More Hunters These Days then back In The Day...

[hunter1947]

Has anyone got some positive feed back on how many hunters that had hunting liesence back 30 years ago ???? what the number of hunters that had hunting liesence in 2012 ??.

[decker9]

Would be cool to see a set of regs from 30 years ago, linsece fees, tags, bad limits and such.

[andrewscag]

I'd be more interested in the percentage of the population that had licenses than the total number

[Rackem]

The percentage of the population would definitely show a decline, as more and more Canadians live in cities....I will see if I can find the stats.

[Rackem]

http://peachlandsportsmen.com/bcwf100.html

[Rackem]

" Reasons For Above Trends
Major causes of the recent decline in numbers of hunters appear to be:
urbanization and loss of the hunting tradition; the anti-hunting movement and society’s increased concern for all wildlife species; a change in the age-sex structure of hunters; increased cost and complication of hunting; the public perception that hunting threatens game populations; and dissatisfaction with government’s ability to properly manage the game resource and all hunters (native and non-native).
As urbanization increases and fewer parents introduce their children to the tradition of hunting, a growing and more vocal anti-hunting community and the media pressure society to refrain from hunting. More children are raised in single-parent families in densely populated urban settings, with less chance to learn about hunting and nature. The average age of hunters has increased


while the proportion of hunters 15-24 years of age declined significantly between 1974 and 1984. On a per capita basis, more hunters live in rural than in urban areas (Figures 4 and 5).
There is growing disfavor with hunters by the general public or the 90% who don’t hunt. This disfavor is fueled by the disclosure of illegal and unethical hunting by some hunters, plus a media more interested in exposing the shortcomings of a few hunters and conservation groups than in giving equal coverage to the positive actions of the majority. The 7,000 animal-rights groups in North America have a combined annual budget (1992) of $300 million and exert a powerful influence on both the public and politicians."

[Rackem]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/numbers+Hunting/8237298/story.html

By the numbers: Hunting in B.C.


Vancouver SunApril 12, 2013




After 31 years of steady decline, the number of hunters licensed in B.C. is once again increasing.
Sales of basic hunting licenses to B.C. residents peaked during the 1981-82 season at 174,000, before sliding to less than 82,000 in 2003. Stung by recession, the provincial government doubled license fees in 1982 as a cash grab, according to Jesse Zeman, vice chairman of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. The Conservation Outdoor Recreation Education (CORE) course required for hunters in B.C. was privatized and removed from high school curricula.
“We went from 12,000 CORE graduates in one year to 1,800 the next,” said Zeman. “We lost 84 per cent of our recruitment in one year.”
After the number of active hunters bottomed out in 2003, the provincial government launched a hunter recruitment and retention plan with a target of attracting and maintaining 100,000 active resident hunters. License fees and permit fees to hunt individual species were slashed. This year, a new class of inexpensive licenses will be introduced to encourage teens to take up the sport, mentored by experienced hunters.
The effort is paying off. More than 97,000 basic resident hunting licenses were sold last year.
Hunting and angling licenses bring in about $12 million a year to government coffers. About $2.5 million of that is targeted to conservation programs through the Habitat Conservation Trust. Hunting-friendly organizations such as the BCWF and Ducks Unlimited actively promote wildlife conservation, participate in wildlife counts and research, lobby to protect sensitive habitat, and take on restoration and wildlife recovery projects at little or no expense to taxpayers.
BCWF members donate about 300,000 volunteer hours a year to environmental stewardship in B.C., Zeman said. The province’s recruitment program recognizes the hunting community as an essential element of its wildlife management strategy.
Local hunters and hunting tourism generate about $50 million in economic activity each year, mostly in rural communities, according to government figures.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[Ian F.]

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/Hunting.htm

heres the big data set from the US, haven't found the graph yet...

[Rackem]

https://web.uvic.ca/~repa/publications/.../WorkingPaper2004-09.pdf‎

We present estimates of the demand for hunting licenses by residents and non residents in British Columbia for the period 1971–2000. We obtain estimates of both short-run and long- run price elasticities and discuss their revenue implications for future fee increases.

We find the demand by non residents to be strongly correlated with U.S. income variation over the business cycle, but find no such role for cyclical income variation for resident hunters.

The ability of the government to increase revenues from resident hunters turns out to be limited, particularly in the long run, while greater opportunities exist to raise revenues from U.S. hunters as short- and long-run price elasticities of demand are quite inelastic. We argue that conservation surcharges on foreign hunters are one way to capture more of the resource rent.

Too much algebra for me...

[Rackem]

1968 BC Moose tag (cut) for sale on Ebay...$6 was the tag fee...adjusted for inflation...$40 so it's cheaper now

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-MOOSE-TAG-LICENSE-HUNTING-BRITISH-COLUMBIA-CANADA-/161176866288?pt=Vintage_Hunting&hash=item2586e3cdf0

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1463904_10151805262510754_1268054852_n.jpg

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1174686_10151805267325754_424527343_n.jpg

[Rackmastr]

Good to see hunter numbers rising again and groups working towards promoting and recruiting more hunters for sure!!!

[Downtown]

Would be cool to see a set of regs from 30 years ago, linsece fees, tags, bad limits and such.

The 1975 BC Hunting Regulations where a whopping 1page (front and backside). If there is interest to see them from several people I will dig em out an post.

[hunter1947]

The 1975 BC Hunting Regulations where a whopping 1page (front and backside). If there is interest to see them from several people I will dig em out an post.


Lots of HBC members would loke to see as for me go for it really will appreciate the looks..

[Rackem]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-BRITISH-COLUMBIA-CANADA-NON-RESIDENT-HUNTING-LICENCE-LICENSE-/161176869316?pt=Vintage_Hunting&hash=item2586e3d9c4

It seems a Non Resident hunter in 1968 had to pay $75 for the license, $60 for a bull moose tag, and $25 for a deer tag. buck. Adjusted for inflation thats $500 for the license, $400 for the Moose tag, $167 for the deer tag...

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/555339_10151805273640754_2000856601_n.jpg

[fuzzy 63]

Now that both of our sons will be finished university this late spring , two more new recruits will be taking to the field and the woods . they always wanted to do it and thankfully time and good health is on all of our sides . when they were young they could not get enough of '' chicken strips '' also known as Canada goose breasts marinated overnight in buttermilk and then breaded and baked . ummmmm .
Cliff

[boxhitch]

174,000
Imagine all those hunters on a far more limited road system than exists now , smaller or non-existent cut blocks , and without quads or sxs's
Twice as many hunters would also mean twice as many LML hunters traveling to other parts of BC to hunt.

[Rackem]

Deer tags in 1968 were one dollar for residents...$6.70 in todays dollars, so it was cheaper then.

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1477714_10151805283490754_1147693531_n.jpg

$0.50 For a blackbear tag...$3.35 todays dollars...

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1528695_10151805287790754_235959329_n.jpg

[coach]

Thanks, Rackem, for digging up the info! :-D

The peak: 174,000 hunters in 1981-82.

The bottom: less than 82,000 in 2003.

Today: 97,000 in 2012.

If 2003 counts as "back in the day" then hunter numbers are higher. If we compare to 30 years ago, we have just over half as many licensed hunters as we did then.

[hunter1947]

Wow there has been a big number of hunter increase for licenses from the year 2003 nine years ago 15,000 more licenses this is good more revenue to help out our wildlife..

