bowhunting/BCWF

[GoatGuy]

We first received a report on moose, to which the committee agreed to manage based on science, second we listened to the latest on elk, to which the committee asked of the biologist, "what would you recommend?".

I've saw the report quite a while ago. Exactly my point - you should have an immature bull moose season right now - should have happened a couple years ago infact. This isn't happening because 'stakeholders' don't support it, politics and other garbage that has hindered biologists ability to properly manage wildlife. They won't support it for next year either, which is complete and total crap.

I'm sure, however, they (stakeholders) will support an increase in the AAH and that is not a solution that supports recruitment and retention - nor does it support maximum yield. If you look at regions 4 and 8 we aren't even harvesting any of the female component and you can bet the biologists would be if we weren't dealing with these groups.

They ask, "what would you recommend?" That's like having a doctor ask you what you want to do with your disease. The biologists need to present a couple of hard-hitting recommendations that firstly support conservation and secondly maximize recruitment and retention. These proposals need teeth and the biologists need to have the ability to act as an autonomous agent - the word advisory should be only that.

I believe we were all in agreement that we have been managing elk incorrectly. That management of 6 pt only becomes hard on your older bulls and doesn't do much to manage cows etc.

LEH doesn't do much to manage recruitment and retention or the elk population nor does the junior/senior/bow season - you have to actually harvest elk. That will be the tool that is used though, I'm sure.

We learned there are approximately 14,000 elk in the trench, not 30,000. that the estimates range from:
40 bulls per 100 cows in some areas and 84 bulls per 100 cows in others,
29 calves per 100 cows in some areas and 66 per 100 in others.

That of 100 bulls, 32 are spikes, 54 are raghorns and 14 are mature bulls (5 and 6 pt).

With those sorts of numbers we agreed we should be hunting more of the population. Not just 6 pt bulls.

I hope 6616's post straightened things out. I think the bull:cow ratios you citing are for moose btw.

For elk, 14,000 is nowhere close to your pop estimate. The blocks that those numbers come from make up a fraction of the EK. The only reason you didn't get hard numbers on total population is because of the old models and flights that were conducted weren't done very well - this is also a recurring problem across the province. Besides that, just the elk in the trench puts you over MSY for the entire EK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This should have been opened right up in 2003. Now you're going to have to bring things down slowly due to predators and keep your fingers crossed you don't have a severe winter. And I can guarantee with the process we now have the solutions will be nowhere in line with what should happen.

We also have an increased responsibility in the low front country ranching area.

We also have a responsibility to provide the diverse cross section of hunters with an opportunity. That means the senior, the junior, the trophy hunter, the guy that wants to quad, the guy that wants to hike into the back basin and the bowhunter.

And I believe the recommendations put forth provide a sound elk management and hunting opportunity plan of the full cross section of the elk, and provide an opportunity for all hunters. And I believe the intent will support Governments overall objectives, managing ranching conflict, recruitment/retention etc.

We're going to be 7 years late before we get the kind of change we should have been doing only exacerbating the ups and downs that we're apparently supposed to be trying to smooth up.

You manage opportunity for the hunter population. There have always been and always will be miles, and miles, and miles of area for the trophy hunter and those who want to get off the roads in the EK to the point that resident hunters don't shoot any of their allocation particularly when it comes to goats and there's no one in the bush.

It's bizarre that the word 'quality opportunity' comes up all the time and managing distinct hunter groups when trophy hunters make up 2% of the population. Not to mention you don't see another boot track in the high country of region 8 or 4. Hell we haven't seen another hunter in the bush in Region 4 even in the rut in November - it's absolutely unbelievable. Don't even see anybody when sheep hunting. We shouldn't be subsidizing one opportunity at the expense of another, particularly when those who want quality opportunities aren't using the ones they have.

Don't feel like I'm picking on you, this is a provincial issue.

[Fisher-Dude]

It's bizarre that the word 'quality opportunity' comes up all the time and managing distinct hunter groups when trophy hunters make up 2% of the population. Not to mention you don't see another boot track in the high country of region 8 or 4. Hell we haven't seen another hunter in the bush in Region 4 even in the rut in November - it's absolutely unbelievable. Don't even see anybody when sheep hunting. We shouldn't be subsidizing one opportunity at the expense of another, particularly when those who want quality opportunities aren't using the ones they have.

Don't feel like I'm picking on you, this is a provincial issue.

I had 9 days last fall with the WHOLE top end of a huge valley to myself in the EK. Sat and BSed with a mountain biker one day, but saw NO other hunters up there.

On the last day, a beautiful blonde rode up to my stand on a horse - I thought I was halucinating, or maybe I died and went to heaven, 'til her husband and kids came around the corner!

It will take wholesale season changes to get hunters back out in the bush. Too bad all we can do is get crumbs tossed to us by game managers who are reacting to (perceived) opposition from hunting groups/Guides/FNs to more opportunity.

[J_T]

Be careful not to take this out of context, 30,000 was spoken of as an overall East Kootenay elk population, not the Trench population. Did anyone at the meeting ask Tara how 14,000 elk in the Trench equates to the overall East Kootenay population because the Trench estimate is "not" the entire East Kootenay elk population. 14,000 elk in the Trench probably "does" equate to 30,000 or more elk overall in the East Kootenay.

In part you are correct. I should have said, "study area" which is the lowland, from Radium to the US border, and includes parts of some major drainages. (Kootenay, St Mary's, Wigwam)

I did ask how it translates to overall populations. She said she had no idea. Asked if she would take a guess. Nope. She did say, 30,000 is not her number. Perhaps this isn't the right place Andy, but she also indicated she found no evidence to support Forbes estimates. Even the Raedeke report. She has no idea how they came up with those numbers. (and she discussed that in more detail) Currently she does feel we have more elk and I think that is the important observation.

