Funded Management for Our Future

[Ourea]

The solution is a combination of both....period.

We can bullshit ourselves forever that habitat is the correction on its own.

The fact is that wildlife numbers are dropping even where habitat has not been severely impacted.
Predation is the issue in these places of suitable habitat.
These are areas that show no disease in wildlife, no hiway or train kills and no negative logging or industrial repercussions.

Ignoring predators will keep game populations in check or declining until we either manage the predators or they run out of groceries and balance themselves out....it’s our choice if we want to wait.

What is the agenda behind some that don’t want to face reality and admit predation is a problem?

Theres a deeply rooted belief that predators should be left untouched, is this due to the anti movement being entrenched deeper than we would like to admit within bureaucracy.

And there lies the toughest challenge........

[bownut]

Was going through some old notes and powerpoints from presentations I've attended in the past. Looking at one on mule deer and a particular line from Idaho Fish and Game stood out to me.

“Quality habitat is the most significant factor
determining the size and health of mule deer
populations. All other factors, such as weather,
predators, and human-caused mortality, are mitigated
for or exacerbated by quality of habitat.”

Idaho Fish and Game

We saw that first hand in R8 with a very well known burn. Mother Nature provided 25,000ha of much needed
habitat enhancement. Said habitat supported high prey #'s, high pred #'s and high hunter harvest without issue.
Now, the habitat is declining and could be burned again.

Predators and Vimy Ridge may have something to do with it also..

[LBM]

The solution is a combination of both....period.

We can bullshit ourselves forever that habitat is the correction on its own.

The fact is that wildlife numbers are dropping even where habitat has not been severely impacted.
Predation is the issue in these places of suitable habitat.
These are areas that show no disease in wildlife, no hiway or train kills and no negative logging or industrial repercussions.

Ignoring predators will keep game populations in check or declining until we either manage the predators or they run out of groceries and balance themselves out....it’s our choice if we want to wait.

What is the agenda behind some that don’t want to face reality and admit predation is a problem?

Theres a deeply rooted belief that predators should be left untouched, is this due to the anti movement being entrenched deeper than we would like to admit within bureaucracy.

Each region and in many cases MU is different in some it may be a predation issue others not. In some predation may have an affect now but was not the cause of the decline to start with.
Many of the declines are associated with human or human activity. Some of these declines started 30 plus years ago but others didn't care or believe it till it was to late.

[Fisher-Dude]

The solution is a combination of both....period.

We can bullshit ourselves forever that habitat is the correction on its own.

The fact is that wildlife numbers are dropping even where habitat has not been severely impacted.
Predation is the issue in these places of suitable habitat.
These are areas that show no disease in wildlife, no hiway or train kills and no negative logging or industrial repercussions.

Ignoring predators will keep game populations in check or declining until we either manage the predators or they run out of groceries and balance themselves out....it’s our choice if we want to wait.

What is the agenda behind some that don’t want to face reality and admit predation is a problem?

Theres a deeply rooted belief that predators should be left untouched, is this due to the anti movement being entrenched deeper than we would like to admit within bureaucracy.

I don't think your motivations on the predator front are solely for wildlife, and therein lies your inherent bias against the science that indicates something different from what you promote.

I also don't think scarce wildlife funding dollars should be diverted to propping up your primary source of income under the guise of helping mule deer.

[bearvalley]

I don't think your motivations on the predator front are solely for wildlife, and therein lies your inherent bias against the science that indicates something different from what you promote.

I also don't think scarce wildlife funding dollars should be diverted to propping up your primary source of income under the guise of helping mule deer.

Pat, there are zero government wildlife dollars put into predator control around my ranch.

In fact wolf management for both the benefit of wildlife and to stop an excessive livestock predation issue was and is being funded solely me.

What the F*** have you personally contributed other than noise on here.

I would suggest that you, your club and a couple of chosen Fed members have your own agenda and it’s not for the good of any other than your own little circle.

Carry on beating the Goats drum Fisher-Dude....

[bearvalley]

Each region and in many cases MU is different in some it may be a predation issue others not. In some predation may have an affect now but was not the cause of the decline to start with.
Many of the declines are associated with human or human activity. Some of these declines started 30 plus years ago but others didn't care or believe it till it was to late.

This is true.

The entire mess has been created by a combination of negative factors.

Whether resource extraction and the access created, urban expansion, hiways....etc caused the decline, predation has slowed the recovery even in areas that the habitat has or is improving.

