Mule deer study in the Okanagan

[J_T]

"They" were in full denial that there was any problem until just recently....

but I hope its not too little too late.

I'm not a biologist, but, when I do reach out to them with my concerns, what I hear is... the ratios are good, the harvest trend is static.

I sent this note along to Bugle M In earlier. Seems appropriate now. Again, I am not a biologist...

"In summary, my concern is…… somewhere between 5 and 10 years ago, we saw elk/deer populations decline. For a variety of reasons (urbanization, highway/railway kill, winter snow, high fences, interrupted winter range, whatever). And, we saw an increase in predators. All predators. With ungulate populations trending down, and Government only managing by ratios (Bulls/bucks to cows/does and cow/doe to calve/fawn) we weren’t paying attention to the actual population decline.

And (my assumption/theory) predators, increasing in number, took the ungulate population so low, it is and will, have a hard time to recover.

When Government manage by ratios, they look at harvest numbers of bulls and bucks. When the bull/buck harvest goes down, Government assume a population decline. But, they don’t pay attention to how long (hunter days) those harvests took. Every good hunter, is going to work harder and harder, to get his kill. So we prop up the Government theory that population numbers are ok, because they equate harvest to population and operate on the basis of ratios. Every committed elk or deer hunter knows, it is not the same out there as it used to be."

[Fella]

Heck you don’t have to be terribly experienced to know that it’s not the same. 3 years ago I hunted an area north of Kamloops at the end of October, we counted 400 deer over a 2 week period including a good amount of bucks. The 5 guys who were hunting all tagged out the first week. The last 2 years 5 guys who hunt the area together have managed 3 bucks. The only 3 bucks they saw.

[j270wsm]

In one of your earlier posts you mentioned 10 cats in the Pickering. My cat hunter contacts are saying they (and others they know) took 32 in the bottom end of the Bull/Pickering. Even if, that is an inflated statement, it still represents a lot of cats. Cut it in half, and that is still a lot of ungulate consumption.

Have you noticed recently (last couple of years) that the sheep are not grouped up in November and December like normal? I think they're being chased so much they get completely disbursed.

The 10 cats I mentioned were taken by one houndsman and his drive to have cats removed from prime sheep and mule deer wintering grounds. I don't know this guy or the guys he help with cats but my coworker who I carpool with is good friends with him.
I have also heard that there was over 30 cats taken from that general area. The only 2 cats I know of being taken north of Elkford were taken by my coworker. Neither was huge but they were both solid cats around 150lbs

[Ourea]

I'm not a biologist, but, when I do reach out to them with my concerns, what I hear is... the ratios are good, the harvest trend is static.

I sent this note along to Bugle M In earlier. Seems appropriate now. Again, I am not a biologist...

"In summary, my concern is…… somewhere between 5 and 10 years ago, we saw elk/deer populations decline. For a variety of reasons (urbanization, highway/railway kill, winter snow, high fences, interrupted winter range, whatever). And, we saw an increase in predators. All predators. With ungulate populations trending down, and Government only managing by ratios (Bulls/bucks to cows/does and cow/doe to calve/fawn) we weren’t paying attention to the actual population decline.

And (my assumption/theory) predators, increasing in number, took the ungulate population so low, it is and will, have a hard time to recover.

When Government manage by ratios, they look at harvest numbers of bulls and bucks. When the bull/buck harvest goes down, Government assume a population decline. But, they don’t pay attention to how long (hunter days) those harvests took. Every good hunter, is going to work harder and harder, to get his kill. So we prop up the Government theory that population numbers are ok, because they equate harvest to population and operate on the basis of ratios. Every committed elk or deer hunter knows, it is not the same out there as it used to be."

J_T, there isn't a game bio that is not acutely aware of the challenges facing wildlife in BC

[J_T]

J_T, there isn't a game bio that is not acutely aware of the challenges facing wildlife in BC

Correct. I understand that. Finally though, reality has set in.

[Bugle M In]

I'm not a biologist, but, when I do reach out to them with my concerns, what I hear is... the ratios are good, the harvest trend is static.

I sent this note along to Bugle M In earlier. Seems appropriate now. Again, I am not a biologist...

"In summary, my concern is…… somewhere between 5 and 10 years ago, we saw elk/deer populations decline. For a variety of reasons (urbanization, highway/railway kill, winter snow, high fences, interrupted winter range, whatever). And, we saw an increase in predators. All predators. With ungulate populations trending down, and Government only managing by ratios (Bulls/bucks to cows/does and cow/doe to calve/fawn) we weren’t paying attention to the actual population decline.

And (my assumption/theory) predators, increasing in number, took the ungulate population so low, it is and will, have a hard time to recover.

When Government manage by ratios, they look at harvest numbers of bulls and bucks. When the bull/buck harvest goes down, Government assume a population decline. But, they don’t pay attention to how long (hunter days) those harvests took. Every good hunter, is going to work harder and harder, to get his kill. So we prop up the Government theory that population numbers are ok, because they equate harvest to population and operate on the basis of ratios. Every committed elk or deer hunter knows, it is not the same out there as it used to be."

