southern interior mule deer strategy?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Everyone is ready for some changes, but lately it seems that we are just throwing darts at the board.
Seems like we have a good grasp on some of the factors like Habitat, Funding, Access, and Predators, but Hunting Pressure, and it's effects can sometimes be overlooked.
We as hunters are lead to believe Harvest Numbers are not a factor based on the overall game populations, yet we can't truly calculate our inventory?

Our Hunting Seasons may not show a increase in harvest numbers, but there are other factors such as the effect on the breeding periods, concentrating the game, ect.
It's unfortunate that there isn't a magic pill for all of these factors, and with the declining rates that our wildlife is experiencing, we need to back it off a little.
It can't hurt to give it a try we may all get a big surprise.
You don't have to be a biologist to see what's happening in the mountains where ever you go throughout B.C.

Ya it can't hurt to back off hunter harvest thru regulation change. That approach has worked so well over the past 40 years (sarcasm).

Sperm supply isn't affecting mule deer populations in our neck of the woods. That much we do know.

[Fisher-Dude]

Everyone is ready for some changes, but lately it seems that we are just throwing darts at the board.
Seems like we have a good grasp on some of the factors like Habitat, Funding, Access, and Predators, but Hunting Pressure, and it's effects can sometimes be overlooked.
We as hunters are lead to believe Harvest Numbers are not a factor based on the overall game populations, yet we can't truly calculate our inventory?

Our Hunting Seasons may not show a increase in harvest numbers, but there are other factors such as the effect on the breeding periods, concentrating the game, ect.
It's unfortunate that there isn't a magic pill for all of these factors, and with the declining rates that our wildlife is experiencing, we need to back it off a little.
It can't hurt to give it a try we may all get a big surprise.
You don't have to be a biologist to see what's happening in the mountains where ever you go throughout B.C.

You could put a bandaid on your forehead when you're having a heart attack, too.

You don't need to be a cardiologist to believe your chances of survival will go up.

I mean, it can't hurt, right?

[bownut]

This way of thinking has probably got us to where we are today, if you speak of cutting back any of our inflated seasons or slow down the management machine and take inventory, comments
like this arise.

The cutback approach isn't a new way of thinking in wildlife management, fisheries has done it for years. Steal head numbers are down.... no fishing.
Lakes have problems... cut back quotas. Hunters are asking why it isn't this has happened with game management on a broader scale?

Slow down ALL the cause and effect factors then take inventory, instead of blinded everyone with statements like Bandaid Tactics when we don't even have a handle
on the life supports system.

[338win mag]

You could put a bandaid on your forehead when you're having a heart attack, too.

You don't need to be a cardiologist to believe your chances of survival will go up.

I mean, it can't hurt, right?

You've never had a band aid on your forehead have you? oh wait, I bet you have.

[GoatGuy]

Everyone is ready for some changes, but lately it seems that we are just throwing darts at the board.
Seems like we have a good grasp on some of the factors like Habitat, Funding, Access, and Predators, but Hunting Pressure, and it's effects can sometimes be overlooked.
We as hunters are lead to believe Harvest Numbers are not a factor based on the overall game populations, yet we can't truly calculate our inventory?

Our Hunting Seasons may not show a increase in harvest numbers, but there are other factors such as the effect on the breeding periods, concentrating the game, ect.
It's unfortunate that there isn't a magic pill for all of these factors, and with the declining rates that our wildlife is experiencing, we need to back it off a little.
It can't hurt to give it a try we may all get a big surprise.
You don't have to be a biologist to see what's happening in the mountains where ever you go throughout B.C.

What I read out of this is that the concern isn't with science, it's with hunting regulations.

When you present skepticism, or a view opposing science, there should have something to substantiate the claim. Evidence, empirical data, or something to support why what your presenting has some merit. Anecdotal quips, beliefs, and rhetoric are not evidence.

From a scientific perspective it makes no sense to do something that the weight of evidence, and the science tells us, will not impact the outcome.

[Walksalot]

Increased access, loss of cover, subdivisions on winter range, year round hunting, wtf do you think will happen. I have not hunted mule deer for many, many years. Simply, from what I see the numbers are to low. Where I used to see high numbers the numbers are sad to say the least. If we as hunters see the numbers are alarmingly down why are we hunting them?

[bearvalley]

Anecdotal quips, beliefs, and rhetoric are not evidence.

From a scientific perspective it makes no sense to do something that the weight of evidence, and the science tells us, will not impact the outcome.