[thehammer]

There wouldn't be enough crown land for a 172K hunters now. There are fewer hunters now than when I started hunting over 40 years ago but the illusion is there is more as there is less hunting area all the time. More restrictions and closed areas, more 4 wheel drives and ATV's, not to mention less road access in many areas.

[Salty]

Its funny, I hear a lot of people thinking back fondly to the good old days. I think as humans we tend to remember the positive events more than the other way.

In the hunting season of 1981 I was 21 and living in Prince George. It went something like this... come about September 1 you'd start to see a buzz of activity at the gun counter at Northern Hardware on 3rd avenue. Guys from the mills eyeing up new shoot'n irons and buying ammo. There was a line up behind a busy lady pumping out hand written hunting licences one after the other through the day.

By about the 10th of Sept it seemed that most, I'm not exaggerating... most pick ups had a rifle or two hanging in the rack across the back window. Speaking of which anyone that had a pick up without a gun rack was clearly from out of town we figured. And of course lots with a gun rack were too. Most of the hotels and motels had hunter's welcome and hunter specials signs out. Now I will say most of the locals weren't hard core hunters but most did have a licence every year and they were packing all through the season. Moose learned to say clear of the roads. LOL. Back then we mainly just grouse hunted. We new of places off the beaten track with over grown old roads that held a lot of grouse. You could tell from the greasy interior gumbo if a truck had been in on a road that day.... if they had... we went some place else. It wasn't a good environment to let your dog lope along ahead of the truck looking for chickens with hunters nearby. Some with pretty itchy trigger fingers in those days. The Blackwater road parade would start an hour before sun up and finish an hour after. Other busy spots were Nation lakes, Bowron or any other gravel road off the highway really..

Personally I prefer how things happen today. Less hunters, more of them serious about it by percentage- but still a lot of road hunters. I'm glad to see that hunting numbers are in the up swing again. There's lots of room for more hunters today especially with a lot more knowledge in place around long term game managment.

[GoatGuy]

There wouldn't be enough crown land for a 172K hunters now. There are fewer hunters now than when I started hunting over 40 years ago but the illusion is there is more as there is less hunting area all the time. More restrictions and closed areas, more 4 wheel drives and ATV's, not to mention less road access in many areas.

Please support your argument so we can all understand.

[Sofa King]

Good to see hunter numbers rising again and groups working towards promoting and recruiting more hunters for sure!!!

why do you think it's good?
more hunters means less animals.
there's areas that have seen drastic decreases in game populations.
how is more hunters a good thing for that?
and nothing ensures that new hunters are good, ethical hunters.
50 new hunters next year could just as well be 50 more poachers.
I'm assuming you think more hunters means more support for the past-time.
it doesn't necessarily though.

[thehammer]

Wasn't an argument, my own observation. The word "illusion" would be the give away.

[Salty]

why do you think it's good?
more hunters means less animals.
there's areas that have seen drastic decreases in game populations.
how is more hunters a good thing for that?
and nothing ensures that new hunters are good, ethical hunters.
50 new hunters next year could just as well be 50 more poachers.
I'm assuming you think more hunters means more support for the past-time.
it doesn't necessarily though.

Jesus Christ dually that is the most selfish, backwards uneducated thing I've heard you post. WTF pays for conservation? Hunters. Who puts value on game so industry doesn't just push it aside? Hunters. The more hunters we have the better of game will be in this province. All for me and screw everyone else attitude not withstanding. Sheesh, I think you mean well reading your stuff here and there but you've got some messed up theories. Oh, and best of the season to you here's hoping the bigger picture will come clear to you in 2014. :tongue:

[boxhitch]

more hunters means less animals.
there's areas that have seen drastic decreases in game populations.
how is more hunters a good thing for that?
You still think hunters are the cause of reduced populations ? Do you ever read up on the science posted here ?


50 new hunters next year could just as well be 50 more poachers.Tough outlook , I hope things look up for you next year.

[hunter1947]

why do you think it's good?
more hunters means less animals.
there's areas that have seen drastic decreases in game populations.
how is more hunters a good thing for that?
and nothing ensures that new hunters are good, ethical hunters.
50 new hunters next year could just as well be 50 more poachers.
I'm assuming you think more hunters means more support for the past-time.
it doesn't necessarily though.

The way I see it is more hunters more money to towns and more revenue for the management..

[GoatGuy]

Ok, just so we don't head down the rabbit hole here. BC compared to 2 of our neighbours:















Jurisdiction
Hunters
Size
Hunters/km


Montana
486,000
381,000km2
1.28


Washington
188,000
184,827km2
1.02


BC
100,000
945,000km2

0.11



BC has one of the lowest hunter densities in North America. BC is one of the most diverse in terms of number of species available as well as the highest % of crown land south of AK, YT, NWT, particularly in proximity to cities.

It's funny when 'we' complain about too many hunters and not enough land. We have the best of both.

[Sofa King]

Jesus Christ dually that is the most selfish, backwards uneducated thing I've heard you post. WTF pays for conservation? Hunters. Who puts value on game so industry doesn't just push it aside? Hunters. The more hunters we have the better of game will be in this province. All for me and screw everyone else attitude not withstanding. Sheesh, I think you mean well reading your stuff here and there but you've got some messed up theories. Oh, and best of the season to you here's hoping the bigger picture will come clear to you in 2014. :tongue:
don't misread it.
I didn't say that "I" think it's a bad thing.
I was asking why "he" thought it was a good thing.
why do people read things that are asked and assume that's that person's views?
I made a couple points and asked some questions, that's all.
I never said I'm against hunter #'s increasing.
don't read your own thoughts into a post and assume it's all negative.

[Sofa King]

The way I see it is more hunters more money to towns and more revenue for the management..

that's 100% true.
and the more hunters applying for LEH's increases the $$ being raised as well.

[Keta1969]

don't misread it.
I didn't say that "I" think it's a bad thing.
I was asking why "he" thought it was a good thing.
why do people read things that are asked and assume that's that person's views?
I made a couple points and asked some questions, that's all.
I never said I'm against hunter #'s increasing.
don't read your own thoughts into a post and assume it's all negative.

It was all negative!!!!

[coach]

More hunters equals a bigger pool for those interested in making things better to draw volunteers from. The grey haired crowd at my club, who are the first to sign up to assist with habitat projects, aren't going to be around forever. Lots of "takers" in the population. Fortunately there's always a percentage of "givers". Funny how the takers seem to be the ones with the loudest voices.

[Salty]

don't misread it.
I didn't say that "I" think it's a bad thing.
I was asking why "he" thought it was a good thing.
why do people read things that are asked and assume that's that person's views?
I made a couple points and asked some questions, that's all.
I never said I'm against hunter #'s increasing.
don't read your own thoughts into a post and assume it's all negative.

Well you're right I didn't read anywhere in there that you weren't against more hunters. Glad I was wrong.

[Sofa King]

You still think hunters are the cause of reduced populations ? Do you ever read up on the science posted here ?

Tough outlook , I hope things look up for you next year.

I did not say that hunters are the reason for reduced populations.
read what was wrote.
I said pops are already decreased drastically in some areas.
and asked how increasing the hunters in those areas would help those populations increase?
and if every hunter every season cut every tag he/she purchased, how would that affect things?

and I was simply stating that 50 new hunters doesn't necessarily mean 50 new awesome guys out in the bush.
didn't mean I think every new hunter is a bad one.
but that's a possibility.
i'd like to see more hunter training before handing over a hunter #.

