wildlife. The management plans are hunter management plans, not wildlife management plans.
Hopefully you have read the management plans in the states which BC shares deer with. How they manage deer and hunters compared to what we do is explicit in the plans. The plans are clear on thresholds and objectives.
Re backed up on hunting regulations. The regulations and harvest are generally the most restrictive the province has had in the last 40 years. That is because hunters wanted to talk about regulating hunters on a diminishing resource. Not sure how something that hasn't worked in decades will change the outcome, particularly when the scientists/researchers/managers and preponderance of evidence tell you it a waste of time and energy. You should have read through the objectives in our neighbouring jurisdictions are often more liberal than what we have in BC. Our hunter management is often more conservative than our neighbours we share deer with. That should have been something you got out of the management plans. This makes the continued discussion about hunting regulations tiresome. Decision-based evidence making is trendy, but not particularly useful.
Having said all that, appreciate the posts.
This has given insight into the history, approach and evolution of wildlife management. History can been a good teacher, if for no other reason than to avoid repeating it.
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
Mandela
So with hopes of hearing something yesterday or today in regards to Wildlife in The BC liberals new budget ........ Nothing mentioned like Hunting license and tag fees going back into wildlife. Yet again. I guess its into general coffers.
Tonight the BC Liberals tried to call me, I was on the phone Long Distance, or would have taken their call. They are sure looking for votes given all the publicity lately ....... Yet they keep doing next to nothing for our most troubled populations, and the decline for most ungulates continues. Way to go BC Liberals! Congrats yet again.
HuntingBC Champ
What/where are these tickets?
I would say 1500 people showing up at 2 differing events is a pretty decent turnout, (now I'm probably going to make some guys mad again). Of the 100,000 hunters in BC how many are real hunters to begin with? Apathy is an undesireable human trait that some people are quite at ease with because if they only go out on 1 hunting trip a year for a couple weeks and come home with an animal...things are fine and soon return to their regular routine.
Even the core group are going to have a hard time making such a commitment, lets say 750 for each rally is exellent.
I'm surprised there are that many showing up to these rallies, and to show up in Victoria? The logistics alone of going to Victoria is a huge commitment that most guys just aren't/cant make.
Who in Victoria is listening anyways? now would probably be a good time to rally as there is an election coming up and is a good time to "smack em upside the head" and wake them up and quit stealing revenue that should be put back into wildlife initiatives.
HuntingBC Champ
some people have a hard time understanding the significance of winter on an animal population
the areas deer winter in (winter habitat), will support many more deer on a mild winter than a severe one...but the health of the deer come spring is a sliding scale...if you have a habitat that could support 100 does over winter in an average winter, those 100 does could produce 1-3 fawns...so think of it this way...50 super healthy well fed does could give 150 fawns where 100 does that struggled a bit might only produce 100 (or less) fawns....so the concept that less deer carried through the winter can produce more deer for hunting is sometimes hard for people to understand
weird huh?
not deer-per-area as much as a healthy dynamic that says the best herd structure is in place to get the most reproduction.
If all the available does are getting pregnant, what more can be asked for. Having more bucks won't help anything.
BCs target buck/doe ratio is higher than the minimum to get the job done, which is a good thing meaning the available bucks go into winter in better condition and will survive better. BC targets are already conservative, and in many areas composition surveys are proving out okay.
Wanna make more deer, make more does, by increasing survival prospects.
Never say whoa in the middle of a mud hole
HuntingBC Champ
see above post...all pregnancies are not equal (especially with white tails)....1-3 fawns and this is dictated by the health of the mothers....again, 50 healthy mothers could produce 150 fawns where 100 unhealthy ones might produce less than 100 fawns....also think about those extra bucks left unshot as essentially slowly eating away at the health of the Does....
another analogy is comparing people in a poor African country to here..they are more densely populated (carrying higher numbers), have higher reproductive rates and populations... but is their population healthier?
CoreLokt Fudd
You're on the right track.
Old does are also hell on fawns on winter range.
An old dry doe will consume as much scarce feed as 3 fawns. They'll also fight with fawns, causing injury and sometimes death.
Adults will also kick fawns to more marginal feeding areas. The pecking order is a real bitch.
What do we want living the following spring? One old doe or 3 healthy fawns?
We can't grow wildlife populations nor produce harvestable surpluses if we're sacrificing fawn recruitment for adult survival. That's why a population that has harvest across all age and sex classes is healthier, more robust, and can sustain a higher harvest rate than one with buck only or classified (eg 4 pt only) harvest. See the Hatter numbers above.
but man how much pepporoni can your arshole take anyways !
HuntingBC Champ
another part of the dynamic that most don't understand is that if there are too many animals heading into a nasty bad winter it is far worse for spring survival rates than if there were too few (less than carrying capacity).....lets say an area can support 100 deer on an average winter with say 60% survival in spring....after two good years there might be say 150 deer going to the area for the winter when a bad winter hits....those 150 will chow down until almost all the food is gone then the vast majority will die of starvation....sometimes it is hard to get your head around the fact that drastically reducing deer numbers (through hunting in the fall) will ensure many more deer in the spring than if none were hunted...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote