southern interior mule deer strategy?

[Fisher-Dude]

Hey great data but much of it is like comparing apples and oranges, 30 year data needs to have many factors applied to keep it consistent with the times.
In the past hunters did not have access to google earth, g.p.s, trail cameras, atv's, the internet, rec. road access, and many of todays resources that are readily available.
Again great data, but apples and oranges.

And once again as technology evolves, so must management's way of thinking.

If that were true, days per kill would decrease as hunters become these ultra-super killing machines with the latest electronic gadgets in their pockets.

Days per kill has in fact increased across the board since the pre-gadget era.

Your assertion is 100%, irrefutably, wrong.

[Seeker]

Hey great data but much of it is like comparing apples and oranges, 30 year data needs to have many factors applied to keep it consistent with the times.
In the past hunters did not have access to google earth, g.p.s, trail cameras, atv's, the internet, rec. road access, and many of todays resources that are readily available.
Again great data, but apples and oranges.

And once again as technology evolves, so must management's way of thinking.

From what I read, that is exactly what GG is trying to say. Management needs to evolve. Regulation changes have been the management of the past leading us to our present problems. We need a change, not more of the same.

Another concern that I have with reducing hunter opportunity is the potential for a decrease in the overall value for wildlife. Each and every one of us on this site is a hunter. We have grown to care about these animals BECAUSE we are hunters. Take away or reduce the opportunity and gradually we lose future conservationists and people such as ourselves that care. At that point it becomes easier and easier for politicians to justify reducing funds and resources for wildlife. We need representation (hunter numers) to be heard and to make a difference. Providing opportunity that is scientifically proven to be non-detrimental to populations, nutures new hunters and conservationists.

[Fisher-Dude]

From what I read, that is exactly what GG is trying to say. Management needs to evolve. Regulation changes have been the management of the past leading us to our present problems. We need a change, not more of the same.

Another concern that I have with reducing hunter opportunity is the potential for a decrease in the overall value for wildlife. Each and every one of us on this site is a hunter. We have grown to care about these animals BECAUSE we are hunters. Take away or reduce the opportunity and gradually we lose future conservationists and people such as ourselves that care. At that point it becomes easier and easier for politicians to justify reducing funds and resources for wildlife. We need representation (hunter numers) to be heard and to make a difference. Providing opportunity that is scientifically proven to be non-detrimental to populations, nutures new hunters and conservationists.

You get it.

Government didn't even know who we were, or care, just a short time ago.

I recall a speech by Bill Bennett about 5 or 6 years ago where he stood in the BC Leg and spoke about "The importance of hunting in BC." His audience of city slicker MLAs didn't have a clue. But thanks to guys like Al Martin and Jesse Zeman, every MLA in BC has been made aware of fish, wildlife, and habitat issues, and knows who the BCWF is.

Also, every MLA has been schooled about the economic contribution of hunting in BC.

It's up to us to let them know how important it is to all of us.

[HarryToolips]

Very well said GoatGuy, Seeker, and Fisher-dude...

[bownut]

This^^^
Reading this, I started to think back what was so different from when I really started to hunt until now.
And my father who hunted a good 20-25years before me.

From his perspective,(thru my observations of him), is he is amazed at how many roads have been created, with so much
new access, and logging, and the sizes o these cuts, really blow his mind compared to the "good ol' days", so many
refer to.
Even I am amazed in how tings have changed in my time period.
Both of us can't believe all the areas that wolves now roam........hard to believe.
And, lets not forget some of the other top Preds in that.
Way, way more sightings, then anytime in the past.
Also, the type of vehicles many hunt with now, are way more capable of hitting back country,
and with supplies to stay up there for a week or more.
And that is just from the perspective of 2 guys in the woods.
Other factors which aren't easily seen also exist.

Nothing new in this, but just wanted to show some of the younger guys what has changed.
And that's just skimming the surface of the issues at hand.

But a new "Model" is greatly evident now....agreed.

So its not just me then, we can't compare hunting as it was and management has to think what the future holds and have a more conservative approach with their decisions.

[boxhitch]

management has to think what the future holds and have a more conservative approach with their decisions

So what does the future hold that is troubling you? And then what approach should be more conservative? What could possibly change to make hunting more sustainable?

[bownut]

Wildlife cares about what is shot - not if a hunter has a quad, gps, or a laptop and internet subscription.

What is 'consistent' over time is how many moose were shot. That can often tell us the trajectory of wildlife populations particularly when we include it with wildlife inventory.

Between Regions 5,6,7a, and 7b resident hunters used to shoot over 12,000 moose without all the technology you listed - now they shoot 4,000. Where there used to be cow/calf GOS and LEH, there is only bull harvest. Where there was GOS bulls there is mostly LEH.

In around 30 years the harvest was reduced by 66%. Google earth, gps, trail cameras, internet, atv, road access do not matter to moose that are shot, bullets do.

In Region 4 the mule deer season used to go to November 30th - ANY BUCK, they had a pile of doe harvest through LEH. Now they have a 2 month long 4 pt season that closes Nov 10. The harvest has gone from 4500 mule deer to 500 and people are still complaining about no mule deer. After 20 years of no antlerless harvest the population still hasn't bounced back. Mule deer should take 3-7 years for recovery; it's been 20 and people still want to have more restrictive seasons.


