Study Shows Grizzly Bear Population at Risk

[GoatGuy]

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA MEDIA TIP & LEAD Nov. 6, 2013


Study shows grizzly bear population at risk

BC grizzly bears are being over hunted, putting the future of the
population at risk, say the authors of a new study released today in
the scientific journal PLOS ONE.

Researchers from the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University
and Raincoast Conservation Foundation show in their report that there
are serious shortfalls with the management of the grizzly bear hunt in BC.

Researchers found large discrepancies between the upper limit to kills
set by the provincial government and the number of grizzly bears killed.

"In half of BC's remaining grizzly populations, our audit detected
overkills, and almost all were associated with excessive trophy hunting,"
says Dr. Chris Darimont, UVic geography professor, Raincoast science
director and the study's co-author. "The pattern of overkills we documented surprised and alarmed us, especially for female grizzly bears, which are the reproductive powerhouses of populations."

BC represents one of the last strongholds for grizzly bears, which have lost about half of their historical range in North America since European colonization.

The report, Confronting Uncertainty in Wildlife Management:
Performance of Grizzly Bear Management, is co-authored by Kyle Artelle (lead) and Sean Anderson, SFU PhD students; SFU professors Dr. John Reynolds and Dr. Andrew Cooper, and Dr. Paul Paquet, Raincoast senior scientist and adjunct UVic geography professor.

The report is available at PLOS ONE: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078041

Media contacts:
Dr. Chris Darimont (UVic Geography) at 250-853-3287 (office); 250-589-7873 (cell);
darimont@uvic.ca<mailto:darimont@uvic.ca<mailto:darimont@uvic.ca%3cmai (darimont@uvic.ca%3cmailto:darimont@uvic.ca%3cmail to:darimont@uvic.ca%3cmai)
lto:darimont@uvic.ca;or Twitter: @ChrisDarimont
Dr. Paul Paquet (UVic Geography) at 306-376-2015 or
ppaquet@baudoux.ca<mailto:ppaquet@baudoux.ca<mailto:ppaquet@baudoux.ca (ppaquet@baudoux.ca%3cmailto:ppaquet@baudoux.ca%3c mailto:ppaquet@baudoux.ca)

[BearSupreme]

Ya doesnt surprise me someone from Victoria, government worker capital of BC, would put out a report like this. Its a trophy hunt, people go after the biggest grizzlies they can find... which are the males. From studies ive seen, grizzly populations have steadily increased since the 70's, almost doubled. They open more limited entry draws every year, because of increase in grizzlies. I like how the study mentions no numbers, thats how you know its written by a tree-hugging city dweller who never leaves the city and yet knows everything about the wilderness.

[Mathil]

Yeah, no mention of actual numbers, just that sometimes a few more than the government limit set are harvested... No accommodation for the fact that the government could account for that, that the targets change every year, yadda yadda yadda.

[TheProvider]

Funny how they are referring it as "trophy hunting" and not simply hunting.

[Salty]

Why should a lobby group be working with a university doing a study? Doesn't sound like a recipe for good science to me.

[olympia]

Why should a lobby group be working with a university doing a study? Doesn't sound like a recipe for good science to me.maybe we need a "hunter group" that works with a university to do a study?

[1899]

I stopped reading at Raincoast Conservation Fund.

[Darksith]

they do show numbers, but the numbers are pretty slim...in 10 years (2001-2011) there were only 18 overharvests, and only 33 females harvested. Thats a pretty small number of females taken.

[one-shot-wonder]

Not a surprise it was the first headline on CBC radio tonight......mentioned "trophy" hunt numerous times.
typical left wing Commy Bull$hit!

[303Brit]

U Vic and Raincoast nuff said

303

[40incher]

All the more reason, as representatives of hunters, to quit using the words "sport" and "recreational" as adjectives!!!

It's just hunting ... YDF!

[aggiehunter]

One Shot Wonder...just playing the devils advocate here but if your not bringing out the meat what kind of hunt is it?

[one-shot-wonder]

One Shot Wonder...just playing the devils advocate here but if your not bringing out the meat what kind of hunt is it?