[adriaticum]

People are forgetting how wonderful TV is. I think more people should embrace their cozy sofas and check out some of the thousands of TV channels we have today.
There is something out there for everyone! Politics, sports, Reality TV, Music, Movies. Why anyone would want to be out there on -5 all wet and cold is beyond reason.

[Sofa King]

It was all negative!!!!

your simple little post was all negative.
how is asking a question negative?

[Sofa King]

Well you're right I didn't read anywhere in there that you weren't against more hunters. Glad I was wrong.

so, now that you.ve re-read it, doesn't that make this apply to you more than me?
Jesus Christ dually that is the most selfish, backwards uneducated thing I've heard you post

[thehammer]

Man you are defensive GG. I made a statement not a complaint, I thought that's with this forum is for.

[Salty]

i'd like to see more hunter training before handing over a hunter #.

Well the good news is there's lots of opportunity to advance your views on this in BC. As simple as calling or writing the ministry or better becoming active in your local club and the BCWF and bring forward your thoughts there. Personally I think BC has one of the better training situations with the CORE course but there's always room for improvement. Sure is a hell of a lot better than the "good old days" where if you could sign your name you got a licence.

[coach]

So, Duallie, does the guy with loudest voice on this thread volunteer his time to making a difference?

[Rackem]

why do you think it's good?
more hunters means less animals.
there's areas that have seen drastic decreases in game populations.
how is more hunters a good thing for that?
and nothing ensures that new hunters are good, ethical hunters.
50 new hunters next year could just as well be 50 more poachers.
I'm assuming you think more hunters means more support for the past-time.
it doesn't necessarily though.

Duallie, More hunters doesn't necessarily mean less animals.

More hunters are better than less hunters because they have a voice. Less hunters means less voice, less people caring about hunter rights.
www.nssf.org/PDF/HuntingLicTrends-NatlRpt.pdf‎
“Considering hunters’ contribute over $1 billion every year to wildlife conservation via
licenses and excise taxes, if half of the hunters who lapsed this year actually bought a
license, conservation dollars would have increased by $97 million,” reported Rob
Southwick, President of Southwick Associates. “This estimate doesn’t even include the
extra dollars possible from increased hunters’ excise taxes. Considering the limited
government dollars allocated for wildlife and the tremendous impact hunters provide to
rural communities, increased efforts to boost hunter numbers would make smart
conservation and economic sense.”

[Keta1969]

your simple little post was all negative.
how is asking a question negative?

You answered your own questions with two very negative answers. Go back and reread it.

[r106]

why do you think it's good?
more hunters means less animals.
there's areas that have seen drastic decreases in game populations.
how is more hunters a good thing for that?
and nothing ensures that new hunters are good, ethical hunters.
50 new hunters next year could just as well be 50 more poachers.
I'm assuming you think more hunters means more support for the past-time.
it doesn't necessarily though.


don't misread it.
I didn't say that "I" think it's a bad thing.
I was asking why "he" thought it was a good thing.
why do people read things that are asked and assume that's that person's views?
I made a couple points and asked some questions, that's all.
I never said I'm against hunter #'s increasing.
don't read your own thoughts into a post and assume it's all negative.

Re read your post. How could anyone come to any other conclusion other than your against new hunter recruitment. Yet we are making up the negativity. Pull your head out of your ass Dually

You didn't say this in the form of a question it was in the form of a statement
more hunters means less animals. or
and nothing ensures that new hunters are good, ethical hunters. and my favorite non question that is not supposed to be taken negative
50 new hunters next year could just as well be 50 more poachers.


BC is big enough for a lot more hunters. I wounder how the 170 000+ hunters back in the day didn't shoot all of the game??? Maybe because hunters play such a small role in the mortality of game animal?

[Salty]

so, now that you.ve re-read it, doesn't that make this apply to you more than me?
Jesus Christ dually that is the most selfish, backwards uneducated thing I've heard you post

I don't think so. More accurately my post could be construed as thinking that you were against more hunters and that most new hunters would be poachers in your view. I still don't see it reading much different. But now you've clarified your views. So I don't see how my post could be called selfish or backwards. Probably ignorant of your views with the info first given would sum it up best.

[Sofa King]

So, Duallie, does the guy with loudest voice on this thread volunteer his time to making a difference?

I sure as shit don't have the loudest voice.
I asked a question and have spent the rest pointing out how people misread it and attacked.

volunteering to make a difference to what?
I'm not complaining about decreased populations.
I see plenty of shooters every season.
how is volunteering going to do anything to combat poaching?
we need stricter penalties and more enforcement.
volunteering isn't going to change any laws.
it's frustrating when you see the local CO's truck parked at home most days through the hunting season.

[Rackem]

http://peachlandsportsmen.com/bcwf100.html

Game populations responded to the new system of protecting and enhancing critical habitats, to minimizing competition from livestock, from improved habitat diversity, and to more liberal fall hunting seasons that harvested game surpluses before winter diminished the animal’s food supply. By 1992, wapiti populations in North America exceeded 740,000; pronghorn exceeded 1 million; and white-tailed deer exceeded 22 million (Figure 3).
Even the number and quality of big game trophies were not diminished
by this increased harvest. The Boone and Crockett Club had a 175%
corn petitions between 1980 and 1990.
In almost every respect, hunting did not decrease big game populations
anywhere, except where yearlong indiscriminate hunting occurred by
poachers and aboriginal hunters. In 16 western states from 1960 to 1988,
pronghorn populations increased 112%, bighorn sheep 435%, deer 30%,
wapiti 782%, and moose 476%.

[coach]

I sure as shit don't have the loudest voice.
I asked a question and have spent the rest pointing out how people misread it and attacked.

volunteering to make a difference to what?
I'm not complaining about decreased populations.
I see plenty of shooters every season.
how is volunteering going to do anything to combat poaching?
we need stricter penalties and more enforcement.
volunteering isn't going to change any laws.
it's frustrating when you see the local CO's truck parked at home most days through the hunting season.

I rest my case. The takers are most often the ones with the loudest voice.

[Rackem]

I sure as shit don't have the loudest voice.
I asked a question and have spent the rest pointing out how people misread it and attacked.

volunteering to make a difference to what?
I'm not complaining about decreased populations.
I see plenty of shooters every season.
how is volunteering going to do anything to combat poaching?
we need stricter penalties and more enforcement.
volunteering isn't going to change any laws.
it's frustrating when you see the local CO's truck parked at home most days through the hunting season.

Volunteering teaching the new up and coming hunters to be ethical and responsible. So you don't have the 100% poachers in your Non Question Positive scenario.

[Salty]

I sure as shit don't have the loudest voice.
I asked a question and have spent the rest pointing out how people misread it and attacked.

volunteering to make a difference to what?
I'm not complaining about decreased populations.
I see plenty of shooters every season.
how is volunteering going to do anything to combat poaching?
we need stricter penalties and more enforcement.
volunteering isn't going to change any laws.
it's frustrating when you see the local CO's truck parked at home most days through the hunting season.

Well you're SAF not going to make a difference posting on the internet. Volunteering will help in many ways I'm not going to try to explain it here. I only recommend that you give it a try like many of us here do. No one volunteers, our way of life goes down the toilet. Its that simple. Try it, it can't hurt.