I would think anecdotal evidence presented by someone with boots on the ground and having solid knowledge of a subject packs as much weight as some of the biased science being pushed to us.

[Dannybuoy]

What I read out of this is that the concern isn't with science, it's with hunting regulations.

When you present skepticism, or a view opposing science, there should have something to substantiate the claim. Evidence, empirical data, or something to support why what your presenting has some merit. Anecdotal quips, beliefs, and rhetoric are not evidence.

From a scientific perspective it makes no sense to do something that the weight of evidence, and the science tells us, will not impact the outcome.

It would seem to me that there is more than one way to interpret the evidence , anecdotal quips, beliefs, have proven themselves to be true more often than not !
I guess we can only hope that the government gives as much weight to evidence from those in the real world (trappers , hunters etc) as is given to biologists and desk jockeys .

[GoatGuy]

This way of thinking has probably got us to where we are today, if you speak of cutting back any of our inflated seasons or slow down the management machine and take inventory, comments
like this arise.

What has got us here today is hunters short-term, anti-science approach to wildlife. There is a belief ingrained in some hunters that hunting regulations will fix the problem, and as a result we don't need to deal with the big picture issues. Personally, I think that approach has been an abysmal failure.

After going through the science, and how they manage in other jurisdictions, your focus is still on beliefs, not on evidence. You are not presenting arguments that support what you are claiming. There is no substantiation in your posts, just rhetoric.

The cutback approach isn't a new way of thinking in wildlife management, fisheries has done it for years. Steal head numbers are down.... no fishing.
Lakes have problems... cut back quotas. Hunters are asking why it isn't this has happened with game management on a broader scale?

This isn't an 'approach'. Pulling management levers in isolation of science will get you in a train wreck.

That is like self-treating a potentially deadly, or terminal illness. There are people who do that, but the results usually aren't very good.

Steelhead numbers are two systems are down; they are at record lows - that part is correct. Fishing has been catch and release since the 90s, now closed, and the populations continue to decline. That is because angling is not the problem. The anglers of the era spent 30 years watching a resource decline and all they could talk about was the fishing regulations and 'quality fishing' opportunities. Instead of focusing on what was limiting the steelhead population, they focused on limiting the anglers. The result is two world renowned fisheries which have gone from 3000+ fish each to 600 fish total, both of which are now operating in the extreme conservation concern zone and both which may be listed under the Species At Risk Act in the future.

The reason the anglers did this is because they didn't 'believe science' and they were caught in the regulation hangover. The science told them angling wasn't the issue, but instead of trying to increase the resource and grabbing a hold of science, they decided fishing regulations would change the outcome.

The irony of it is the 'old guard' is still talking about quality fishing opportunities in the Thompson when there's 450 fish. They still don't want to talk about recovery, or the use of science to turn things around. As a 'newer' kid on the block I find it astounding that the people who denied the science, and watched a run go from 3000+ fish to 450 are still willfully ignorant to science and recovery. You can't teach an old dog new tricks is applicable.

The issue is we have other species in decline.

Caribou have continued to slide down south despite being closed to hunting for over 20 years.

We have goat, and sheep populations which are un-hunted, or extremely lightly hunted, and are in decline........ what are we going to do, change the hunting regulations for populations we don't hunt?

What is your plan for failing caribou, sheep, goat, moose, elk, mule deer populations, which are hunted very lightly or not hunted at all but are still in decline?

This isn't about 'cut back quotas', it's about science. When a resource is in decline, you have to know and understand why to turn it around. You have to understand the population drivers to be successful.

Slow down ALL the cause and effect factors then take inventory, instead of blinded everyone with statements like Bandaid Tactics when we don't even have a handle
on the life supports system.

I think what you are writing really brings the issues into focus. This isn't about science, never was; it's about beliefs. Personally, I don't think that beliefs are going to fix the wildlife problem.

This has been helpful.

We have a long history of changing hunting regulations - that's basically all we have ever done.

Two questions.

One question: From your perspective, how successful has wildlife management been in the last 40 years?

Second question: Why?

[GoatGuy]

I would think anecdotal evidence presented by someone with boots on the ground and having solid knowledge of a subject packs as much weight as some of the biased science being pushed to us.

It depends on the person, and the trouble is people are not consistent. Have had people jump up and down that the sky is falling on moose populations - go out, find $50K, fly the entire area and find out we have twice as many moose as we had 10 years prior.

Under a properly funded model, where consistent inventory and citizen science is integral to the model, the 'arguments' about abundance disappear.

The challenge appears to be keeping the car out of the ditch on the way.