Gbear is edible in my books and is packed out on our hunts every time.....so the lefties can shove "trophy" up their a$$
Why dont we starting terming it a "managment" hunt? This species is no exception, all needs to be managed.

[TheProvider]

Exactly "trophy hunt" is a phrase that is quite useless. They have no clue who brings out the meat. I have always been against the phrase and always will be.

[sniper ren]

Have they been to the EK?

[Weatherby Fan]

I really think they should change the regs so they have to bring the meat out and it would remove the trophy hunt mystic !
I really don't understand why you have take black bear meat out and not grizzly ?

Either way another useless bunch of BS ! On top of that us taxpayers are probably subsidizing that study !

[chilcotin hillbilly]

My thinking if the the bears where set up on a allocation similar to the what happens in the yukon, Let say you get 100 possible points each boar is worth one point a sow is worth 10 points. When the points hit zero with kills the hunt is over . This will perhaps make resident hunters and outfitters look twice before shooting. Trophy hunting is fine as we need to co exsist with the bears but they need to respect our boundries and remain afraid of humans. Trophy hunting helps accomplish this. We don't all want to eat grizz but still hunt them.
Perhaps by using the point system the public will see that hunters are concerned with conserving the great G-bear.
You will always have some whom don't really care, these are the same guys that shoot nanny goats as well, you do it because they can. Perhaps peir pressure from other hunts will help change this.

[boxhitch]

maybe we need a "hunter group" that works with a university to do a study?might be easier than getting hunters to lobby for themselves.

[Ghillie]

I stopped reading at Raincoast Conservation Fund.
This. This exactly.

[Rocky7]

I stopped reading at Raincoast Conservation Fund.

Yup. Started slowing down at University of Victoria and by the end of "Raincoast", I knew what their "findings" would be, no need to read it carefully after that. Same old broken record.

[longstonec]

When I took geography it was about who could draw the nicest maps and not a lot about going out and counting bears, or moose, or deer, or wolves, or baby seals.

[Sofa King]

Funny how they are referring it as "trophy hunting" and not simply hunting.

why?
most grizz hunting is trophy hunting.
not many guys go out after the smallest possible bear.
I never hear guys bragging about how they just took a little one 'cause he'll be a good eater.

even with deer, a huge # of hunters are trophy hunters.
nobody goes on a sheep hunt or guided moose hunt up north to take a shrimp.

"trophy" hunting, the term, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I 've passed on many deer and went skunked some seasons because I was looking for a particular deer.
on those years, I actually "preserved" the deer #'s by trophy hunting.

[Wild one]

If grizz numbers are dropping why do I see them a lot more than I used to :-?

Why am I seeing grizz and grizz sign in places I never used to see grizz before :-?

I must smell good to grizz or something

Either someone never left the desk to study them or I smell a BS agenda being pushed

[hickman]

True, the study might be politically motivated or tainted but there are two sides to the coin. There is "trophy" hunting and that is undeniable. You can find another word for it but the fact does not go away. Some people just want to rush of shooting something big or a trophy for their home. People who don't hunt might not know that bear meat is edible. I think, the public judges or classifies a "trophy" hunt by the type of animal because there is a notion that only certain types of meat are worth eating or might even be packed out. I am not taking sides here but there might be a case for their findings in certain areas or regions... and saying that it is Commy BS is too simple, I think. It also does not help the hunting community in raising awareness about what hunting is really about. Just saying...

[one-shot-wonder]

why?
most grizz hunting is trophy hunting.
not many guys go out after the smallest possible bear.
I never hear guys bragging about how they just took a little one 'cause he'll be a good eater.

"trophy" hunting, the term, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I 've passed on many deer and went skunked some seasons because I was looking for a particular deer.
on those years, I actually "preserved" the deer #'s by trophy hunting.

Wrong.....lots of hunters who understand management and are out just looking for a boar.
For the record Grizzly meat has been some of the nicest fare.

[Spy]

Just heard this turd on C-fax radio its definatly politcal, they have an agenda & are pushing it hard. We need the BCWF & ministry to jump on this and disprove their data, quickly.