[r106]

I did not say that hunters are the reason for reduced populations.
read what was wrote.
I said pops are already decreased drastically in some areas.
and asked how increasing the hunters in those areas would help those populations increase?
and if every hunter every season cut every tag he/she purchased, how would that affect things?

and I was simply stating that 50 new hunters doesn't necessarily mean 50 new awesome guys out in the bush.
didn't mean I think every new hunter is a bad one.
but that's a possibility.
i'd like to see more hunter training before handing over a hunter #.


The way you phrase things is your biggest problem, your original post was 90% negative and came off as ignorant. Yet this post once explained what you were trying to get across was not so bad.

Just working on how your phrase a statement or question might stop people on here from jumping on you

[coach]

why do you think it's good?
more hunters means less animals.
there's areas that have seen drastic decreases in game populations.
how is more hunters a good thing for that?
and nothing ensures that new hunters are good, ethical hunters.
50 new hunters next year could just as well be 50 more poachers.
I'm assuming you think more hunters means more support for the past-time.
it doesn't necessarily though.

The questions are the sentences that end with question marks. The statements are those that ends with periods. Not sure how any of your statements can be construed as asking questions.

[Rackem]

I’ve only met one Chinese person that hunts & no East Indians.

If Duallie had volunteered to teach ethical hunting to the East Indian fellas that poached all those deer, perhaps it would never have happened, and the future law enforcer would have a clean slate ethically...

I have a buddy who is adopted by white people, he is Korean, and his brother is black, they are both avid hunters because they were raised in the culture. Have to say though, it's a rarity.

[Rackem]

http://youtu.be/xa9mkJtGkq8

[coach]

volunteering to make a difference to what?

how is volunteering going to do anything to combat poaching?
we need stricter penalties and more enforcement.
volunteering isn't going to change any laws.
it's frustrating when you see the local CO's truck parked at home most days through the hunting season.

From the BCWF website:

The Wilderness Watch Program utilizes the help of volunteers from all over British Columbia to patrol rural problem areas within their region and address issues that affect the welfare of animals and wildlife.


While on patrol, Wilderness Watch volunteers visit areas used for hunting, fishing, hiking and other outdoor recreational activities to look out for any infractions of environmental legislations (fishing and wildlife poaching, pollution, vandalism etc..).


The Wilderness Watch Program provides an opportunity for direct and supervised involvement by concerned individuals in the protection of BC’s fish, wildlife and habitat. Volunteers have no power to confront or apprehend violators beyond that of any citizen.


How does the program work?


This province-wide program is coordinated through the BCWF provincial office with BCWF volunteers who regularly conduct patrols of designated areas in, or in close proximity to, their community.


All motor vehicles within these areas are approached and, if a vehicle is occupied, assistance is offered and specific information is provided if requested. The purpose of the Wilderness Watch Program is explained and the occupants are encouraged to report any unusual activities to the appropriate authorities through the Toll Free Report All Poachers & Polluters hotline (RAPP Line 1-877-952-7277) or the Crimestoppers tips line.


If the vehicle is unoccupied, the Wilderness Watch volunteer leaves a contact slip on the windshield. The slip requests that the occupant of the vehicle report any unethical or unlawful act against wildlife, livestock and public or private property.


THE WILDERNESS WATCH PROGRAM...




...Provides an opportunity for direct and supervised involvement by concerned individuals in the protection of our natural environment.


...Helps to ensure continued access for the pursuit of hunting, fishing, camping and other outdoor activities, particularly on private lands.


...Demonstrates to the community at large a personal commitment to the natural environment and the need for individual citizens to become involved in protecting our natural resources.


...Serves notice to governments that the public is prepared to take positive and direct action to protect Crown Lands from abuse and to retain them in the public domain.


"The Wilderness Watch Program works collaboratively with Conservation Officers to protect BC’s environment and natural resources and is a great example of “shared stewardship”. Members of the program provide valuable assistance to Conservation Officers by providing local knowledge to officers new to an area, and acting as additional “eyes and ears” to observe and report violations of natural resource regulations. We greatly appreciate the support provided by the members of the Wilderness Watch program."


- L.N. Sundquist, Acting Chief Conservation Officer, Conservation Officer Service

[Sofa King]

the phrasing isn't the problem.
it doesn't say anywhere that those are my thoughts/views.
people just assume they are though, because some have ignorantly labelled me an "anti" and skewed others perceptions into everything I post.
people quickly misread/misinterpret what is actually wrote.

my later "explaining" of my op was no different than the op.
it says nowhere in it what many thought it did.

[Rackem]

Hmm the words come from his mouth, but he isn't the one speaking...

[coach]

the phrasing isn't the problem.
it doesn't say anywhere that those are my thoughts/views.
people just assume they are though, because some have ignorantly labelled me an "anti" and skewed others perceptions into everything I post.
people quickly misread/misinterpret what is actually wrote.

my later "explaining" of my op was no different than the op.
it says nowhere in it what many thought it did.

Ever consider proof-reading before you hit "post"?

[Rackem]

Post from a guy named Duallie --yet not his thoughts or views...I don't think you are an anti, but I think you do have serious communication issues.


it doesn't say anywhere that those are my thoughts/views.
people just assume they are though, because some have ignorantly labelled me an "anti" and skewed others perceptions into everything I post.
people quickly misread/misinterpret what is actually wrote.

[coach]

Hmm the words come from his mouth, but he isn't the one speaking...

Actually, the words come from his finger..:-D

[Rackem]

Perhaps he is in need of an exorcism...May the power of Christ compel you! Leave this man!

[Sofa King]

coach, I pretty much do everything you describe with the "wilderness watch" already.
I'm in the bush with all my spare time.
I pick up garbage when I see it.
I clean up campsites that are left a mess after every weekend.
I've reported many, many things over the years.
I don't need to join a group to make a difference.

[Rackem]

If you had preceded those comments with something along the lines of:

DISCLAIMER: The views in the following post under my name are not necessarily the views of myself Duallie but are presented simply for entertainment and discussion purposes.

[Sofa King]

Post from a guy named Duallie --yet not his thoughts or views...I don't think you are an anti, but I think you do have serious communication issues.

do you not realize that a person can post a common, perceived view of others without it being theirs?

[Salty]

http://bcwf.net/index.php/programs

http://bcwf.net/index.php/programs/core

http://bcwf.net/index.php/programs/wetlands

http://bcwf.net/index.php/programs/fishing-forever

http://bcwf.net/index.php/programs/wilderness-watch

http://bcwfbogblog.com/tag/volunteer/

http://bcwfbogblog.com/2012/01/29/2012-volunteer-intern-opportunities-open-now/

http://bcwfbogblog.com/category/wetland-stewards-continued-projects/

A small sample of good work being done ^^. There's only 40,000 of us volunteers, always room for more.

[Rackem]

do you not realize that a person can post a common, perceived view of others without it being theirs?

Yes if they precede it with such a disclaimer first...DISCLAIMER: The views in the following post under my name are not necessarily the views of myself Duallie but are presented simply for entertainment and discussion purposes.

[coach]

coach, I pretty much do everything you describe with the "wilderness watch" already.
I'm in the bush with all my spare time.
I pick up garbage when I see it.
I clean up campsites that are left a mess after every weekend.
I've reported many, many things over the years.
I don't need to join a group to make a difference.

That's all great stuff, Duallie. Most of us do the same. IMO - you can make a much bigger difference by being part of a group.

[GoatGuy]

Man you are defensive GG. I made a statement not a complaint, I thought that's with this forum is for.

A sharing of 'inform'ation, maybe?

