Will R5 ever have an end to the 10 Day Closure and Concerns about it.

[BlackOwL]

I know of guys who are concerned enough about muleys that they've stopped hunting them, and I can certainly agree that there are areas that dependably held deer that currently seem completely or substantially deer-free.

There are lots of possible causes.

- lots of logging, meaning lots more roads and lots more open areas where deer can be seen;
-lots of logging meaning substantial habitat alteration;
- more hunters;
- longer range equipment so people can shoot longer over more open clear cuts and kill more deer;
- more predators the take advantage of more open areas and roads;
- unlicensed hunters that, in prior years, had to get licenses or get nailed as poachers, but who can now hunt legally without a license (and all I'm saying is that hunter numbers aren't accurately counted);

We can add more *possible* explanations/questions to that list. The real question is: what's the answer and what's the solution?

The answer is more funding and more science. Without that we won't know, pure and simple.

SIMDeer did collar fawns but I haven't seen the survival rates yet. That's important because (iirc) we had high pregnancy rates and high doe survival. That *should* mean more deer unless the fawns don't make it to breeding doe age *or* unless predators (including 2 legged ones) are killing too many.

My understanding is that regs are changed at a regional level, and the changes are not necessarily in harmony with regional and provincial goals. That probably needs to change as well.

Bottom line: we have a lot of species in trouble and, based on the action we take, collectively as a province, we're totally fine with them going the way of the dodo. That needs to change.

Lets start by putting some action to tackle this,
We have more hunters but less enforcement. (and not only hunters but poachers as well need to be detected). Hence we need more CO's
more logging and loss of habitat but no interest from the Government to stop this attack in wildlife. A Scientific study must expose this to the public to put pressure in to the Government.
Open areas left by logging and cattle, leaving wildlife exposed in the open, this are two of the main issues we must deal with the MoE and the PM of BC.

In a past post, when I asked if we must put a cap in the acceptance of new hunters, I was blasted by a moron, and now the issue of hunters #'s is coming back to hunt us, (no pun intended) also the same moron blasted me for speaking against logging. is greed our major enemy and as hunters we should fight this.
The BCWF should document all this damage left by cattle and logging, video evidence with a scientific study will be My first choice.

[Livewire322]

Lets start by putting some action to tackle this,
We have more hunters but less enforcement. (and not only hunters but poachers as well need to be detected). Hence we need more CO's
more logging and loss of habitat but no interest from the Government to stop this attack in wildlife. A Scientific study must expose this to the public to put pressure in to the Government.
Open areas left by logging and cattle, leaving wildlife exposed in the open, this are two of the main issues we must deal with the MoE and the PM of BC.

In a past post, when I asked if we must put a cap in the acceptance of new hunters, I was blasted by a moron, and now the issue of hunters #'s is coming back to hunt us, (no pun intended) also the same moron blasted me for speaking against logging. is greed our major enemy and as hunters we should fight this.
The BCWF should document all this damage left by cattle and logging, video evidence with a scientific study will be My first choice.

We have a hard enough time engaging the powers that be with the numbers we have - restricting the number of hunters will only serve to handicap us further.
Fewer hunters will lead to fewer hunter dollars being funneled into management, even fewer COs, and a weakened voice when it comes to stopping anti-hunters.
Believe you me, there is no discussion on capping the number of people opposed to our hobby.

We should be having a serious conversation about the impact industry is having on habitat (from the perspective of how to balance economy and environment) and how to improve what habitat remains to promote the health of what herd remains.

[BlackOwL]

We have a hard enough time engaging the powers that be with the numbers we have - restricting the number of hunters will only serve to handicap us further.
Fewer hunters will lead to fewer hunter dollars being funneled into management, even fewer COs, and a weakened voice when it comes to stopping anti-hunters.
Believe you me, there is no discussion on capping the number of people opposed to our hobby.

We should be having a serious conversation about the impact industry is having on habitat (from the perspective of how to balance economy and environment) and how to improve what habitat remains to promote the health of what herd remains.

You just took a piece of my reply and didn't see the rest.

Cheers.

[Bugle M In]

Look, i will just summarize it this way.

Some regional manager decided to close an entire region, and either no one thought to think if adjoining R3 Mu's would suffer,
or if they did, that R5 manager didn't give a shit.
Its been 10 years since it closed, and it sounds to me like it didn't do all that much to make it better.
In other words, the issue (if there even was one and sounds like there wasn't) wasn't due to hunting.
But now, after 10 years, we do have an issue in some of these R3 MU's.
And now the R3 regional manager might have to deal with it somehow (if they don't get that clown in R5 to open it up).
Because I assure all of you, the R3 manager is probably getting lots of calls weekly from the local FN Bands to
"SHUT IT DOWN".

So, that ^^^^^^^^ is the big concern.