[rmcda1]

BC Government spokesman on the news yesterday said they disagree with this new "study" and "stand by their own dat / information". He also said that the government will be releasing the contents of a report in the coming weeks that supports the current policy. At least government has their own updated statistical report to support the status quo on hunting, and hopefully will refute the study in the news the last few days.

[TexasWalker]

why?
most grizz hunting is trophy hunting.
not many guys go out after the smallest possible bear.
I never hear guys bragging about how they just took a little one 'cause he'll be a good eater.

even with deer, a huge # of hunters are trophy hunters.
nobody goes on a sheep hunt or guided moose hunt up north to take a shrimp.

"trophy" hunting, the term, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I 've passed on many deer and went skunked some seasons because I was looking for a particular deer.
on those years, I actually "preserved" the deer #'s by trophy hunting.

You haven't the slightest clue of game management.

[Mikey Rafiki]

Have they been to the EK?

They can't count grizzlies here when they are tripping over them left and right.

Maybe we should relocate all of our "problem" grizz's to Victoria, it would make it a little more difficult for them to find their way back...

[hawk-i]

I'm seeing a lot more grizzlies now than say 10 years ago....populations must be on a decrease, right!!!
I'd take a guess these scholasticly superior scientest coducting this study received their degrees from the same place as Dr. D Suzuki.....the U of BS.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

True, the study might be politically motivated or tainted but there are two sides to the coin. There is "trophy" hunting and that is undeniable. You can find another word for it but the fact does not go away. Some people just want to rush of shooting something big or a trophy for their home. People who don't hunt might not know that bear meat is edible. I think, the public judges or classifies a "trophy" hunt by the type of animal because there is a notion that only certain types of meat are worth eating or might even be packed out. I am not taking sides here but there might be a case for their findings in certain areas or regions... and saying that it is Commy BS is too simple, I think. It also does not help the hunting community in raising awareness about what hunting is really about. Just saying...

Good response, hickman.

You can try to dress the 3 as a 9, but at the end of the day, this is almost exclusively a "trophy hunt". But fair enough. Government biologists deem that there is an allowable harvest, and so a season exists for harvesting a G-bear. Where we are going to get into trouble is if the government under-funds ongoing population censusing, as it will be seen as a lack of due diligence on the govs part, and will reduce credibility of biologists saying there are enough to sustain a limited harvest. The antis will then say that the data is outdated and dubious, at which time they will have a good point if in fact it is. If you're going to support a hunt as controversial as the G-bear hunt, you better have good science saying it's OK. Unfortunately, the gov has a track record for leaving wildlife management as a very low fiscal priority.

[bandit]

U Vic and Raincoast nuff said

303

Would Raincoast of made such a media story out of this if (perish the thought) the science said the harvest was
under the quota? No, they would of brushed it under the carpet and said nothing.

Anyone remember that UBC study that said the fisheries were worth more economically than the Enbridge pipeline? I happen to know for a fact that their first calculation showed the opposite. So they spent 6 months changing their assumptions until they got the answer they wanted. I'm sure Raincoast did the same.

[Rackem]

I listened to the interview with this guy on CBC Radio One last night. He didn't have any numbers, in fact, he seemed to be stating that his point was that the Government numbers COULD MAYBE be incorrect. He could not say definitively one way or another. He was saying that the government data was questionable, and as such, a cautious approach would be better, up to and including a moratorium on the hunt.

He was also rolling all HUMAN CAUSED GB DEATHS into one. So hit by a vehicle, self defense, poaching, etc etc.

He was very confident that once the government had read his report they would be reconsidering. When the interviewer stated that the government had reviewed his report and dismissed it, he was confused and stuttering.....

[brutus]

To much money involve in the grizz hunt for the gov not to fight back this study.we all no grizz population are healty and stable,let's take these moron for a hike in the bush and see what there study has to say after a few to many encounter

[xcaribooer]

we know its all tree hugger dave Suzuki BS , trouble is when it hits the news and people sitting at home in their living room see it they say "oh they did a study, must be true" ,makes the general public very misinformed.
Why cant BCWF put together their own study and publish the results on the evening news so people get to hear the real story.??

