Why is the WKBGTA proposing a bag limit of 1 elk or 1 moose not both in BC

[Fisher-Dude]

But bugle you are hunting a four point restriction hunt.lets say they can that regulation do you have confidence that buck/doe ratios will remain optimal? The four point season is actually working for the most part. Science says it is. Other tools that managers have will cramp hunters worse. Ie LEH and shorter seasons. Long seasons in high access areas are hard on bucks you can't get around that.

Science does not favour 4 point restrictions.



• Antler point restrictions focus all the hunting pressure on the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually decrease the
average age of the buck segment of the population, and make it more difficult for bucks to reach the older age
classes due to the displaced harvest pressure.

• Antler point restrictions have been shown to reduce the number of trophy bucks over time by protecting only the
smaller-antlered young bucks.

• Antler point restrictions do not increase fawn production or population size. Even in herds with very low
buck:doe ratios (<10:100), pregnancy rates are well over 90%. Large increases in buck ratios result in relatively
few, or no, additional fawns.


Available data and experience suggest antler point restrictions result in no long-term increase in either the proportion or number of mature bucks, or the total deer population.

[bearvalley]

• Antler point restrictions do not increase fawn production or population size. Even in herds with very low
buck:doe ratios (<10:100), pregnancy rates are well over 90%. Large increases in buck ratios result in relatively
few, or no, additional fawns.

How much does a low buck:doe or bull:cow ratio have to do with late born fawns and calves that have a lower chance of surviving their first winter?
Lets face it, mule deer are crashing and we are soon to get a 1 buck limit even though there’s a lot of empty habitat out there.
We had best start looking at ourselves as part of the problem and figure out how we can contribute to the fix.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

If we are not meeting our buck to doe ratio minimums, then restrict the seasons where needed.
You will find broad-based support if that's the case.

Pretty simple actually.
Proper funding will allow counts to be done more frequently.

SSS

[bearvalley]

Pretty simple actually.
Proper funding will allow counts to be done more frequently.
SSS

Good point as long as we move toward independent, unbiased wildlife inventory and harvest accountability.
There are a lot of holes in the current system.

[Dannybuoy]

If we are not meeting our buck to doe ratio minimums, then restrict the seasons where needed.
You will find broad-based support if that's the case.

Pretty simple actually.
Proper funding will allow counts to be done more frequently.

SSS

Not neccesarily true, as the number of does is dramatically being lowered as well. As bearvalley says lots of habitat

[dapesche]

What I don't get is why the Co's haven't utilized hunters to provide feedback throughout the season.

Have a database that hunters can enter data through using FWID online licensing page.

There will be skew but if you have 10 people in each unit reporting wildlife numbers from their trips to the bush, after about 5-10 years you start to get real numbers to work with and the boots on the ground are free.

Obviously would require more thought but there has to be a way to improve the data that the ministry uses for decision making...

[Fisher-Dude]

What I don't get is why the Co's haven't utilized hunters to provide feedback throughout the season.

Have a database that hunters can enter data through using FWID online licensing page.

There will be skew but if you have 10 people in each unit reporting wildlife numbers from their trips to the bush, after about 5-10 years you start to get real numbers to work with and the boots on the ground are free.

Obviously would require more thought but there has to be a way to improve the data that the ministry uses for decision making...

COs are not wildlife managers. They don't analyze population stats - not their forte.

We have a perfectly good system of sampling right now that gives valuable trend data. What we need is funding to do more scientific counts. Anecdotal hunter experiences are far too inconsistent to develop any reliable trend analysis from.

[bearvalley]

What I don't get is why the Co's haven't utilized hunters to provide feedback throughout the season.

Have a database that hunters can enter data through using FWID online licensing page.

There will be skew but if you have 10 people in each unit reporting wildlife numbers from their trips to the bush, after about 5-10 years you start to get real numbers to work with and the boots on the ground are free.

Obviously would require more thought but there has to be a way to improve the data that the ministry uses for decision making...

In some cases the data is there but a blind eye is being turned.
This has nothing to do with mule deer but some recently produced harvest data on a LEH bull moose hunt showed a consistent harvest of 160% of the targeted goal for at least the last 5 years.
No wildlife population can survive the pressure of maximum allowable harvest if there is no accounting from the management side to stop this type of abuse.

[Fisher-Dude]

160% on bull moose managed to 30:100 wouldn't necessarily create a conservation concern in 5 years. But it could push the ratio below target.

One must keep in mind that the 30:100 target is not a conservation target. That target is likely 15:100 or so, which for moose would still give a sufficient sperm supply. The risk is late breeding when cows don't stand for juveniles, and consequent later calf births.

The 30:100 target was developed to have several representative bulls of age classes I through IV, with opportunities for activities outside hunting including wildlife viewing and photography of the various age class specimens.

If we're 60% over target harvest, and outfitters who rank below resident hunters in priority with their 30/100 harvest, removal of the portion attributed to non-resident harvest would certainly bring the target very close to 100% now.

Are the outfitters willing to forego their last priority harvest in order to bring harvest into line? You know, for the moose?

[Keta1969]

In some cases the data is there but a blind eye is being turned.
This has nothing to do with mule deer but some recently produced harvest data on a LEH bull moose hunt showed a consistent harvest of 160% of the targeted goal for at least the last 5 years.
No wildlife population can survive the pressure of maximum allowable harvest if there is no accounting from the management side to stop this type of abuse.

BV I'm curious about what that would actually mean. Are hunters that much more efficient or there more moose than thought? I thought that LEH numbers were decided and a success rate calculated with the idea that say 100 authorizations would be issued with a calculated success rate of say 60% which would be 60 animals. So it would follow that going over by 60% this would result in the harvest of 36 additional moose or 96 total but still below the initial 100. Now if that's too many for a stable population they need to lower the number of authorizations especially if hunter success is because of increased access or some other unnatural condition. Don't doubt what you're saying but would be interested in where this is and your thoughts on why this is. By the way I might be misunderstanding how LEH is set but it has been explained that way to me.