I remember back when Forbes was coming up with those estimates. Some politicing media spin (not science) went on there I'm sure. I used to ride with him in those days.

I think the bull:cow ratios you citing are for moose btw.

Correct, my apologies, the bull to cow ratio for the elk inventory was 29:100 and the calf to cow ratio is estimated at 28:100 Of 100 bulls, 32 spikes, 54 raghorns, 14 mature (5pt and up) is correct.

For elk, 14,000 is nowhere close to your pop estimate. The blocks that those numbers come from make up a fraction of the EK. The only reason you didn't get hard numbers on total population is because of the old models and flights that were conducted weren't done very well - this is also a recurring problem across the province.

Agree, I did say trench population and I should have said, "study area". But Tara did say to keep in mind, this elk inventory was carried out at a time when elk will be in the bottom/winter range areas. For those areas/drainages, there likely were not many elk remaining above the study area.

Exactly my point - you should have an immature bull moose season right now - should have happened a couple years ago infact.

I shouldn't! "We" should. There is no I in this. It's not about me. (my attempt at humour) But you're right. We should, the timing is perfect.

[Mr. Dean]

now that this thread has gone completely away from ...should the BCWF incorporate a bowhunting sub commitee...

I would really like to see this so called Data saying that mixed weapons dont work ... As I have Harvested many animals with my bow in general open season. Many places there is a rifle season for one specis while other specis is still bow only in AB ... south of Grand Praire come imeddiatly to mind when moose is open for rifle and Mule deer is still in bow only

Rams has a point re: cutblocks and road hunting ... however its real tough to do that with a bow even during bow only season ...

I know of one person that I'd deem "hard core", when it comes to bow hunting. Every year, he and one other go out a take Elk and Whitetail in the GOS, using compounds.

He's a damn good hunter...

[6616]

Thanx very much 6616. And as you know the bow opportunity would be new opportunity and not affect existing seasons.
Once again thank you.
The BCWF has nothing in writing saying it won't or can't support special weapon seasons.

That is correct as far as I know.....at least if it has I cannotfind it.

[6616]

[quote=J_T;276951 this elk inventory was carried out at a time when elk will be in the bottom/winter range areas. For those areas/drainages, there likely were not many elk remaining above the study area. [/quote]

So Jim, you are almost saying that the current elk population is less than the overall estimate for 1997 (16,500).....??

Not many elk remaining above the study area, maybe,,,,, but what about the winter range areas outside the study area, what about the 6000 elk in the Columbia north of Radium, what about the 5000 to 7000 elk in the Elk Valley, what about the elk in the Upper Ram Creek and the Flathead, the Findlay Basin, the Upper Kootenay north of the White River confluence (where the study area ended). Lots of elk wintering along the Kootenay in the Park, even north of the Park in Boyce Meadows. Naturally Tara is not going to state an overall estimate because it would trigger massive reactions from the ranching community. If the elk in the study area are even half of the total of elk in the EK I'd be very surprized and this is based distribution determined in previous survey results, not gut instinct.

My personal guess on a different thread was 28,000, now I admit I was probably wrong, the actual population is probably higher that that.

Keep in mind that all previous comprehensive surveys were always taken at the exact same time of the season, the one and only time of year elk can be successfully surveyed, and found that about 40 to 45 % of the total elk herd winters in the Trench (current studt area). The 1992 and 1997 were comprehensive surveys, not just Bob Forbes' best guess, those surveys were in fact more comprehensive that the survey just taken.

[GoatGuy]

Agree, I did say trench population and I should have said, "study area". But Tara did say to keep in mind, this elk inventory was carried out at a time when elk will be in the bottom/winter range areas. For those areas/drainages, there likely were not many elk remaining above the study area.

That's not quite accurate - I've got a couple buddies who were either flying or spotting. There's a pile of elk on high alt winter range as well as well as up above sheep in a couple spots - more than either have even seen. They've both been involved since the early 80s. You'll notice the census does not include the elk valley and nothing north of Invermere. There's a lot of habitat missing here and a lot of winter range that was left out.

I think it's safe to say elk are over their social tolerance and that if a number was put out we'd all be in big trouble.

I shouldn't! "We" should. There is no I in this. It's not about me. (my attempt at humour) But you're right. We should, the timing is perfect.

rodg.

[J_T]

So Jim, you are almost saying that the current elk population is less than the overall estimate for 1997 (16,500).....??

No not at all Andy, I'm merely stating what she told us. I agree, there is a lot of EK that was not flown for the inventory. There are a lot of elk. And, concurring with your information on previous (1992 and 97) inventories there are logically more elk now than then. I think most hunter's personal observations support that as well.

That's not quite accurate - I've got a couple buddies who were either flying or spotting. There's a pile of elk on high alt winter range as well as well as up above sheep in a couple spots - more than either have even seen. They've both been involved since the early 80s. You'll notice the census does not include the elk valley and nothing north of Invermere.

Merely stating the facts as to the 08 inventory and Tara's comments. As said above, I agree there are many areas that inventory was not taken. And yes, I agree the bottom line, is that there are likely more elk than the ranching community want, and perhaps as many elk as the land can carry. We need to hunt.

rodg

Sorry?

[Onesock]

GG Just a couple of buddies that are flying. How many? How many elk are a "pile". These are questions you ask when someone makes a statement without exact figures. Sometimes a person has to rely on experience.

[GoatGuy]

Sorry?

rodger - understood.