[bandit]

Why cant BCWF put together their own study and publish the results on the evening news so people get to hear the real story.??

You seem to be of the misguided opinion that the media are there to report the truth. No, they are there to sell newspapers and further their own agenda. A BCWF study would not be allowed to make headlines no matter how good the science behind it.

[Argali]

"Dr. Chris Darimont, UVic geography professor, Raincoast science
director and the study's co-author."

If you hope that your academic research might be taken seriously, you cannot be on the executive and accept funding from a special interest group.

I wonder how they would respond to a study "B.C. grizzly bears are underharvested" by Dr. Jack Guide, UNBC geography professor, President GOABC.

[aggiehunter]

then as I have suggested before many times if you really wish to keep the grizzly hunt alive you should campaign to your local dubclub to ask the powers to be to make it a requirement to remove at least the hindquarters....if not....buh bye gbear hunt...just sayin.

[browningboy]

I bet you this hunt will end shortly, too much pressure and backing from granola folks, this is where the BCWF should step in and make news as well..
hunters are a minority big time

[brutus]

The grizz hunt is here to stay,g.o.have that one covered,I said it before to much $$$$ involve,they will fight that one to death,granola or not

[AltaElkhunter]

Don't let it get closed, that's for sure. Alberta closed it to determine what the population actually is, but after the numbers have been way higher than they could ever guess with a computer model in a tall building in Edmonton, they now say no politician will ever have the will to re open it. The numbers they were guessing at turn out are way off, SW corner of Alberta was estimated to have around 20 bears max, DNA study shows 126 so far, and is still collecting data from private land.
Sad part is we are now getting self defense kills, guys scared of bears kills, and no doubt landowners who are getting tired of bears feeding on livestock are going to start shooting and dig a hole, if they have not already.

Not likely will they ever allow another season, even with a lot of land owner pressure, but we can pray. Once they close it, very tough to get it re opened when emotion from all the idiots that do not have to live with these bears is all the gov't will listen to.

[bearvalley]

The grizz hunt is here to stay,g.o.have that one covered,I said it before to much $$$$ involve,they will fight that one to death,granola or not

I would bet you that not very many outfitters are as sure as you that GBs will remain open. If our last provincial election had gone the other way the GB hunt would be done now. If the hunt closure becomes a big enough
political carrot do you really think a few outfitters votes swing much weight.

[greenhorn]

Has the BCWF sounded off on this?

[Iltasyuko]

Below is an email exchange between myself and Chris Darimont - I have not replied to his response yet.

Dear Wayne,

Thanks for your note and interest.

Although I am a committed food hunter (mostly deer, salmon), I can never support any hunt that is not primarily for food (like the grizz hunt). So, even if the inventory and management were better, I would not personally be in favour of a hunt.

That being said, if the gov't permits a hunt, then I'd like it to be managed in the very best way possible, regardless of the reason for the hunt (food vs boasting).

Your thoughts?

much cheer
Chris
_____

Hello Chris:

I haven’t read your recent work regarding grizzly bears and grizzly bear hunting in BC, however, I did see a short clip on the news.

If BC had what you consider quality inventory information concerning grizzly bears in BC, and if this inventory supported a sustainable hunt, would you be in favour or not in favour of the hunt.

Thank you.

Regards,
Wayne

[325]

I really hope the grizzly hunt lasts. It seems like every hunting season, I see more grizzlies than the last....some causing a bit of grief too.

I also hope my 6 year old son has all the hunting opportunities I have enjoyed. I am skeptical of that, though, as the anti-bear hunting lobby seems to have some big players working for it (including post-secondary institutions).

The BCWF or MOE can publish the best science available, but if the results support a continued grizzly hunt, the media will not pick it up. And even if they did, the ignorant masses would see results as being driven by a pro-hunting agenda. Very ironic, since most hunters are simply interested in the science, and if conservation was truly a concern, would want to discontinue the hunt themselves.

I like grizzly hunting, and will admit, it is a trophy hunt for me. I have no problem with trophy hunting. Selling trophy hunting to the public, however, will prove untenable. Again, ironic, as trophy hunting has been the savior of many species around the world.

