southern interior mule deer strategy?

[GoatGuy]

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?

That's true. It's what is left standing after hunting season that is important. That is what deer/moose/elk care about - that is what is important for the health of wildlife populations where we talk about hunting as a function of wildlife management.

The challenge is that your focus is entirely on hunting seasons and what gets shot so I tried to please you by testing your theories. It's not rational but I did it to see if what you says holds water.

You said hunter numbers are "skyrocketing" - they aren't.

You said the hunting seasons were too liberal - they are generally the most restrictive BC has had.

You went on about breeding seasons. You implied that the problem was BC's buck/bull only hunting seasons. Our objectives are generally more conservation than the jurisdictions we share deer with. The science which has been conducted in BC, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Alberta all says we are managing our sex ratios conservatively. The researchers say the same thing.

You said the harvest was going through the roof/unsustainable - it's actually in decline across most (not all) of the province and has been for decades.

So what you've said in your posts are not supported by fact, science, evidence, or research. What the researchers, caribou, mule deer, elk, moose experts say is the opposite of what you say. What you've said and continued to say is not supported by the evidence we have.

Your focus is singular - it's on hunting regulations, nothing else and the facts simply do not support your assertions.

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Based on our out of date counting process do you honestly eel that we are sustaining our deer population?

The issue of declining fish and wildlife abundance and management is provincial. It is not about your backyard or anyone else's for that matter - it's about dealing with the provincial problems of fish and wildlife. Asking rhetorical questions, that aren't supported by data won't solve that, neither will changing the hunting regulations or fishing regulations.

That's been tried and tried and tried and it continues to fail.

You used an analogy that changing quotas in fisheries would solve the problems. Interestingly, again, the data does not support your assertion. There hasn't been a catch and kill fishery on the Thompson River for decades and the population is now in the extreme conservation concern zone. There are around 450 fish in a fishery that historically had over 3,000. Meanwhile, the anglers, even now that the population has gone into the extreme conservation concern zone, are still talking about fishing and are finding it nearly impossible to talk about recovery. The Chilko River Steelhead run used to have over 3,000 as well - last year they figured there were 140. So, no, just changing the fishing regulations doesn't work. The evidence says that angling is not the problem. The resource continues to disappear while angling is closed - so what is the plan now? If you were the resource manager what would you do?

Caribou hunting has been closed in most of central/southern BC for over 20 years - they are ready to be listed as an ENDANGERED SPECIES. COSEWIC actually recommended it last year. So what is your plan now? What was your plan and what did you do after caribou hunting was closed? Did you talk about hunting regulations after the season was closed?

Region 5 Moose went from a GOS with cow/calf harvest and 3,000 moose harvested per year down to LEH only and 600 moose shot per year. The sex ratios in many of those areas are 50 bulls:100 cows, some of the highest they've had in those spots and the population continues to decline.

So, what is your plan? Continue to talk about and change the hunting regulations until the resource dips so low that we have to close the hunting season? I'm looking around and seeing a resource in decline, solutions that never worked in the past, and people still trying to make them work. It is the definition of insanity.

Hunters say they want science to guide wildlife management. They don't like hearing from Raincoast and the Suzuki foundation because those organizations don't use science. That is ironic - the singular focus on hunting regulations in the complete absence of science is the exactly same thing as those organizations do. That approach is the same as the anti-hunting groups.


The choice now is to continue to do what hasn't worked in the past and continue to watch it decline; the alternative is to fix it.

It is clear to me that what we've done over the last 40 years has not worked for fish or wildlife.

However, we obviously don't see the world through the same lens. Despite every piece of evidence we have from trends in natural resource management, to hunter numbers, to harvest, to sex ratios, to researchers, scientists and managers that continues to tell you that hunting regulations has not and will not fix the issues of declining abundance, you want to argue that it's all about hunting seasons.

Despite every piece of evidence we have from science, and every piece of history that shows the opposite of what you're claiming, you still want to talk about hunting seasons.