Not much for the Easter bunny, fairies, or unicorns. If you don't know, look it up - the internet is a great place for 'inform'ation.

[Sofa King]

Post from a guy named Duallie --yet not his thoughts or views...I don't think you are an anti, but I think you do have serious communication issues.

I'm not religious, but I can see it from their views, as well as from the non-believer's view.
same as peta or greenpeace.
I don't believe in their views, but I can still view how they are seeing something.
It's not what I agree with, but I'm open-minded enough to be able to view something from both sides and see how each side is thinking.
and one can post the other side's view without it being their actual view.

[Rackem]

Simple disclaimer would have prevented misunderstanding your view. Your avatar is you, unless you tell us that you are playing devils advocate.

[coach]

I'm not religious, but I can see it from their views, as well as from the non-believer's view.
same as peta or greenpeace.
I don't believe in their views, but I can still view how they are seeing something.
It's not what I agree with, but I'm open-minded enough to be able to view something from both sides and see how each side is thinking.
and one can post the other side's view without it being their actual view.

Maybe you could start some of your statements with, "Some (or many or a few) would argue that..." The way you word things it sure looks like you are stating your personal view.

[thehammer]

"A sharing of 'inform'ation, maybe?

Not much for the Easter bunny, fairies, or unicorns. If you don't know, look it up - the internet is a great place for 'inform'ation."

Thanks for the info GG, so no opinions or personal observations only written down gospel facts off the internet, got it. AH

[Rackem]

Lima beans are delicious....

If I just posted that, people would think I like Lima beans, but really I find them horrifically repulsive and vile.

[Sofa King]

That's all great stuff, Duallie. Most of us do the same. IMO - you can make a much bigger difference by being part of a group.

not always.
a group isn't maybe going out all the times that I do.
and maybe I'm unable to when the group goes out.
i agree, maybe a bigger difference can be done as a group as bigger projects can be tackled.

[r106]

I'm not religious, but I can see it from their views, as well as from the non-believer's view.
same as peta or greenpeace.
I don't believe in their views, but I can still view how they are seeing something.
It's not what I agree with, but I'm open-minded enough to be able to view something from both sides and see how each side is thinking.
and one can post the other side's view without it being their actual view.


Yes, and that's a good thing. But when your always expressing other user groups views but not telling anyone they are other peoples views until later. You end up were you are now. Unless you tell us, we assume what you type is your view/thoughts.

[Sofa King]

Lima beans are delicious....

If I just posted that, people would think I like Lima beans, but really I find them horrifically repulsive and vile.
they are delicious, to some people.
but you didn't say that you think they are.
so why would i accuse you of loving them?

[Sofa King]

Yes, and that's a good thing. But when your always expressing other user groups views but not telling anyone they are other peoples views until later. You end up were you are now. Unless you tell us, we assume what you type is your view/thoughts.

you know what they say about "assume"?

[Rackem]

Because the puppet called Rackem is assumed to be my personal voice, unless I use a qualifier such as "Some people feel" but, my thoughts are "blah blah"

[Sofa King]

Maybe you could start some of your statements with, "Some (or many or a few) would argue that..." The way you word things it sure looks like you are stating your personal view.

suppose that would clarify it more.

[Rackmastr]

why do you think it's good?
more hunters means less animals.
there's areas that have seen drastic decreases in game populations.
how is more hunters a good thing for that?
and nothing ensures that new hunters are good, ethical hunters.
50 new hunters next year could just as well be 50 more poachers.
I'm assuming you think more hunters means more support for the past-time.
it doesn't necessarily though.

Haha.....you never cease to amaze me....

I figure thats enough key strokes wasted on you. Your continued ignorance is mind blowing.

[r106]

Duallie is a douche.






Don't assume anything

[goatdancer]

they are delicious, to some people.
but you didn't say that you think they are.
so why would i accuse you of loving them?

I guess English was not one of your favorite courses in high school.......

[coach]

not always.
a group isn't maybe going out all the times that I do.
and maybe I'm unable to when the group goes out.
i agree, maybe a bigger difference can be done as a group as bigger projects can be tackled.

When you are out alone and spot issues that need to be dealt with you can report back to the group. If the volunteering is to be done on a day you can't help out - at least the job will still get done. Pretty hard to tackle a winter range project by yourself.

Our garbage clean up on Gillard a couple years ago was a good example. At first I thought I could load some into my truck and take it to the dump. Quickly, I realized one truck wasn't going to be enough so I recruited a couple friends. As we looked around we were overwhelmed - the problem was way too big for 2 or 3 trucks. We recruited more people through HBC. We had a waste management company provide a 40 yard bin. We had a local grocery store donate smokies and buns. In 4 hours we cleaned up 9000 pounds of garbage. Good luck doing that solo.

[panhead]

Back when I started going hunting (early 70's) you could go to Simpsons Sears and buy a .303 British for $25.00. Box of ammo was cheap too. No courses, no gun license. Hunting license was cheap, again no course. Fuel was about .69 a gallon I think. Being young our biggest bill was booze. Went hunting in a 57 Chev and slept in it. Travelled from the Lower Mainland up to PG area. Had a great time and got hooked. Fast forward to today and nobody will go like that (me either) so what would it cost for some newbie to get into it now and travel the same distance? My guess is the new hunters are mostly residents that don't live in the Lower Mainland. A lot of people have been cashstrated. I am glad to see more people getting in to it but the opportunities we boomers have had are no more ...

[Rackem]

We make assumptions for convenience all the time. We assume the words coming out of your face are your words, your feelings, your communications, unless you qualify the words as belonging to another.

The fact that you get a lot of flack on here is often because you are not truly communicating your personal beliefs and thoughts and people have to go to the extra step and effort of filtering your comments in order to understand.

[Sofa King]

but back to the original topic of more hunters these days.
how would it affect things if every hunter every season cut every tag they purchased?
are they selling a certain amount of tags because the populations can sustain that many animals being harvested?
or are the tags oversold to generate as much $$$ as possible, not worrying at all about the possible repercussions of every one of those tags being cut?

[coach]

but back to the original topic of more hunters these days.
how would it affect things if every hunter every season cut every tag they purchased?
are they selling a certain amount of tags because the populations can sustain that many animals being harvested?
or are the tags oversold to generate as much $$$ as possible, not worrying at all about the possible repercussions of every one of those tags being cut?

Are these your questions or are you asking for someone else? :-D

[Rackem]

I live in one of the most game abundant areas in the province, and this is my first year being skunked, but generally I only get to punch one or two tags...

It is statistically impossible for everyone to punch their tags, probably higher than the odds of winning the lottery.

[coach]

but back to the original topic of more hunters these days.
how would it affect things if every hunter every season cut every tag they purchased?
are they selling a certain amount of tags because the populations can sustain that many animals being harvested?
or are the tags oversold to generate as much $$$ as possible, not worrying at all about the possible repercussions of every one of those tags being cut?

When there were almost twice as many hunters, seasons were much longer and limits were higher. Something to think about..

[Sofa King]

When you are out alone and spot issues that need to be dealt with you can report back to the group. If the volunteering is to be done on a day you can't help out - at least the job will still get done. Pretty hard to tackle a winter range project by yourself.