As hunters we do need to buttress ourselves against anti-hunting groups. Like them or not, the easiest thing to do is join the BCWF.

[nerka992003]

I was cutting firewood last week about 30km south of Houston. I was working away my Husky 394 roaring away less than 50 yards (ranged it afterwards)a beautiful Sow and cub walked right by me. They took a moment stared a bit and continued on. I have been seeing grizzly Sow and cubs for the last few years now no big males yet.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

A grizzly hunt is so much more to me than meat(and we take the meat) and/or a trophy. It's a whole entire experience.
I've had some of the best times of my life while pursuing old long claws. Now, some people(antis) would say that I could have the same experience while just taking pictures and/or filming but there is no way I would spend the time or effort for just filming the same thing.

Every bear biologist that I've heard speak says the same thing...."Hunting is good for Grizzly Bears"....it's gives them value(less sss) and it keeps them fearful of humans(good for both bears and humans).

SSS

[bandit]

That response from cross Chris smacks of nimby. Us hunters should stick together at all times. Just because I don't hunt with a bow and don't particularly agree with them doesn't mean I should campaign to have them banned. Ditto trophy / grizz / other types of hunting I don't partake in.

[tomcat]

Every bear biologist that I've heard speak says the same thing...."Hunting is good for Grizzly Bears"....it's gives them value(less sss) and it keeps them fearful of humans(good for both bears and humans SSS
That goes for black bears also.

[Frango]

[QUOTE=Stone Sheep Steve;1412360]A grizzly hunt is so much more to me than meat(and we take the meat) and/or a trophy. It's a whole entire experience.
I've had some of the best times of my life while pursuing old long claws. Now, some people(antis) would say that I could have the same experience while just taking pictures and/or filming but there is no way I would spend the time or effort for just filming the same thing
Every bear biologist that I've heard speak says the same thing...."Hunting is good for Grizzly Bears"....it's gives them value(less sss) and it keeps them fearful of humans(good for both bears and humans).

.As a professional cinematographer/video I can say that I have made extreme efforts to get shots of creatures. It is very gratifying and lucrative. I hunt and its gratifying plus puts meat in the freezer.I must agree with some other observation that there is no shortage of G bears..As hunters we know this. I don't G bear hunt but if they ban G bear hunting I will be first in line to protest anywhere and anytime. I don't think the anti hunting sentiment is as rampant as some believe. However the anti/green/people who don't drive/people who wear what most people on Saltspring island wear and people who make their living from being an environmentalist have a loud voice..be prepared to join me at the legislature for a protest .

[Rackem]

I have no desire to hunt Grizzly. But I also support people who do hunt them. I have been seeing more and more Grizzly of late, one young brown one hangs around my work, I'm guessing three year old...

Recently I was hunting on a ridge, and saw a big blonde Grizzly about 100 yards ahead of me on the trail, causing me to detour through the thick bush, and an unplanned overnighter...amongst other things lol.

In previous years I might see one or two Grizz a year. Now I am seeing one every week or so. So I don't think there is a shortfall in population locally anyway.

I do think they should make it mandatory that some meat be taken out, and if you don't want to eat it, feed it to a dog or donate it to someone who will use it.

[325]

The regulations may change so that meat is required to be taken. That won't in any way diffuse the anti bear hunting lobby.

Besides I hunt grizzly for ceremonial purposes!

[BiG Boar]

I don't think anything would change if they made it mandatory to remove the meat. They would probably say we're wasting the organ meat and the bones for soup! These people will not be happy if we just start bringing out the meat. They make their paychecks by getting people to donate to their cause. Very lucrative paychecks at that!

[Darksith]

yeah but at least they wouldn't be able to use the term "trophy hunting". You don't hear anyone of the anti's bashing on deer trophy hunters, or moose...so still would be a good thing IMO to get the regs changed. It would be good PR for the hunting community if we were the ones that lobbied for that change. Would sure take them down a peg or 2

[trapperRick]

I am seeing more grizzlies every year where I hunt if THEY want to argue against trophy hunting on principle fine go ahead but they can't use low numbers as part of the argument because there are lots of grizzlies. I had to shot into the ground twice this year at grizzlies and I was shouting at the bears to bugger off but they didn't give a shit about me they just kept coming until I shot. Next year will be the first year I put in for a draw as there is a very healthy population of grizzly bears.