I have one question in my mind: How do we increase fish and wildlife populations? That is all I think about. I don't sit around complaining with my friends, talk about adjusting the hunting season by three days, talk about days gone by, how bad of a job the regional manager is doing, whether it should be a 6 or 8.5 point season, operating in isolation from science, I don't think about kids who shot a deer, I don't think about changing the regulations, crying in my coffee, or talk about LEH hunts. We have conservative objectives for our hunting seasons - if our sex ratios get below our objectives then you simply change the hunting regulations - that is EASY, just do it. That will not increase fish and wildlife populations.


I think about the past, what we've done, what hasn't worked, what other jurisdictions do, and what we need to do to fix it. I contact the experts and ask them how we would go about fixing it, what drives wildlife populations, what we need to change to increase the resource. That is the point of the deer thread - to show people what the jurisdictions which we share deer with are doing. Those plans are clear what needs to be done to increase the resource.

Once you have recovery/increasing fish and wildlife in your mind the path forward becomes crystal clear.

[bownut]

That's true. It's what is left standing after hunting season that is important. That is what deer/moose/elk care about - that is what is important for the health of wildlife populations where we talk about hunting as a function of wildlife management.

The challenge is that your focus is entirely on hunting seasons and what gets shot so I tried to please you by testing your theories. It's not rational but I did it to see if what you says holds water.

You said hunter numbers are "skyrocketing" - they aren't.

You said the hunting seasons were too liberal - they are generally the most restrictive BC has had.

You went on about breeding seasons. You implied that the problem was BC's buck/bull only hunting seasons. Our objectives are generally more conservation than the jurisdictions we share deer with. The science which has been conducted in BC, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Alberta all says we are managing our sex ratios conservatively. The researchers say the same thing.

You said the harvest was going through the roof/unsustainable - it's actually in decline across most (not all) of the province and has been for decades.

So what you've said in your posts are not supported by fact, science, evidence, or research. What the researchers, caribou, mule deer, elk, moose experts say is the opposite of what you say. What you've said and continued to say is not supported by the evidence we have.

Your focus is singular - it's on hunting regulations, nothing else and the facts simply do not support your assertions.



The issue of declining fish and wildlife abundance and management is provincial. It is not about your backyard or anyone else's for that matter - it's about dealing with the provincial problems of fish and wildlife. Asking rhetorical questions, that aren't supported by data won't solve that, neither will changing the hunting regulations or fishing regulations.

That's been tried and tried and tried and it continues to fail.

You used an analogy that changing quotas in fisheries would solve the problems. Interestingly, again, the data does not support your assertion. There hasn't been a catch and kill fishery on the Thompson River for decades and the population is now in the extreme conservation concern zone. There are around 450 fish in a fishery that historically had over 3,000. Meanwhile, the anglers, even now that the population has gone into the extreme conservation concern zone, are still talking about fishing and are finding it nearly impossible to talk about recovery. The Chilko River Steelhead run used to have over 3,000 as well - last year they figured there were 140. So, no, just changing the fishing regulations doesn't work. The evidence says that angling is not the problem. The resource continues to disappear while angling is closed - so what is the plan now? If you were the resource manager what would you do?

Caribou hunting has been closed in most of central/southern BC for over 20 years - they are ready to be listed as an ENDANGERED SPECIES. COSEWIC actually recommended it last year. So what is your plan now? What was your plan and what did you do after caribou hunting was closed? Did you talk about hunting regulations after the season was closed?

Region 5 Moose went from a GOS with cow/calf harvest and 3,000 moose harvested per year down to LEH only and 600 moose shot per year. The sex ratios in many of those areas are 50 bulls:100 cows, some of the highest they've had in those spots and the population continues to decline.

So, what is your plan? Continue to talk about and change the hunting regulations until the resource dips so low that we have to close the hunting season? I'm looking around and seeing a resource in decline, solutions that never worked in the past, and people still trying to make them work. It is the definition of insanity.

Hunters say they want science to guide wildlife management. They don't like hearing from Raincoast and the Suzuki foundation because those organizations don't use science. That is ironic - the singular focus on hunting regulations in the complete absence of science is the exactly same thing as those organizations do. That approach is the same as the anti-hunting groups.


The choice now is to continue to do what hasn't worked in the past and continue to watch it decline; the alternative is to fix it.