Our garbage clean up on Gillard a couple years ago was a good example. At first I thought I could load some into my truck and take it to the dump. Quickly, I realized one truck wasn't going to be enough so I recruited a couple friends. As we looked around we were overwhelmed - the problem was way too big for 2 or 3 trucks. We recruited more people through HBC. We had a waste management company provide a 40 yard bin. We had a local grocery store donate smokies and buns. In 4 hours we cleaned up 9000 pounds of garbage. Good luck doing that solo.

years ago, i found a large pile of household garbage up Gillard while out hiking/scouting.
i dug through it and found lots of their mail and other stuff.
i was able to get their name, etc, and i phoned it in to the CO's and the city.
neither said they could do anything about it.
they didn't care about the name and address on the garbage, they said anyone could have dumped it.
it's frustrating when the authorities don't want to do anything to help.

[r106]

but back to the original topic of more hunters these days.
how would it affect things if every hunter every season cut every tag they purchased?
are they selling a certain amount of tags because the populations can sustain that many animals being harvested?
or are the tags oversold to generate as much $$$ as possible, not worrying at all about the possible repercussions of every one of those tags being cut?


That scenario will never happen. This is a question that GG could answer best. But I ASSUME they have mathematical equation like X amount of estimated (insert animal here) + X amount of hunters divide by X success rate = tags issued

[r106]

are these your questions or are you asking for someone else? :-d


lol........

[Sofa King]

I live in one of the most game abundant areas in the province, and this is my first year being skunked, but generally I only get to punch on or two tags...

It is statistically impossible for everyone to punch their tags, probably higher than the odds of winning the lottery.

i agree, the odds are almost impossible for all tags to be cut.
but, is that because the game pops are down?
and if so, should they be selling endless tags?
hypothetically, what if everyone was successful and cut all their tags?
I'm guessing that would drastically decrease the populations and see stricter regs the next season.

[Sofa King]

That scenario will never happen. This is a question that GG could answer best. But I ASSUME they have mathematical equation like X amount of estimated (insert animal here) + X amount of hunters divide by X success rate = tags issued

that's my guess too.
that they go by the average success rate.
there's no way that they would want to decrease the # of tags sold.

[coach]

years ago, i found a large pile of household garbage up Gillard while out hiking/scouting.
i dug through it and found lots of their mail and other stuff.
i was able to get their name, etc, and i phoned it in to the CO's and the city.
neither said they could do anything about it.
they didn't care about the name and address on the garbage, they said anyone could have dumped it.
it's frustrating when the authorities don't want to do anything to help.

Yup. We had the same issue. That problem stems from our "legal" system. Not much we can do about that. People have "rights", I guess. The media attention we garnered for our clean up day alerted more Kelowna residents about illegal dumping. I understand a few people have been caught and charged subsequent to our effort. Dumping in the areas we cleaned up subsided for about a year. Things are getting bad again - but not to where they were. Another effort will take place this spring - hopefully province wide.

I guess we we can chose to complain or try to make a difference. I prefer to make the biggest difference possible - and that requires organization, thought and being part of a group.

[coach]

i agree, the odds are almost impossible for all tags to be cut.
but, is that because the game pops are down?
and if so, should they be selling endless tags?
hypothetically, what if everyone was successful and cut all their tags?
I'm guessing that would drastically decrease the populations and see stricter regs the next season.

That's why some areas have different seasons / bag limits than others. The bigger issue is habitat. With enough people involved and volunteering, wildlife can get the assistance it needs to thrive.

[Keta1969]

What would be interesting to know what is the success rate per license compared to say 35 or so years ago? The hunters I know today are much more sophisticated than in the past ie; ATVs,GPS units, Google Earth, Better Optics, trailcams etc. They are working on thermal imaging for hunting, still very expensive but it's coming. Having hunted for 35-40 years I've seen lots of changes and it is my observation that while numbers may be down the hunters today are much more dedicated and hard core.
Not longing for the old days but wonder if this shows up statistically. Also as hunters and conservationists when do we say no to some of the tech stuff that may show up? Whats next drones? Probably a question for another thread.

[two-feet]

What would be interesting to know what is the success rate per license compared to say 35 or so years ago? The hunters I know today are much more sophisticated than in the past ie; ATVs,GPS units, Google Earth, Better Optics, trailcams etc. They are working on thermal imaging for hunting, still very expensive but it's coming. Having hunted for 35-40 years I've seen lots of changes and it is my observation that while numbers may be down the hunters today are much more dedicated and hard core.
Not longing for the old days but wonder if this shows up statistically. Also as hunters and conservationists when do we say no to some of the tech stuff that may show up? Whats next drones? Probably a question for another thread.
Start that thread, would be a goody

[genockous]

I have regs from that time,when I get back home I will let u know and show them 2 u ,,Around new years,I will try to remember,puy out a reminder....january

[GoatGuy]

"A sharing of 'inform'ation, maybe?

Not much for the Easter bunny, fairies, or unicorns. If you don't know, look it up - the internet is a great place for 'inform'ation."

Thanks for the info GG, so no opinions or personal observations only written down gospel facts off the internet, got it. AH

Opinions and observations usually start with "I think", "I believe", or "I see."

Not:


There wouldn't be enough crown land for a 172K hunters now. There are fewer hunters now than when I started hunting over 40 years ago but the illusion is there is more as there is less hunting area all the time. More restrictions and closed areas, more 4 wheel drives and ATV's, not to mention less road access in many areas.

Not a fan of spreading BS, rumours, or other bits of fiction. Most of what you wrote is inconsistent with reality.

I think if we're going to look at hunting, hunters and wildlife management we have to start with fact and work our way up from there. Poor information makes for poor decisions.

[adriaticum]

Regardless of the fact that duallie is not politically correct, he is right in the basic premise.
More hunters equals less game.
More sheeple equals less game.

Let's say that 30% of hunters are successful.
30% of 10,000 is 3,000
30% of 100,000 is 30,000

Back at turn of the 20th century in the wild west everyone was a hunter and game was decimated.
Elk used to be one of the most numerous big game animals before wholesale settlement of the west.
Even more abundant than bison.
Now not so much.

I'd like someone to show me a map of "current" and "former" range of a big game animal where current is larger than former?

Maybe you guys just like spanking duallie.
I'll leave you to it.

[GoatGuy]

Wildlife management through hunting is about harvesting the sustainable surplus or where a population reduction is required, managing that. The success rate for hunters depends on the species, area, time of year and hunter demand. Some hunts have extremely low success rates, some much higher.

More hunters does not mean less game. That is what hunting regulations are for. We've already established we have some of the lowest hunter densities in NA. We also have some of the most conservative big game harvest policies and procedures.

The objective is to ensure we manage populations and hunter harvest so that it is consistent with management objectives.

[adriaticum]

Wildlife management through hunting is about harvesting the sustainable surplus or where a population reduction is required, managing that. The success rate for hunters depends on the species, area, time of year and hunter demand. Some hunts have extremely low success rates, some much higher.

More hunters does not mean less game. That is what hunting regulations are for. We've already established we have some of the lowest hunter densities in NA. We also have some of the most conservative big game harvest policies and procedures.

The objective is to ensure we manage populations and hunter harvest so that it is consistent with management objectives.


Ok GoatGuy, let me ask you one question.
Have you ever been turned down for a tag?

[GoatGuy]

Ok GoatGuy, let me ask you one question.
Have you ever been turned down for a tag?

Yes, it's called LEH.

[adriaticum]

Yes, it's called LEH.

Sure, that makes sense.
Let's watch and see how many LEH hunts are going to go GOS and how many GOS hunts are going to go LEH in the near future.
That would be a good indicator, would you agree?

