Are We “Managing Wildlife to Zero” in British Columbia?

[tater]

Seems like the Region 5 Moose graph may correlate to the timeline of the beginning of massive use of glysophates in cutblocks on deciduous growth.
No food, no moose may be one route of scientific inquiry to explore...

[kootenaihunter]

The fact of the matter is, it's doesn't really cost the gov't much, if any, to change hunting regulations to reduce harvests. Hunting is just one of many facets in wildlife management.

The other facets require money: research, legislation, habitat improvement, etc.

Only so much can be done from an arm chair and the rest requires boots on the ground, which requires money. It's easy to give lip service, do the cheapest thing, and say you've done something, but whatever is being done now is clearly not working.

BC's greatest resources are it's natural resources and they've been mismanaged for the all mighty buck for too long. The funny thing is, shifting the paradigm can pull in just as much money, if not more if done smartly. The fact of the matter is, hunters make up a a very small percentage of the population, so why the need to please us? If some tourist or city dweller is happy to a see a deer or bear once every 10 years, they're tickled pink. But most of the voters are so removed from the issues that we notice, it's not 'worth it' to pile money into the issue.

The biggest step forward that can be made now is getting hunting dollars into a non-partisan wildlife management society and get politicians fingers out of science based management so we don't end up with more hunting bans based on emotion.

[kootenaihunter]

Interesting to see the Mule Deer chart. Mule deer population drop has been notoriously blamed on the harsh winter of 96/97, but it's clear that the issue began way before that and maybe the winter just put another nail in the coffin. Looks like things started to head south around 92/93.

Would be interested to see that Region 4 chart trended against area logged in the region and road density.

[Wild one]

Hunting regs don’t do much for increasing populations on a large scale most known and agree. Hunting regs are more about working with the present population we have.

Big picture wise I would say 90%+ hunters agree the issue lies that we are not getting results come habitat issues, predation, unregulated hunting ext

Nothing wrong with limiting hunter impact well focusing on big issues.

What seems to go over some people’s heads is majorly of those supporting hunting reg changes are not blind to the main issues and support change. Most do not look at hunting reg changes as a way to dramatically increase game populations but instead being more conservative with the game populations we have

[steepNdeep]

Camp 3. Hunters-4-Science

The “Hunters-4-Science” are the folks that want science and objectives to drive wildlife management. They are critical thinkers and well-versed in the scientific literature as well as being knowledgeable about wildlife management concepts and government policy. Some of these hunters are actual wildlife scientists. “Hunters-4-Science” believe that wildlife policy needs to be based on solid wildlife and human dimensions research. The “Hunters-4-Science” are often the ones asking questions rather than stating opinions at public meetings. They are the ones most proactive in engaging with biologists and politicians to find solutions to problems. “Hunters-4-Science” recognize that the future of hunting relies on sustainable wildlife populations and they know that sustainable wildlife populations rely on world-class funding for wildlife management, lots of science and lots of voters who care deeply about wildlife.

fisherdude - It's good to see that you like my idea & post about it! ; I'd never heard you use "SCIENCE" before, but it looks like you have a new buzzword. Keep 'er going... lol

Good thread bownut & Ourea! Here are my 5 "investments that would provide the greatest impact and bang":

1. A campaign (primarily via social media) to educate the public (& politicians) about the necessity of an autonomous SCIENCE-BASED wildlife management system. This system must be guaranteed to run in perpetuity without interference from political whims.
2. A SCIENCE-BASED predator management program. This is the elephant in the room that must be addressed. If there are no animals left, what is the point of wildlife habitat? (See *** below)
3. Habitat conservation programs to protect wintering grounds, migration corridors, etc. (ie: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's Conservation Program)
4. Habitat enhancement programs. Prescribed by wildlife biologists & implemented by grass roots volunteer groups (ie: WKBGTA (haha)
5. A private fundraising platform to self-fund these programs. (Sounds alot like BCWF... ; )

*** “Determining Factors Affecting Moose Population Change in British Columbia: Testing the Landscape Change Hypothesis.” READ FULL REPORT HERE

BCWF Summary HERE

Research to date recovered 49 of the collars from moose that had died & determined that predators killed 21 or 45%:
• cougars killed 2 and a bear killed 1
• wolves killed 18 or 86%

>>> I'd like to see these same stats for deer in this region!

[Fisher-Dude]

Hunting regs don’t do much for increasing populations on a large scale most known and agree. Hunting regs are more about working with the present population we have.

Big picture wise I would say 90%+ hunters agree the issue lies that we are not getting results come habitat issues, predation, unregulated hunting ext

Nothing wrong with limiting hunter impact well focusing on big issues.

What seems to go over some people’s heads is majorly of those supporting hunting reg changes are not blind to the main issues and support change. Most do not look at hunting reg changes as a way to dramatically increase game populations but instead being more conservative with the game populations we have

Classic camp 1 response.

[Fisher-Dude]

fisherdude - It's good to see that you like my idea & post about it! ; I'd never heard you use "SCIENCE" before, but it looks like you have a new buzzword. Keep 'er going... lol

Classic response from a camp 2 hunter.

Claim to be pushing science, even when faced with a chart that shows a 2% hunting-related mortality, while simultaneously supporting further hunting regulations restrictions.

The most dangerous type of hunter that is feeding the anti-hunting groups and anti-hunting government with the exact ammunition they want to stop it all.

[guest]

Well done FD.

thanks for posting

[Wild one]

Classic camp 1 response.

Dont remember joining any camp only state my personal views and opinions lol

Want support on big picture issues might be wise to open your eyes to the agreement on the big issues and seek support here. Insulting and demanding everyone follow blindly on small issues is costing support on the big issues.

Learn a little give and take to find middle ground then you will build an army. Without this history will repeat it self

Truth is the only thing in my original post that goes against what you want big picture is I proffer a conservative harvest over max opportunity

But this makes me the enemy lol

[Wild one]

Thinking about it more FD is a camp 2 hunter in many ways lol

I am only using your classifications FD don’t get but hurt lol