This line FOLKS, is what J_T is "trying to get to every hunters ATTENTION and thru our heads!:

we weren’t paying attention to the actual population decline.

That is what is a big problem as to why things are not improving, let alone the funding to put boots on the ground to
make things better.
There are some hunters trying to blame other parts of our regs and other hunters that "we" are to blame.
As long as we dabble in that arena, we all lose focus on the real issue behind allowing the causes to continue.

Ourea, I am sure the Bio's know, but I don't think all the hunters "get it" or "know".
Again, they don't realize that for example the latest EK ELK strategy coming our way is to "not have populations" like
we had.
12,000 head at best compared to at least 20,000 head.

J_T sent me the stats on some of the more recent elk studies (sorry to deviate from the MD thread but it is relevant imo)
I was surprised to see how low "calf recruitment is"!
Worse, how few Bulls are being counted, and even scarier, very very few "Mature Bulls".
I know you get it.
But I doubt most hunters actually know that!
And as long as the Ministry/Government doesn't want to bring the "overall populations up in a Region", they feel these
Stats are within normal levels as per their objective.

We need to start convincing them that these objectives are "Too Low" to sustain "quality Hunting Opportunity".
Same goes for MD I suspect and the study will give us an idea of reasons for their ever increasing declines.
I am sure this study to some degree can be used across the board to re-evaluate what some of the main causes for ELK
and Moose are as well.

Even if we takes steps like culling etc, and have burns, the Ministry is not at this point in time wanting to bring back
game #'s like before!!

[Ourea]

^^^^^^
Bugle, what do you think the solution is then?

Jesus man, there isn't a bio or anyone in game management that doesn't know habitat fragmentation, habitat exploitation, FN unchecked proclaimed right to hunt year round, road density that is well past documented thresholds that disrupts wildlife, pred loading, erosion of winter range, the list is long and well known.

So, what magic wand do you wave?

What can "they" do (as hunters always blame game management for mismanaging)?

Can game managers change forest practices?
Can game managers rip out roads?
Can game managers change FN self proclaimed entitlement to year round wildlife extraction?
Can game managers stop municipalities from allowing development in sensitive winter range?
Can game managers make Gov invest in all things that will help wildlife recover?
Can game managers make money fall from the sky so they actually have a budget to do something (because currently they have sweet F*** all)?
Can game managers sway public opinion to kill off a significant number of predators in certain areas (let alone have one red cent to pay for it)
Can game managers make the general public demand that wildlife gets significant attention and resources dedicated to put things on a track for recovery, sustainable and long term recovery?

All I see, for the most part, is people on this site pointing fingers and blaming "wildlife management" with most having never talked to a game bio, a political official, FN leaders, folks in resource extraction, to have an accurate understanding and knowledge of how complex the task is and what all the working parts are that need to come into sync.

I think the positive is that hunters are beginning, finally, to understand the facts and science behind what the negative drivers are for wildlife declines.

We can blame everyone and entity you want...won't change one freakin thing IF THERE ARE NO RESOURCES AND FUNDING AVAILABLE TO BE DEDICATED TO THE RESOURCE.

This MD project is a tremendous start.
Without credible empirical data you cannot force Gov to mandate change to resource extraction policies and practices.

The more we get behind these type of projects the better rather than bitch from the sidelines and blame folks that have no resources to do what they only wish they can do.

[Bugle M In]

^^^^I agree.
And yes, we have issues to actually have something done, fully agree.
My point was more to those that think further "hunting restrictions" are actually going to fix this mess.
I know most people get it, but some don't!

If I had a magic wand, there would be some issues I would address.
But, you don't have one and I don't, but I am tired of wasting time dealing with folks that think "if we just change this,
or eliminate that thru regs", that somehow that "their magic wand" is the fix.

My issue wasn't with you or many Bios.
I what I think many are "missing" between the lines is as J_T describes, that there are other forces at work outside of
hunting that don't want to see the return of game #'s like in the past.
Hope that clarifies it????

[Ourea]

You can close all hunting in areas that are seeing MD declines.
It won't change a single thing.

Does are getting pregnant at ratios hovering at 100% in the test areas.

East Koots and The Boundary country have had 4 point only seasons for years along with rd closures.
Does are all carrying fawns. There are virtually no does that do not conceive.

All does are producing fawns.
Only 4 point bucks have a lawful season.
That means the majority of the buck population cannot be hunted.

Sad reality is that buck numbers and overall populations continue to decline.
Someone explain how regulation will suddenly rebound this trend?

Back to the topic......
This project will go a long ways to answer, in specificity rather than speculation, why, where, when and how MD are disappearing.

[Bugle M In]

^^^^yup,
I think in this thread there was 1 individual who stated their hunting area was so bad, they feel it should be 4 pt.
Not sure if on this thread or another, another member stated some species should stop being hunted for 3 years etc.
We both know that wont help a damn thing.
All it will do is defer the government from taking any sort of real action.
And Heyman is more than willing to limit more hunting, if not out right ban it!

So yes, the study is the best thing in a long time.
And we all need to push the government to take action to take results from this study and have a real action plan.
Still think the best way is to actually get some true hunters into politics so that someone with the authority will
actually take the time to address the issues. (Any takers???)