[boxhitch]

hypothetically, what if everyone was successful and cut all their tags?
I'm guessing that would drastically decrease the populations and see stricter regs the next season.Still talking GOS right ? What you and others keep missing is the fact we have antler and horn restrictions in place so that numbers of hunters or success doesn't have to be a worry , until male-to-female ratios get out of whack , which is rare even in a reduced population . M/F ratios have to trend before they are an issue , a single season of high success would never be enough to alter things dramatically. Small localized fluctuations are what most hunters see , not the larger picture. Remove the entire 4-point sector of a MD pop. from a given mountain and those does from there will still be bred and still give birth , the beat goes on.

[boxhitch]

Back at turn of the 20th century in the wild west everyone was a hunter and game was decimated.
Elk used to be one of the most numerous big game animals before wholesale settlement of the west.
Even more abundant than bison.
Now not so much.

I'd like someone to show me a map of "current" and "former" range of a big game animal where current is larger than former?Market hunting did have its effects , then the introduction of game management was introduced. Not so relevant to today.

[thehammer]

Ok oh genius of the English language GG. You wanted to pick an argument from post one....as you always do. Your still an AH, pick that apart.

[r106]

Sure, that makes sense.
Let's watch and see how many LEH hunts are going to go GOS and how many GOS hunts are going to go LEH in the near future.
That would be a good indicator, would you agree?

LEH to GOS - West Kootney Elk come to mind. They are opening more areas up for LEH Sheep around Kamloops, Cache Creek and Clinton that used to be closed I'm sure there a lot more examples

More hunters Doesn't mean less game. It might mean shorter seasons and/or more motor vehicle restrictions for certain areas. Reduced bag limits or other regulation changes.

I think I'm like most on here, I would love to hunt and have nobody else around to compete with but we need strong numbers of hunters to have a voice in this Province. With the ever growing Anti-hunting groups voices getting louder and louder we need some numbers to keep are way of life.

[BiG Boar]

What a Christmas treat.

A lot of people slamming the obvious stupidity written by one idiotic poster. Heck, I even have him banned, but when people quote him, I have to read the garbage coming out of his stupid, uninformed, ignorant, nonsensical, mouth. Glad to see I haven't been missing any of his posts. If more people would put him on ignore, or we could have a poll to ban him, or at least stop responding to him, I could have waded through these 11 pages in a quarter of the time.

Now, for the record, I'm not going to mention who this is, or that the above is my view of this anti hunting reject of society. Its just a fact. In the form of a question?

[Big Lew]

"it's frustrating when you see the local CO's truck parked at home most days through the hunting season."

If the gov't would utilize a bit more money from the healthy amounts they collect from hunting activities (licenses, tags, permits, and taxes) then the CO's might be able to put some fuel in their old vehicles so they can actually be in the field doing their job.
One of the biggest differences I've noticed between hunting during the 60's-70's and now is the amount of private property and developments. Huge areas that was wilderness back then are now cut up with rural properties, farms, protected areas, and parks etc. There were more large ranches back then, but most didn't post or discourage hunters on their leased or owned properties except close to their buildings etc. I can vividly remember how much more plentiful game, including birds, was back then in most areas of the interior and Cariboo. They say that the game numbers are healthy now as well, but a lot of those animals are on private property, or protected within townships and closed areas. The biggest decrease in waterfowl though has been the drastic decline in small lakes, ponds, and marches which some have blamed clear cut logging for. Just about anywhere in the Interior, Cariboo, or Western Kootenays, held great numbers of grouse, and it was easy to 'limit out' in most species...not so easy now-a-days even with the quotas being half what they were back then.

[r106]

Ok oh genius of the English language GG. You wanted to pick an argument from post one....as you always do. Your still an AH, pick that apart.

I will defend GG on this ( not that he needs it ). GG has been awesome with supplying us with FACTS and information for years. It has been proven that emotional and individual opinions should in no way come to play in the making of hunting regulations.

Your original comment " there's not enough crown land to support the amount of hunters there once was" is your opinion. And you have the right to it and the right to voice it. He just asked if there was any proof to it. Nothing wrong with that either. Basically he is trying to find out if your statement was FACT or OPINION. If there has been a study to support your opinion then that would be very valuable piece of information if the hunter numbers continue to rise.

Thanks GoatGuy for all the valuable info and FACTS you do post. I have learned a lot from it.


edit - BigBoar - thats the funniest post I have read in awhile

[adriaticum]

LEH to GOS - West Kootney Elk come to mind. They are opening more areas up for LEH Sheep around Kamloops, Cache Creek and Clinton that used to be closed I'm sure there a lot more examples

More hunters Doesn't mean less game. It might mean shorter seasons and/or more motor vehicle restrictions for certain areas. Reduced bag limits or other regulation changes.

I think I'm like most on here, I would love to hunt and have nobody else around to compete with but we need strong numbers of hunters to have a voice in this Province. With the ever growing Anti-hunting groups voices getting louder and louder we need some numbers to keep are way of life.

I guess if you increase the number of hunters and reduce the bag limits and shorten the season, more vehicle restrictions you equalize it. According to that logic sure it doesn't mean more hunters equals less game.
Then we can rephrase it and say "more hunters equals less opportunity".
I guess if we increase the number of hunters enough, we will have a 1 day GOS.
To my bottom line "less opportunity" or "less game animals" have the same net effect.
Lower chances of me ending up with a deer in the freezer.

Since science based wildlife management is a relatively new discipline I am hopeful that wildlife managers will continue to do a good job in the future.
So far many big game animals have been increasing their range since early 20th century so we must be doing something right.

[thehammer]

Basically I have the same OPINION as Big Lew just stated. GG comes across as PROVE YOUR OPINION! Then picks apart the way you word things. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I was saying was not based on any study, after all who would have done that study. There is a right and wrong way of saying things and r106 you at least say it with a little more respect.

[Keta1969]

BigBoar - thats the funniest post I have read in awhile

Pretty damn funny but I think it might be a question? in the form of a fact.

[adriaticum]

I think I'm like most on here, I would love to hunt and have nobody else around to compete with but we need strong numbers of hunters to have a voice in this Province. With the ever growing Anti-hunting groups voices getting louder and louder we need some numbers to keep are way of life.

I do agree that we need a strong voice, but quantity doesn't always translate into quality.
Education is most important and having hunters educated about issues.
I like what BCWF is doing and everyone who owns a gun should be a member.

What I find is that there is a generation of hunters who have gone through the BS in the 90s who are all hush-hush about guns, hunting and so forth.
I have no idea what has scared the bejesus out of them.
But that has to stop.

[r106]

I guess if you increase the number of hunters and reduce the bag limits and shorten the season, more vehicle restrictions you equalize it. According to that logic sure it doesn't mean more hunters equals less game.
Then we can rephrase it and say "more hunters equals less opportunity".
I guess if we increase the number of hunters enough, we will have a 1 day GOS.
To my bottom line "less opportunity" or "less game animals" have the same net effect.
Lower chances of me ending up with a deer in the freezer.

Since science based wildlife management is a relatively new discipline I am hopeful that wildlife managers will continue to do a good job in the future.
So far many big game animals have been increasing their range since early 20th century so we must be doing something right.

It's not new. I have a question for you and it's the same as goatguy has mentioned numerous times. How did the animals survive back in the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's with healthy populations with almost twice the hunters and longer seasons? Something else has changed that is a bigger problem to wildlife than increasing hunter numbers. Is it Habitat? Predator management?