That is not apples and oranges.



What you have said is we have liberal seasons, skyrocketing hunter numbers and inferred we have massive over-harvest. What the data shows is we have more restrictive seasons, hunter numbers have increased in the last 10 years and harvest to mid 1990s levels, and the most important measure that doesn't change KILLS is in decline.

Dead animals are apples and apples.

The apple tree needs to be replaced.

That Skyrocketing quote is not mine for starters and you know very well where I read that.

So what your saying is that if there is no deer it is still ok th to take out what is left because it won't have any effect?
If the mule deer numbers are down you feel that we need to take down the White tails to match it.
How about dealing with the major drivers that effect the Mule deer instead of going after the W/T.

How about looking at region 8,

What percentage of the provinces hunters hunt region 8?
How long are our seasons?
What is the regional bag limit?
What is the provincial bag limit?
Are we noticing a steady increase in harvest or decline?
Based on our out of date counting process do you honestly eel that we are sustaining our deer population?

[bownut]

Wildlife cares about what is shot - not if a hunter has a quad, gps, or a laptop and internet subscription.

What is 'consistent' over time is how many moose were shot. That can often tell us the trajectory of wildlife populations particularly when we include it with wildlife inventory.

Between Regions 5,6,7a, and 7b resident hunters used to shoot over 12,000 moose without all the technology you listed - now they shoot 4,000. Where there used to be cow/calf GOS and LEH, there is only bull harvest. Where there was GOS bulls there is mostly LEH.

In around 30 years the harvest was reduced by 66%. Google earth, gps, trail cameras, internet, atv, road access do not matter to moose that are shot, bullets do.

In Region 4 the mule deer season used to go to November 30th - ANY BUCK, they had a pile of doe harvest through LEH. Now they have a 2 month long 4 pt season that closes Nov 10. The harvest has gone from 4500 mule deer to 500 and people are still complaining about no mule deer. After 20 years of no antlerless harvest the population still hasn't bounced back. Mule deer should take 3-7 years for recovery; it's been 20 and people still want to have more restrictive seasons.


That is not apples and oranges.





What you have said is we have liberal seasons, skyrocketing hunter numbers and inferred we have massive over-harvest. What the data shows is we have more restrictive seasons, hunter numbers have increased in the last 10 years and harvest to mid 1990s levels, and the most important measure that doesn't change KILLS is in decline.

Dead animals are apples and apples.

The apple tree needs to be replaced.

Hold on did you not say in past pages that Dead On Ground data was not that important when I asked you about the Hunter Questionnaire process?
Hunter distribution was more important?

[bownut]

If that were true, days per kill would decrease as hunters become these ultra-super killing machines with the latest electronic gadgets in their pockets.

Days per kill has in fact increased across the board since the pre-gadget era.

Your assertion is 100%, irrefutably, wrong.

Could that be because there is nothing to kill?

Maybe that should be a warning bell?

When the average hunter can go and place trail cameras all through his hunting area and have his phone ding when something is passing bye.
Head in on a trail way into a area with his ATV and set up on his selected animal and wait.
That is about as probably the most effective way to scout a area, wouldn't you say?
Yes the game may change their patterns and spoil their success, but that a hell of allot more efficient than my way of hunting.

I have heard the statement that a hunter needs to hunt harder because the game is smarter and all sorts other reasons.
End Result= more days less harvest.

Their was a group in the Okanagan that were set up in the sloughs taking months worth of photos of moose. Looking for immatures.
Opening week they shot three in the group and others were pissed claiming that they shot their moose. That group had cameras set
up also and apparently had claim to them.

Fast forward two years later all involved got skunked.

Starting to get the picture?

[Ourea]

Could that be because there is nothing to kill?

Maybe that should be a warning bell?

When the average hunter can go and place trail cameras all through his hunting area and have his phone ding when something is passing bye.
Head in on a trail way into a area with his ATV and set up on his selected animal and wait.
That is about as probably the most effective way to scout a area, wouldn't you say?
Yes the game may change their patterns and spoil their success, but that a hell of allot more efficient than my way of hunting.

I have heard the statement that a hunter needs to hunt harder because the game is smarter and all sorts other reasons.
End Result= more days less harvest.

Their was a group in the Okanagan that were set up in the sloughs taking months worth of photos of moose. Looking for immatures.
Opening week they shot three in the group and others were pissed claiming that they shot their moose. That group had cameras set
up also and apparently had claim to them.

Fast forward two years later all involved got skunked.

Starting to get the picture?

Bownut......I struggle trying to digest some of your comments let alone the logic.
Furthermore, your obsession on the crumbs rather than the cake is head scratching.

Understand this.....IF THE MAJORITY OF ALL HUNTING (REGULATED) WERE TO BE SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY IT WOULD HAVE VERY LITTLE EFFECT, IF ANY, ON WILDLFE HEALTH AND NUMBERS GOING FORWARD.

I am an obsessive trophy hunter (I love big shit and will chew down every ounce of meat with pride and respect for the animal I killed and why)

It never gets in the way of my greater understanding of what the challenges are facing the future of wildlife.

Why and how I hunt does not interfere with that reality.
Regulation could give me more opportunity on age, not numbers.