In the last 30 plus years wolves & bears have both increased in much of the province....no matter what we want to blame that on, it’s happened.

Habitat will be a slow fix, any form of predator control is off the radar with the current government and probably the next.

One finger no one wants to point is at ourselves.

We cant expect to have our current “oppurtunities” and “access” to wildlife without a change in how predation is managed.

Either the 4 legged predation needs to slow down or the 2 legged will.
The only ones capable of making that choice is us.

It strikes me funny that one organization continually throws out 3 words....priority, oppurtunity and access and then claims to be the saviour of wildlife.

Their blinders are on.

[gcreek]

I don't think your motivations on the predator front are solely for wildlife, and therein lies your inherent bias against the science that indicates something different from what you promote.

I also don't think scarce wildlife funding dollars should be diverted to propping up your primary source of income under the guise of helping mule deer.

Does it matter? You need to pull your head out of your narrow minded, self serving butt and think about what is best for the whole picture instead of copying the NDP platform concerning the grizzly ban where only a certain group is counted.

What are you trying to protect? GoatGuy's precious predators?

[Pemby_mess]

Wolf and coyote control was found to be compensatory in mule deer survival.

While mortalities from wolves and coyotes dropped, overall mortality remained basically unchanged, and mule deer population levels did not increase.

Once again, it's habitat, habitat, habitat.

WTF does that even mean .... Are you not paying attention ?

It means something out there kills ungulates no matter what. Let's say we fund an incredibly successful initiative to eliminate 90% of the predator load. Ungulates will proliferate the next season, but......if the carrying capacity of the habitat hadn't also grown commensurate with their increased population, they immediately crash through the mechanisms of starvation and disease.

Therefore, the studies state predation has very little impact on overall mortality.

Increase the land's carrying capacity and you'll see a rise in both predator and ungulate numbers. Policies that allow for the periodic culling of predators in abundance certainly won't hurt, but it's not a primary factor behind how many animals the land itself is able to support.

keep in mind, predators aren't exactly in direct competition with human hunters. They tend to target the weak and genetically inferior animals, ultimately benefitting the characteristics and resiliency of the herd as a whole. They can control outbreaks of disease before they start.

Now, of course, since significant habitat disturbance is an ongoing reality, and those disturbances often favor certain predators; some ongoing control is always going to be necessary to achieve widespread results.

when it comes to deciding where to spend money, it makes sense to concentrate on efforts that create a holistically robust system, rather than tinkering at its margins.

with respect to fundraising optics:

hunters advocating for habitat integrity is two rivers of effort meeting at a confluence; whereas advocating for publicly funded predator culling is like trying to swim upstream of said confluence.

[bearvalley]

Does it matter? You need to pull your head out of your narrow minded, self serving butt and think about what is best for the whole picture instead of copying the NDP platform concerning the grizzly ban where only a certain group is counted.

What are you trying to protect? GoatGuy's precious predators?

More like the Goat himself.
It’s called rally the troops or pull in the henchmen....however you want to put it.

[gcreek]

It means something out there kills ungulates no matter what. Let's say we fund an incredibly successful initiative to eliminate 90% of the predator load. Ungulates will proliferate the next season, but......if the carrying capacity of the habitat hadn't also grown commensurate with their increased population, they immediately crash through the mechanisms of starvation and disease.

Therefore, the studies state predation has very little impact on overall mortality.

Increase the land's carrying capacity and you'll see a rise in both predator and ungulate numbers. Policies that allow for the periodic culling of predators in abundance certainly won't hurt, but it's not a primary factor behind how many animals the land itself is able to support.

keep in mind, predators aren't exactly in direct competition with human hunters. They tend to target the weak and genetically inferior animals, ultimately benefitting the characteristics and resiliency of the herd as a whole. They can control outbreaks of disease before they start.

Now, of course, since significant habitat disturbance is an ongoing reality, and those disturbances often favor certain predators; some ongoing control is always going to be necessary to achieve widespread results.

when it comes to deciding where to spend money, it makes sense to concentrate on efforts that create a holistically robust system, rather than tinkering at its margins.

with respect to fundraising optics:

hunters advocating for habitat integrity is two rivers of effort meeting at a confluence; whereas advocating for publicly funded predator culling is like trying to swim upstream of said confluence.

Please Sir, try living where you can see the changes in 40 years and then make comments with your own experience instead of quoting those with a different agenda in mind.

There are 10's of thousands of hecates of prime moose habitat in this area and no moose to speak of left. I've witnessed the changes.