Funded Management for Our Future

[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.

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.

it may help trying to understand the differences you see in qualatative terms vs quantative.

for example: although it may seem like there is as much wildlife habitat as there's always been, quantatively; there may be many qualatative details that have changed. Such as; more cattle, more roads, more fences, poorly maintained monocropped forestry stands, pressure on water resources, etc etc.

Im not saying that you do not have a problem with predators as they interact with ungulates like moose; just that it may in fact be the qualatative habitat factors that are exacerbating that problem. With complex wound management, more effective results will be had by treating the underlying systemic cause of the wound's infection, rather than just periodically wiping the pus away, hoping for a better outcome.

[bownut]

The drop in hunters number was the start of the end, BCWF hired on a director to find ways to turn it around. The best tool in their box was to increase hunter opportunity and fast track the process allow it.
Sustainable wildlife populations became a question and now we are where we are. It's too bad that the focus wasn't on Wildlife Restoration at the start, maybe hunter opportunity would never been a concern.

Not many success stories so far, I sure hope his new title gets something happening soon. Like I said before have a look at the past spendings and make some changes.

The clock is ticking, we are one bad winter away from a total meltdown..

[Ourea]

The drop in hunters number was the start of the end, BCWF hired on a director to find ways to turn it around. The best tool in their box was to increase hunter opportunity and fast track the process allow it.
Sustainable wildlife populations became a question and now we are where we are. It's too bad that the focus wasn't on Wildlife Restoration at the start, maybe hunter opportunity would never been a concern.

Not many success stories so far, I sure hope his new title gets something happening soon. Like I said before have a look at the past spendings and make some changes.

The clock is ticking, we are one bad winter away from a total meltdown..

Hashing the past has no impact on the future.
Yesterday is just that, yesterday.

It will take a lot of effort behind the scenes but there is a "will" building.

Funny, we all look to hang blame on someone or group as responsible for a collective problem.
The mirror is the best place to start.

[bearvalley]

Hashing the past has no impact on the future.
Yesterday is just that, yesterday.

It will take a lot of effort behind the scenes but there is a "will" building.

Funny, we all look to hang blame on someone or group as responsible for a collective problem.
The mirror is the best place to start.

Priority, maximum harvest opportunity and continued access are something we all need to think about.
These are not growers of wildlife, even if one group pushes this agenda.

[Ourea]

Priority, maximum harvest opportunity and continued access are something we all need to think about.
These are not growers of wildlife, even if one group pushes this agenda.

That's obvious.
Next issue?

[bownut]

That's obvious.
Next issue?

Funding I guess?
Time to gather up the volunteers the projects are piling up.

[Rob Chipman]

Dannybouy:

"I just read the report and it states quite the opposite saying predator control is relatively cheap and easy because cougar and coyotes are easy to target and control the numbers ."

If we're talking about the same study (I'm talking about one referenced by Dr. Mark Hebblewhite at UBC-Kelowna presentation) he said that total mortality stayed about the same, so despite how cheap the predator control was it didn't create (or save) more deer at the end of the day.

He also said that it could be a way to create more trophy class bucks, but that Idaho F&G did the math and determined that those bucks would be very, very expensive.


So...are we talking the same study? Because, frankly, a study that shows that knocking down preds is effective would be a handy study to have. Can you send me the link? (Saves me getting confused).

[gcreek]

it may help trying to understand the differences you see in qualatative terms vs quantative.

for example: although it may seem like there is as much wildlife habitat as there's always been, quantatively; there may be many qualatative details that have changed. Such as; more cattle, more roads, more fences, poorly maintained monocropped forestry stands, pressure on water resources, etc etc.

Im not saying that you do not have a problem with predators as they interact with ungulates like moose; just that it may in fact be the qualatative habitat factors that are exacerbating that problem. With complex wound management, more effective results will be had by treating the underlying systemic cause of the wound's infection, rather than just periodically wiping the pus away, hoping for a better outcome.

I'm not an expert nor do I claim to have all the high touted eddicashun that all these experts got but I do know what I have witnessed. If you care to discuss this you can pm me your phone number and I'll gladly set you straight. Haha

I do know that in my immediate area, the slaughter of the late 80s and early 90s, the unregulated native hunt on the same road and a governmenr's reluctance to deal with predators are the main factors to the loss of moose here. To a lesser degree, preventing ranchers from burning old swamp grass and brush in the spring might have some effect on the habitat.

There are are no more cows, very few more roads, the cut locks logged between 1986 and 1991 are all thick and 15 to 20 ft tall now and the latest logging has been minimal. There has never been any chemical sprayed here either.

The main factors are wolves and grizzlies.

The longer the experts keep pulling wool over the believers eyes, the longer the studies will last with no conclusion and the less game you will have in the bush.

Just for discussion sake, how much "natural habitat" is on the prairies of Alberta and Sask. where moose are flourishing?

[bearvalley]

That's obvious.
Next issue?

I think we are pointing at 2 different groups.
One, you and I aren’t going to change.
The thinking of the other..........?

[Rob Chipman]

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

Speaking for myself, I don't have an agenda. I realize, however, that killing predators is a very touchy subject. Some people may not like that fact (looking at you, bearvalley and gcreek), but fact it is. And as Mark Hebblewhite said (and I think he was pretty reasonable): targeted predator removal can sometimes be effective, but you better make really sure that you've got your ducks in a row, because if it doesn't work the cost in terms of social license is very high.

So, how would you go about making the sale to the general public on predator control? That's what's required, right? We agree on that, at least, I'm sure (cause if you disagree please explain what just happened with the G-bear hunt).


(Speaking for myself I think it's easy to believe that 65,000 or so sq. miles of beetle kill and the subsequent changes to the landscape could easily do many crazy things, including putting a predator load way, way out of whack. Thing is, you don't need to convince me. You need to convince cat ladies in Burnaby).