It is clear to me that what we've done over the last 40 years has not worked for fish or wildlife.

However, we obviously don't see the world through the same lens. Despite every piece of evidence we have from trends in natural resource management, to hunter numbers, to harvest, to sex ratios, to researchers, scientists and managers that continues to tell you that hunting regulations has not and will not fix the issues of declining abundance, you want to argue that it's all about hunting seasons.

Despite every piece of evidence we have from science, and every piece of history that shows the opposite of what you're claiming, you still want to talk about hunting seasons.


I have one question in my mind: How do we increase fish and wildlife populations? That is all I think about. I don't sit around complaining with my friends, talk about adjusting the hunting season by three days, talk about days gone by, how bad of a job the regional manager is doing, whether it should be a 6 or 8.5 point season, operating in isolation from science, I don't think about kids who shot a deer, I don't think about changing the regulations, crying in my coffee, or talk about LEH hunts. We have conservative objectives for our hunting seasons - if our sex ratios get below our objectives then you simply change the hunting regulations - that is EASY, just do it. That will not increase fish and wildlife populations.


I think about the past, what we've done, what hasn't worked, what other jurisdictions do, and what we need to do to fix it. I contact the experts and ask them how we would go about fixing it, what drives wildlife populations, what we need to change to increase the resource. That is the point of the deer thread - to show people what the jurisdictions which we share deer with are doing. Those plans are clear what needs to be done to increase the resource.

Once you have recovery/increasing fish and wildlife in your mind the path forward becomes crystal clear.

Well if thats all you heard about my bitch toward management then I guess I have waisted my time.
Many people will be watching you and I have a feeling many of the concerns I brought to your attention based on little science, will once again be in your face.
The ROUND TABLE MEETING on March 11 in Cranbrook will be the jump start to better days.
we can only hope it is not too late.

Theres that one Quote:
Beauty is Truth,Truth Beauty-
That is All.
Cheers AL.

[GoatGuy]

Well if thats all you heard about my bitch toward management then I guess I have waisted my time.
Many people will be watching you and I have a feeling many of the concerns I brought to your attention based on little science, will once again be in your face.
The ROUND TABLE MEETING on March 11 in Cranbrook will be the jump start to better days.
we can only hope it is not too late.

Theres that one Quote:
Beauty is Truth,Truth Beauty-
That is All.
Cheers AL.

Let's make it clear.

If the sex ratios aren't meeting objectives I will support whatever is required to change. I see that stuff as things that should simply happen. Should be a lot of crying in the beer attached to it - just get on with life so that we can focus on things that make more wildlife.

I do think that wildlife is generally in decline, that's supported by a pile of different sources of evidence from anecdotal to theoretical to empirical.

Let's also make it clear that I do not think doing the same thing that's been done for the past 40 years, change the hunting regulations, will suddenly work and recover wildlife populations across the province. I think that is displacement activity. I think that is why BC is now one of the most under-funded jurisdictions in North America - because hunters have been complaining about 'management' instead of figuring out how to fix management and make more wildlife.

The best science, top researchers, wildlife managers, and all of the empirical evidence shows us that what we have done (or haven't done) since the late 70s/80s has not helped grow fish and wildlife populations. If you sit down with the top researchers, people like Hurley, they would simply shake their head at this obsessive compulsive focus on hunting regulations and blatant disregard for population drivers. When he was in Kelowna he was astounded by the hunting regulation questions and lack of focus on habitat and predation - things that make wildlife. Think he still gets a chuckle out of it.

I think it's time to change. What we've done in the past hasn't worked. I think we need to focus on getting more resources for fish and wildlife, and championing fish and wildlife recovery. I think we need to focus in on those two issues and start hammering away on politicians about those.


Don't think you wasted your time - there's a lot of learning in what you have said/done/focused on. Good/bad/ugly it's all learning on this end.


There were a few questions in the last post. It would be appreciated if you could spent a couple minutes and answer at least a couple of them. Feel as though the discussion has been one-sided.

Re Thompson and Chilko Steelhead: The fish have disappeared - eliminating retention, then catch and release fishing hasn't worked. If you were the resource manager what would you do?

