The future of our wildlife management plans.

[HarryToolips]

The biggest issue I see personally in many parts of region 8 is loss of winter habitat from all the new housing and development...all this growth sucks...but I'm still seeing decent numbers of mulies and whitetails, even after these so called 'generous' seasons were implemented, the only difference is slightly less winter range, hopefully that trend will stop..

[bownut]

You are so correct on that winter range, and with housing permits on a steady increase I can't see it getting any better.

Lets look at the fore sure factors:
-Habitat loss is on a steady increase
-The predators are at a all time high. Hunters are seeing wolves in every corner of the valley, and cat hunters don't have any problem cutting tracks.
-Forest industry is taking out the fir now that the pine is done and access to the prime upper elevation habitat is open up.
-The ministry isn't funding enough of the management system to allow for proper studies and policing of our backcountry.
- Hunters have become more efficient in their pursuit of wildlife. Eg. quads, trail cameras, baiting, google earth, long range rifles ect.
-A steady increase in opportunity, eg. doe seasons, extended seasons, increased bag limits ect

With all of these known factors picking away at our game populations and , it's just a matter of time and the pond will empty.

The experts have said that Dead On Ground Data dose not effect our game populations and the harvest isn't enough of a factor.
Do we truly know what these numbers are and when you factor all the things that we agree on, will change ever happen?
Will the wildlife be able to weather out this storm? That is my biggest fear and it should be yours.

[338win mag]

This and creating a grouo group that makes wildlife decisions that is separate from government and can do things (like predator management) without having to worry about getting re-elected.

SSS said this^^^^^ agree totally

bownut...you have some good idea's, a couple points here, we should be careful what we wish for,
Do we really want all hunters to get involved? that sounds like a shyte storm, and i'm not trying to put anyone down but alot of guys dont know what it takes to get along and simply dont have the intelligence to be an asset, "too many indians and not enough chiefs" watch the video and there are some pretty good examples, everyone is an expert. I see that working for about 3 seconds, simply my point of view and thats why SSS is a good idea.

Do we really want reg change?...perhaps some change is needed, ie: wt doe season...What I mean is that any decisions made now while we have a little bump in the road may be long lasting (forever) and resolve itself in the next 10-20 years.
I'd rather hunt and not shoot anything than have my/your season shortened when in 10-20 years there is no need for it.

We are in real danger of hunting going to LEH only for resident hunters, my opinion only.

I would also be willing to pay more for a license and tags if.....the money went directly back to the system from which it came.
Its totally unacceptable that it isn't now.
I seriously dont think anyone is running any system right now and if someone is in charge I would ask ...why is there access to any forest fire and why isn't there vehicle restrictions for the these burns?
It gets old seeing guys hunting these burns and shooting every mule deer that sticks its head out, the benefit of a fire seems to have gone to the hunter instead of it being for the wildlife, it makes no sense at all.

[boxhitch]

The experts keep saying that hunter harvest doesn't effect our game populations without any regard to the increased pressures they are already feeling.
It doesn't add up to good good game management.

Are they using alternative facts ?)
If the pressures are having an overall affect, the pop numbers would show it overall. Development pressures tend to be localized, small piece of the big picture

shooting every mule deer that sticks its head out

which is called poaching, unless they are restricting the kill to the % of the pop. that can be taken without upsetting the number of fawns hitting the ground each spring.

[Wild one]

Are they using alternative facts ?)
If the pressures are having an overall affect, the pop numbers would show it overall. Development pressures tend to be localized, small piece of the big picture

which is called poaching, unless they are restricting the kill to the % of the pop. that can be taken without upsetting the number of fawns hitting the ground each spring.

I think what he is getting at is he would rather see deer populations benifit from the burns in a fashion that is more likely to increase overall population long term. Personally I could see it being benifical to deer numbers if burns were tougher access.

Yes this is not overly benifical to hunters unless the population grows to a point the surplus expands beyond the burn. Personally I can see in theory how this could be benifical long term.

If it could benifit population overall at the cost of tougher access to hunters I would say it is worth it

[horshur]

If you don't hunt the growth hard you effectively stall it. Nature will limit itself. There cannot be exponential growth for long..Not limiting game in productive areas will hasten the degradation of the area. Or it won't be long untill the vacuum created is filled with predators.

[boxhitch]

If it could benifit population overall at the cost of tougher access to hunters

Discussion of access always brings some heat on, and it usually starts splitting into the quality vs quantity
Good thing the regulating is in place to ensure a new crop to fight over.

[boxhitch]

If you don't hunt the growth hard you effectively stall it. Nature will limit itself. There cannot be exponential growth for long..Not limiting game in productive areas will hasten the degradation of the area. Or it won't be long untill the vacuum created is filled with predators.

Agreed. wildlife can't be stockpiled

[Fisher-Dude]

- Hunters have become more efficient in their pursuit of wildlife. Eg. quads, trail cameras, baiting, google earth, long range rifles ect.

If we were more efficient harvesters, days per kill data that we have would reflect that.

It's not the case. DpK data indicates no efficiencies, and points instead to lower kill efficiencies in many areas.

This is just one example of coffee shop talk that results in the demand for poor decisions in wildlife management.

When we stick to science, wildlife wins.

When we demand social results that are designed to benefit one particular user group, wildlife loses.

When I hear groups start their rationale with "All these hunters come to OUR area from the lower mainland..." I see little benefit for wildlife in the ensuing discussion.

[guest]

An adequate funding supply will not solve the wildlife problems we are facing at present unless it is managed properly to see that the money is spent responsibly on wildlife issues.
This is where the "roundtable" approach of co management needs to come into play.
The current wildlife management team of "voter fearing polititians" and "bureuacratical decision makers" isn't working...the entire wildlife portfolio is in need of a make over.

So how do we fix it...

-Create a Wildlife mangement roundtable, made up of all affected user groups.
Resident hunters, guide outfitters, FN's, trappers, wildlife/back country tourism, agriculture, forestry, mining, the
COS, and yes...the anti hunting segment.

-Direct all money generated by wildlife back to wildlife.
This includes all license money, royalties and funding raised through the sale of special permits.
Outside funding will also come into play if the contributors are seeing it will go to a useful purpose.

-Legislate a tax similar to the Pittman Robertson Act.
This funding goes back to the management of wildlife and habitat.
Mining and forestry might have to ante up when it comes to habitat reclamation.

I'm sure others will think differently but in my view these are the three key components to turning this downslide around, the rest of the corrective steps will have to be worked out amongst the reps at the table.

Habitat restoration, access management, predator management, allocation, wildlife population recoveries and species closure zones would all be issues dealt with by the round table....not an emotion driven, vote grabbing politician or a biased bureaucrat.

A note on the retired outfitter Barry Brandow, who organized the Youtubed meeting.....if we had more so called hunters and wildlife enthusiasts in this province that were as passionate about wildlife as Barry has been for many years we would not be in as deep of a hole as we are in today.

Excellant contribution to this thread BV .......

the above makes a ton of sence. As mentioned, the funding needs to remain consistent and only grow, not diminish, not affected by the government of the day decisions, no matter who is elected.

CT