[Seeadler]

I stopped reading at Raincoast Conservation Fund.

Me too. Know the conclusion already.

[bugler]

The wildlife branch needs to do a new population study to update numbers. I believe population estimates are way low, hence we have many more incidental kills by cars, trains, and frightened outdoors recreationists. This creates a higher harvest than the "official" population will sustain.

[GoatGuy]

The wildlife branch needs to do a new population study to update numbers. I believe population estimates are way low, hence we have many more incidental kills by cars, trains, and frightened outdoors recreationists. This creates a higher harvest than the "official" population will sustain.

The Flathead and South Rockies GBPU are probably the two most intensively studied bear populations in BC.

The thing this paper and most people miss is the annual allowable mortality (AAM) of 6% is extremely conservative and generally does not impact the grizzly bear population.

Long story short, grizzly bear management is like pretty much everything else we have now in BC - it doesn't 'manage' the population, it just makes sure hunting or people don't cause it to decline.

[bugler]

Really? The most studied? Explain to me how with all that studying they determine that there can be no tags in 4-21, 4-22. I can't go anywhere, high or low, without seeing at least fresh tracks, often several bears in a day. Those last couple Griz left in there must have wings because they sure get around. If these are so studied and they get it that wrong it makes it hard to have faith in any pop estimates they have.

[GoatGuy]

Really? The most studied? Explain to me how with all that studying they determine that there can be no tags in 4-21, 4-22. I can't go anywhere, high or low, without seeing at least fresh tracks, often several bears in a day. Those last couple Griz left in there must have wings because they sure get around. If these are so studied and they get it that wrong it makes it hard to have faith in any pop estimates they have.


Because, as stated, the AAM for provincial policy is set @ 6% of the population. There are lots of grizzly bears there and there could be more harvested - everyone recognizes that BUT the provincial policy is what it is and between hunting and non-hunting mortality we have consistently exceeded the AAM.

This gets back to hunting as a management tool. Grizzly bear management is not management (just like most of the seasons in R4), it is setup so that hunting does not cause a population decline.

The AAM is political in nature and it is in part what allows a grizzly hunt... because no one can say hunting will cause grizzly bears to dissappear.

If you don't like that then start voicing your opinion because we have some serious threats coming up particularly as it pertains to grizzly bear hunting. I am fully expecting some FNs to try to ban grizzly hunting as part of their 'negotiations' with government. The latest bear paper has also brought more publicity than anything in the past and I feel like some of the political 'fence sitters' are now starting to go anti-hunting.

[gcreek]

Went looking for our last bull that was missing this past weekend. Covered 10 miles of swamps with the quad in 3 inches of snow, found the bull and also crossed tracks of 2 packs of wolves (5 in one bunch, 8 in the other), 3 different grizzlies and 2 moose. The balance is off a bit.

[bugler]

I understand that they think we've overharvested based on bogus population estimates. I think nearly everyone who roams that country will agree that the pop has done nothing but increase substantially in the last 10 or so years and the increased incidentals is the result of that. This is what our biologists need to "study" and make clear to the public and politicians

[GoatGuy]

I understand that they think we've overharvested based on bogus population estimates. I think nearly everyone who roams that country will agree that the pop has done nothing but increase substantially in the last 10 or so years and the increased incidentals is the result of that. This is what our biologists need to "study" and make clear to the public and politicians

The problem isn't the population estimate, it's the harvest rate.

It it is YOUR JOB to convince politicians and the public. Your biologist and the grizzly bear researchers know we could easily increase the harvest without affecting the population.


Biologists job is to carry out population estimates and apply policy to harvest. If you want change you'll have to do it yourself - otherwise it won't get done. Politicians are the ones who make these decisions not your bio.