[Bugle M In]

As for the BIG BUCKS aspect.
This isn't about hillsides crawling with 200+ bucks in these MUs, or the lack off.
The truth is, there was from time to time, the odd 200+ buck taken over many years, which is what creates Legends about
some areas to hunt MD.
Example, the legendary Gang Ranch (get my drift).

Reality was, from time to time, you might spot a 180 class buck.
(and when i say spot, i mean maybe from 800 yards away thru spotting scope)
You felt like it was always possible that when you got up, it might happen, that you might get a trophy of a lifetime.

The Truth was, you could PASS UP 140 class bucks, because you knew if you hunted hard enough, long enough, and with
enough days in the pocket, you would find a 160 Classer.
(whether you got it or not, that's a whole different story!)

And the folks that hunted that area religiously, all knew that, all felt it.
So, you didn't see little 100 class or less 4pt bucks during a 4 point season hit the dirt.
But you do now!

And a 140 class buck is now a great day out!!!!

A healthy herd does not mean a hillside crawling with 200 class or even 180 class bucks.
But certainly 160 Class bucks should still be fairly normal.

You went out, and for every 10 deer you saw, 1 would be a buck.
1 in 4 of those bucks, would be a 4pt.
And of those 4 pts, 1 in 3 was a 160.
And you would see 40 deer or more a day it seemed.
The deer are still there, but lately there certainly has been a drop, might be lack of snow, might be fires or it is something else.
It will always have deer, and the day it doesn't, we then know we are in serious trouble!

[Bugle M In]

As for WHAT IS HAPPENING.

The FN, the Ranchers and long time Hunter, dont really know, thus the study is really important.
That study will have answers to questions i have been wondering about for the past 10 years, because i could not understand
how 4 out of 5 mature Doe could have 1 to 2 yearlings, group after group, year in and year out, and we weren't seeing an
increase in Populations.
So, either the habitat has really declined and cant hold more than it currently does, and historically it should hold more.
I am guessing no less than 15% more.
Instead, it looks like it is headed the other way, and its not just me saying this.

The only unfortunate thing about the SI MD Study, is that in the past and questions to what was happening with the Doe and
Fawn survival rates would have been all that was needed.
But, i now feel they should have collared some bucks.
I think there might be a need to figure out how old they are getting, and who is responsible for that if they aren't getting past
the age of 3, maybe 4.

The BIG ISSUE, will anything come from the study!!!!????????????????
Will or can anything be done??????
That part (will action happen) is scarier then actually the truth that comes from the study!!

[gcreek]

My group did a combination moose/mule deer hunt for one week every October in the same spot in Region 5 for probably 20 years in a row. We picked this spot more or less at random after many years going further north into Region 7. The first morning we drove up a logging road, came around the corner and saw seven deer, three of which were bucks. We had pretty good success every year...two or three deer and one or two moose every year between six or seven guys. Then one year, around 2015 I'd say, things changed drastically. Almost no deer or moose tracks but tons of wolf sign including vocals. Skunked that year and haven't been back (partly due to lack of enthusiasm by some of the group, I must admit...getting too old, I suppose). Anyway, a round about way to say that I believe, in our particular case, predation was the culprit.

And still, those who consider themselves “experts” will argue that wolves aren’t an issue.

[Livewire322]

You just took a piece of my reply and didn't see the rest.

Cheers.

So, you don’t think that we should explore a cap on new hunters?

We agree on the need for more enforcement, but the rest of your post was borderline incoherent with the exception of you calling somebody a moron for ‘blasting’ you because you suggested we should cap the number of new hunters.

Try learning to communicate in English - then come back and chirp me for focusing on a single point from your post.

[f350ps]

Hey great idea, cap the hunter numbers so we have less of a voice! Give yer head a shake! K

[Bugle M In]

NO, do not cap hunter #'s!!!!
My biggest point was to say we need to ensure hunters have enough room so as to not over crowd an area.
R5 was big area, an important area especially during the Nov10-20th, for many hunters, especially those form the LM.

If R5 wont open again, and some of these MU's continuously have high hunter traffic, then I suppose the only option
available is to remove the Any Buck from the season, BUT, just in those high traffic MU's that R5's closure effected, imo.

Judging by just how small the 4pt MD hunters are willing to harvest, they will more than make up for the any buck removal.
As stated by others, keeping small buck levels in check benefits the mature bucks.
If these MU's continue to see at least 3x as many hunters then 10 years ago, they will still harvest enough young deer.
That small 65 buck, he couldn't have been more than a year old.
He had the body, height and length of the yearlings I see.
His head (ears to nose length) was probably 30% smaller than my buck.
Honestly, I never have seen that before.... a buck that looked like he was a yearling, with a tiny little 4pt rack.
Most 2 pointers I see would have scored better than it.

So, don't cap hunters, that's the last thing we need.
Then cap what hunters can take.