Up For Discussion: (Proposal) Apply 6 pt antler restriction to west Kootenay bow only

[HarryToolips]

Thanks Ron.
Yup, we know the dynamics of various regions, who submits for LEH, who submits the most, who hunts within their region of residence, and what weapons they utilize. There is a segment of the hunting community that submit LEH for everything and hunt what they get authorizations for. And, there is a segment of the hunting community that hunt on the BOS/GOS, primarily in their home region. These are all 'things' we should consider when looking at the requirement to accommodate people who want to hunt, seasons and regulation changes. FYI, again, in R4, 52% of hunters check the 'bowhunt' box when buying a licence. Whether they "identify" as a bowhunter or not, it is an indication they do view the BOS as a viable season to harvest an animal.

To be clear, as I've stated, most hunters, including myself, are less worried about weapons use than developing viable opportunity. I have never been about intruding on an existing season, or taking something away from one user group. But I'm getting real tired of the solution always being a compromised BOS. When we leave that elephant in the room, in the corner and what we should be talking about is rifle hunting in the rut. And look at what MOST jurisdictions do.

Government put restrictions on all manner of user. Loggers, mineral exploration, guides, hunters. If Government told the mineral exploration industry that they could only operate in the field with one arm behind their back. They would. Because they are passionate about that endeavour. Hunting regulation change, should align with wildlife stewardship plans and data analytics. And this is what drives me nuts. We are always less worried about creating opportunity than we are about developing a political stance to hold on to something. Hunters don't really support 'sound wildlife management', unless it favours them personally.

The response, that bowhunting limits who can hunt, is such an antiquated statement, it no longer has substance or value. I would suggest as a counter comment, rifle hunting in the rut, results in lost opportunity for all, as we look to reduce harvest to preserve, what? Wildlife? Or the "hunt"?

LEH in the WK for elk, is not the solution. But, addressing road kill of elk in the WK might ensure 'more' elk survive. Developing better winter habitat is something that needs to be addressed.

If we want to ensure viable elk populations and enjoy open opportunity, here is an observation to digest. Traveling this road, every day we observed road kill. This is a 40km stretch of highway 3 west of Cranbrook.

EK Road kills observed and counted from December 1st to February 28th
3 whitetail spikes
7 Whitetail bucks
19 Whitetail does
9 whitetail yearlings
5 Spike Elk
2 Bull Elk
14 Cow Elk ( most likely pregnant)
3 yearling cow Elk
2 mule deer buck
4 mule deer does
1 great horned owl
1 northern saw whet owl
5 muskrats
2 racoon
1 coyote
8 large unidentifiable

Well said..... you if I'm not mistaken have routine convo's and contact with regional Bios and people in power regarding wildlife.. is there a plan in place to address the wildlife highway mortality issue? Can hunters donate $ in some way towards mitigating these issues? As I stated before, what about ICBC? I'm sure they'd contribute, I don't believe they enjoy paying claims..

[J_T]

^^ Probably talk to 'them' (Government) too frequently.

I really do hope to create awareness within Government about the impacts of highway and railway mortality.
We (Collective we, BCWF, BHA, UBBC) are working to develop a sound, evidence-based, elk stewardship plan for R4. With recommendations, actions and an implementation plan.
We clearly identify highway and railway mortality as issues we would like to address. We are working on this now. It is SLOW working with Government. Takes patience.

Government will say, that managing hunter harvest is the 'easiest' way to manage elk.... And that, sets me off in a direction Government don't like to see.

We have a collaborative view of elk, elk stewardship, impacts around the health and population of elk.

As members of the regional wildlife advisory committee, we have, and will continue to, make recommendations to Government, to provide THE NECESSARY FUNDING, to address these issues.

We would like, to be able to source out partnership arrangements regarding activities and funding.

A long game, work in process.

[Greenthumbed]

Keep at it, Jim! All of us in Reg. 4 appreciate you and your efforts. It’s a huge hill to climb. I can’t help but feel we are fighting a losing battle.

[HarryToolips]

^^ Probably talk to 'them' (Government) too frequently.

I really do hope to create awareness within Government about the impacts of highway and railway mortality.
We (Collective we, BCWF, BHA, UBBC) are working to develop a sound, evidence-based, elk stewardship plan for R4. With recommendations, actions and an implementation plan.
We clearly identify highway and railway mortality as issues we would like to address. We are working on this now. It is SLOW working with Government. Takes patience.

Government will say, that managing hunter harvest is the 'easiest' way to manage elk.... And that, sets me off in a direction Government don't like to see.

We have a collaborative view of elk, elk stewardship, impacts around the health and population of elk.

As members of the regional wildlife advisory committee, we have, and will continue to, make recommendations to Government, to provide THE NECESSARY FUNDING, to address these issues.

We would like, to be able to source out partnership arrangements regarding activities and funding.

A long game, work in process.

Right on, great work... if at some point you want a hand with those partner arrangements for funding let us know.. I'm sure there's quite a few on this site even that would gladly help for the benefit of wildlife...