Mountain Caribou: What did you do in the 90s? What would you do now?

Region 5 Moose: The hunting regulations have been changed a handful of times. The harvest went from 3000 to 500 - it's now all LEH. What is your plan to recover moose?

Finally: How do we increase fish and wildlife populations? If you come up with more than one solution rank them in their effectiveness.



As said it's all learning on this end.

[horshur]

"The thinking that got us to where we are is not the thinking that will get us to where we want to be" Einstein

[HarryToolips]

and make riparian zones 100 meters wide instead of 30

I think this is a good idea....

[RiverOtter]

and make riparian zones 100 meters wide instead of 30

I think this is a good idea....

In theory it's a great idea, so long as you still think it's a great idea even when it's all blown down. I've seen it time and again, both with riparians and WTP's(Wildlife Tree Patches). Once the surrounding timber is removed, the remaining trees have full exposure to the wind and their roots are not equipped to deal with it. A modified approach is to remove the mature trees by reaching in with a buncher or having a hand faller tip them out. Sure you lose some of your shade canopy, but you're going to regardless and at least with the former the area is useable.

[Sitkaspruce]

In theory it's a great idea, so long as you still think it's a great idea even when it's all blown down. I've seen it time and again, both with riparians and WTP's(Wildlife Tree Patches). Once the surrounding timber is removed, the remaining trees have full exposure to the wind and their roots are not equipped to deal with it. A modified approach is to remove the mature trees by reaching in with a buncher or having a hand faller tip them out. Sure you lose some of your shade canopy, but you're going to regardless and at least with the former the area is useable.

That is why you have a management zone with the riparian reserve zone. Except that most, if not all, foresters and others who write SP's or plans around riparian zones clear cut the management zone and then stand there bewildered when the reserve zone blows down.....

Remove the large stems in the management zone in a feathering effect and the reserve zone might stand (no pun intended) a chance of being there a few years later.

WTP's are for wildlife and actually benefit more wildlife when laying on the ground than standing, especially the min size .25 ha. Lots of smaller critters love the wood on the ground and habitat it creates. Standing wood is good for birds and the odd ungulate when it is bigger than then min size. If it is bigger than it does have a benefit, but not a lot are big.

Cheers

SS

[bownut]

Let's make it clear.

If the sex ratios aren't meeting objectives I will support whatever is required to change. I see that stuff as things that should simply happen. Should be a lot of crying in the beer attached to it - just get on with life so that we can focus on things that make more wildlife.

I do think that wildlife is generally in decline, that's supported by a pile of different sources of evidence from anecdotal to theoretical to empirical.

Let's also make it clear that I do not think doing the same thing that's been done for the past 40 years, change the hunting regulations, will suddenly work and recover wildlife populations across the province. I think that is displacement activity. I think that is why BC is now one of the most under-funded jurisdictions in North America - because hunters have been complaining about 'management' instead of figuring out how to fix management and make more wildlife.

The best science, top researchers, wildlife managers, and all of the empirical evidence shows us that what we have done (or haven't done) since the late 70s/80s has not helped grow fish and wildlife populations. If you sit down with the top researchers, people like Hurley, they would simply shake their head at this obsessive compulsive focus on hunting regulations and blatant disregard for population drivers. When he was in Kelowna he was astounded by the hunting regulation questions and lack of focus on habitat and predation - things that make wildlife. Think he still gets a chuckle out of it.

I think it's time to change. What we've done in the past hasn't worked. I think we need to focus on getting more resources for fish and wildlife, and championing fish and wildlife recovery. I think we need to focus in on those two issues and start hammering away on politicians about those.


Don't think you wasted your time - there's a lot of learning in what you have said/done/focused on. Good/bad/ugly it's all learning on this end.


There were a few questions in the last post. It would be appreciated if you could spent a couple minutes and answer at least a couple of them. Feel as though the discussion has been one-sided.

Re Thompson and Chilko Steelhead: The fish have disappeared - eliminating retention, then catch and release fishing hasn't worked. If you were the resource manager what would you do?

Mountain Caribou: What did you do in the 90s? What would you do now?