[bugler]

I think you are missing my point. They are applying a harvest rate based on a fictionally low population estimate in my opinion. I believe it is the bio's job to to come up with a proper estimate, and if they are saying it has gone down or remained stable they are doing it wrong. If the numbers indicate that the population has increased substantially, which everyone seems to know, then I think it is their job, (and ours, I agree there), to point out to their superiors and politicians that there is room to modify the policy to an increased harvest rate.

[GoatGuy]

I think you are missing my point. They are applying a harvest rate based on a fictionally low population estimate in my opinion. I believe it is the bio's job to to come up with a proper estimate, and if they are saying it has gone down or remained stable they are doing it wrong. If the numbers indicate that the population has increased substantially, which everyone seems to know, then I think it is their job, (and ours, I agree there), to point out to their superiors and politicians that there is room to modify the policy to an increased harvest rate.

I'm not missing the point, I'm trying to explain how GB management works.

The estimates are good - they never said the populations are stable or in decline. About the only place the population could be declining is in the FH and that's due to habitat.

Everyone knows there are lots of bears and that we could harvest more including bear biologists and the RM. The AAM is NOT a management rate, the 6% ensures that people don't cause a population decline, so in most parts of the province you can expect the bear population to increase even if hunters shoot their allocation. So, EXPECT THE BEAR POPULATION TO INCREASE!!! And if you have a bunch of bears run over by vehicles, trains, poached, shot by hikers, shot by hunters EXPECT SEASONS TO BE CLOSED!! The population will be regulated almost exclusively by habitat, not hunting or human mortality. At the end of the day the relationship between your hunting opportunities and the grizzly bear population isn't significant because grizzly bear hunting is not being used as a MANAGEMENT TOOL.


It is not their job, the politicians are their bosses, we are the politicians bosses. We had the green light a few years ago to manage the EK a bit differently but that dissappeared quickly because there are too many anti's contacting their MLAs and too many hunters whining at the biologists instead of contacting their MLAs. Sound familiar?

I don't know how to get it through to some of you guys, but all you're doing complaining about the wildlife managers is wasting everybody's time. Policy is the high level framework for wildlife management. Policy nowadays is created for and signed off by politicians. Politicians sign off on policy that is good for politicians. In the case of grizzly bears, the easiest thing to do is placate to the Lower Mainland because they don't hear from the hunters in the EK - the hunters in the EK are too busy whining at the regional manager - why? I have no idea. It is the biggest waste of time, yet it is also the EK hunters favorite thing to do.

Where has it got you? 40 years of it and now you have habitat which is in terrible shape which has resulted in fewer mule deer, non-migratory elk, sheep population crash in 2011, sheep populations which have dissapeared, goat populations in decline - THAT IS BECAUSE YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT HUNTING REGULATIONS AND NOT HABITAT OR PREDATORS. You sit around at for hours Tim Hortons and whine to everybody and then bitch at the manager but you can't find 5 minutes to go see your MLA - it is unbelieveable. You also have more grizzlies and wolves in places there haven't been since the 40s. The lack of foresight is coming back to haunt you and you're leaving a huge mess for future generations. Long story short, the approach you've used or are using DOESN'T WORK.

Your politicians are the ones that control the entire outcome. Get on their case if you want to drive change.

Or continue to sit on HBC and hang out at Tim Hortons or the A&W, drink coffee, chat about the good old days, bitch about management, blame wildlife managers for problems that are really your own fault due to a lack of foresight, and contribute nothing to the resource.

[Confused]

I think you are missing my point. They are applying a harvest rate based on a fictionally low population estimate in my opinion. I believe it is the bio's job to to come up with a proper estimate, and if they are saying it has gone down or remained stable they are doing it wrong. If the numbers indicate that the population has increased substantially, which everyone seems to know, then I think it is their job, (and ours, I agree there), to point out to their superiors and politicians that there is room to modify the policy to an increased harvest rate.

Goatguy is correct, the problem isn't the pop estimates in most cases. If you look at them they seem pretty resonable.Anecdotallyanyway. Some even seem a little high to me. Where things fall off the wagon is the harvest rates . By the time the procedure manual is applied, that 4-6% using density criteria is ratcheted down to 1-5 %. an adjustment to the harvest rate makes a much larger impact then any resonable change to a pop. estimate.