Region 5 Moose: The hunting regulations have been changed a handful of times. The harvest went from 3000 to 500 - it's now all LEH. What is your plan to recover moose?

Finally: How do we increase fish and wildlife populations? If you come up with more than one solution rank them in their effectiveness.



As said it's all learning on this end.

As said it's all learning on this end.[/QUOTE]

Re Steel Head
Not sure, not a Steel Head fishermen, but I would bet that our water quality plays aa big role in our numbers.
Pretty sad when you shouldn't even eat a trout out of the mighty T because of them mercury in the water.
We just keep counting, hoping the numbers turn around.
River of a thousand casts for sure.

Moose and Caribou are sharing the same drivers, and I am thinking it the same for mule deer.

Management was not watching how much pressure that energy and forestry has effected the populations of our wildlife.
Before roads go in and cutting begins the plans were not in place.
We cut in a road get the work done and don't follow up on keeping the recreational pressures out.
Theres a few good years of hunting a then its doom and gloom. Management should have known that when "we build it they will come,"
They should have limited the access an quota then and not wait till its too late and say that reducing the seasons does not work.
Its too late by then.

Not understanding the wolves full potential and rapid growth rate is creating havoc on all species and was never factored.
Simple action like snowmobiling and how it can make their hunting that much more effective was never factored.

It is interesting to see that you have asked me to look at what I should have done and what I would do now. It is like you have blamed this all on Me and
the Hunting Community.
Generally speaking hunters are lazy when it comes to management plans and most of the time, they just want to go out and hunt and hope that the managers are taking care of things.
You make it sound like Hunters have been holding back proper management plans and are not allowing management to make proper decisions. I don't think that is the case.
Most of the decisions are being made without their knowledge so how are they to blame?

Well before harvest numbers drop, and game numbers decline, Management needs to recognize and create Regulations that will have some control on effects in changing habitat, access , and predation Etc.
They need to recognize a build safety systems in our Rules/Regulations that will mitigate the effects that User groups, Forestry, Energy, and Human Encroachment will have.
Management can't continue to blame the hunting community for all the problems for it is Management who is making the rules.

Its like when the mother walks into the kitchen and asked where did all the cookies go? and the two kids are sitting there with chocolate all over their face blaming the cat and the dog.

Looking ahead at the future:

Access:
Instead of asking the forestry departments to spend millions of dollars tearing up roads, can't we just ditch out the turnoffs and put up some signs. with new RAPP APP
and stiffer penalties it may police itself.
Skull Mountain seems to have it right and most of the roads aren't even ditched.
Doesn't take long for them to brush in and disappear.

Habitat:
We need more involvement in the projects before they get off the ground biologist are always left picking up the pieces instead of building the plan.
User groups are getting the green light from the ministry without a proper review of the long term effects. Eg. Westside motorbike trails in a Known Wildlife Corridor???
More burns in critical areas to disperse wildlife and not bunch them up and make them more prone to Predation and Sickness. Eg. Hunters told the Ministry that Okanagan Mnt.
needed burning years before the 03' fire. nothing was ever done. Now look at the mess.

Predation:
Management needs to get a better understanding how fast it is happening, listen to the Trappers, Hunters, Back Country horsemen, Cattlemen.
Move to a better system of controlling it.

Hunting Pressure:
Understand how much effect that Hunters have on wildlife, not just the harvest numbers , but the constant in their face pressure we can cause.
It has altered their natural behaviour patterns from the start of the season to the end.
Management knows the critical times to produce a better return so have the seasons reflect it.
Management needs to move slower on the opportunity aspects and form the plans based on a True Round Table Process.
Listen to the Hunting Community, they are the 'Eyes of the Mountains"
These are just my opinions as a Armchair Biologists so don't beat me up, after all what do I know?

[HarryToolips]

^^^^^look at the mess of the 03' fire in OK mtn park?? the fire benefited the wildlife man, not everything is doom and gloom....

[358mag]

^^^^^look at the mess of the 03' fire in OK mtn park?? the fire benefited the wildlife man, not everything is doom and gloom....

Yes the wildfire of 03 did benefit the wildlife for a few years , but think the hunters benefited more. Boom , bust + cycle . How is it been in the last few years ???