[r106]

Basically I have the same OPINION as Big Lew just stated. GG comes across as PROVE YOUR OPINION! Then picks apart the way you word things. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I was saying was not based on any study, after all who would have done that study. There is a right and wrong way of saying things and r106 you at least say it with a little more respect.

There's more to it than urban expansion and farmers not giving permission to hunt on private land. There is more access to the back country now than ever before or at least more people with the means to access it. Like ATV's, Jet boats or the $ fly. It might balance out???

[adriaticum]

It's not new. I have a question for you and it's the same as goatguy has mentioned numerous times. How did the animals survive back in the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's with healthy populations with almost twice the hunters and longer seasons? Something else has changed that is a bigger problem to wildlife than increasing hunter numbers. Is it Habitat? Predator management?

No it's not new. Relatively new, compared to hunting which is a much older discipline.

Sure I don't think that the number of hunters curve would follow the amount of game curve exactly in step.
Hunters are not the only thing that has an effect on game. Any kind of wilderness work will have effect on game. Logging, oil exploration, mining. They all reduce the habitat.
As well as predators which are very important.
Technology has changed dramatically in the last 50 years which basically affected "access".
Technology also will increase the effectiveness of tools we use to harvest animals. New rifles, scopes, range finders etc...
We have to consider all the variables. I don't think that effectiveness of hunters 50 years ago was as good as it is today. They didn't have the technology nor access we have today.

So I would say that even though there was possibly more game in some areas there were more areas that were not accessible to hunters and anyone else. Which gave animals a safe haven to live in.
Today there are very few safe havens.
Also game will change their habits to avoid predation.
I read that elk used to live in meadows and valleys in lower elevation 200 years ago. Until people pushed them up into the mountains with the colonization of the west.

Couple of things.

1. Amount of livable habitat in BC
2. Carrying capacity of any habitat for any animal. (which is constant)

Carrying capacity will not change and humans are constantly reducing the amount of livable habitat in BC.
So what do you figure?

BTW, wolves are moving south into the US and recolonizing areas that haven't seen them for over 50 years.
There is only one reason for that. There is not enough space/food here to support their growing numbers here so they have to move out.
So I definitely think that wolves are a major factor.
Americans are welcoming them with open traps.

[adriaticum]

There's more to it than urban expansion and farmers not giving permission to hunt on private land. There is more access to the back country now than ever before or at least more people with the means to access it. Like ATV's, Jet boats or the $ fly. It might balance out???

Imagine what's going to happen in the next 50 years if we all have the Burris eliminator scope. :-D

[GoatGuy]

Old one, posted before, BC based. Shows the impact of hunting and hunters versus predation and anthropogenic change.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/techpub/r7.pdf

Carrying capacity is not a strict function of amount of habitat. The analogy would be having a big fridge, but no food in it. Habitat quality is probably more important than quantity.

[coach]

Technology also will increase the effectiveness of tools we use to harvest animals. New rifles, I don't think that effectiveness of hunters 50 years ago was as good as it is today. They didn't have the technology nor access we have today.

Given your lack of success, it's a damn good thing you didn't try picking up hunting 50 years ago..:-D

[GoatGuy]

BTW, wolves are moving south into the US and recolonizing areas that haven't seen them for over 50 years.
There is only one reason for that. There is not enough space/food here to support their growing numbers here so they have to move out.
So I definitely think that wolves are a major factor.
Americans are welcoming them with open traps.

Wolves are moving south and north. The recolonization in the US is due to Canadian wolves which were relocated to Yellowstone starting in 1995 iirc. Wolves were wiped out across almost all of the southern 48 close to 100 years ago. BC had an active predator management program until the 80s.

Not sure where to start with the rest of it. Maybe search the BC wildlife program plan. Also the species specific harvest policy and procedures. It's all available on the interweb.

[Big Lew]

"There's more to it than urban expansion and farmers not giving permission to hunt on private land. There is more access to the back country now than ever before or at least more people with the means to access it. Like ATV's, Jet boats or the $ fly. It might balance out. It's been over 3 decades"

I totally agree. In years past, hunters traveled the logging roads, all of which weren't cross-ditched or torn up, but still only covered a small % of the Province. Now-a-days, even though many unused logging roads are cross-ditched, de-activated, or completely ripped up, they cover huge amounts of the Province with allows for far more access by people on atvs etc. When you couple that with all the advantages hunters enjoy with their equipment and access to information today, (this forum as an example) game has far less areas to hide, and for some, far less environment to thrive. Lately, many people, myself included, believe predators now have an advantage they didn't enjoy in past years because of the extensive logging activity as well. So all in all, I believe the pressure on our game overall is much greater today then it was at any time in the past even though our hunting numbers are far less then before.

[adriaticum]

Carrying capacity is not a strict function of amount of habitat. The analogy would be having a big fridge, but no food in it. Habitat quality is probably more important than quantity.

No it's not a function of the amount of habitat but it is a function of the amount of game. Carrying capacity and the amount of habitat can be used (and is used) to estimate numbers of animals.
Habitat quality is constant if you leave it alone. There is nothing we can to enhance the habitat better than leaving it alone.
So if there is 10 deer per square mile (hypothetical numbers) we can calculate what the deer population might be in a given area. They never go and count each individual animal to know how many there are in, say Manning Park.

Thanks GG, good document.

[GoatGuy]

Sure, that makes sense.
Let's watch and see how many LEH hunts are going to go GOS and how many GOS hunts are going to go LEH in the near future.
That would be a good indicator, would you agree?

So you're saying there's a relationship between LEH and too many hunters over-harvesting wildlife? And that as we have more hunters we will have more LEH because hunters are over-harvesting?

Probably not a good indicator - don't agree.

LEH is more of a function of declining wildlife populations associated with habitat alienation, fragmentation and degradation and predation. LEH is also a social tools for hunters, because many refuse to support science based wildlife management and would rather believe LEH will 'revive' wildlife populations, when it won't.

We have a good 30 year snap shot to look at over our shoulders. Half the hunters, little to no harvest of the female component of ungulate populations, more restrictive regulations and in many cases less game and in some areas 50-70% declines in 5 years. I don't think that's from regulated hunting!

[adriaticum]

Wolves are moving south and north. The recolonization in the US is due to Canadian wolves which were relocated to Yellowstone starting in 1995 iirc. Wolves were wiped out across almost all of the southern 48 close to 100 years ago. BC had an active predator management program until the 80s.

Not sure where to start with the rest of it. Maybe search the BC wildlife program plan. Also the species specific harvest policy and procedures. It's all available on the interweb.

Actually no, Yellowstone is not what I'm talking about.
But yes it's the Canadian wolves.
Wolves are crossing on their own into Washington State and Oregon and setting up in the Cascades.
They are crossing between Chilliwack Lake and Ross Lake (Skagit Valley)
They are now as far south as California.
This is just what I know. There may be more for sure.

:mrgreen:

http://www.defendersblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/wolf-sign-e1320244628835.jpg

[GoatGuy]

No it's not a function of the amount of habitat but it is a function of the amount of game. Carrying capacity and the amount of habitat can be used (and is used) to estimate numbers of animals.
Habitat quality is constant if you leave it alone. There is nothing we can to enhance the habitat better than leaving it alone.
So if there is 10 deer per square mile (hypothetical numbers) we can calculate what the deer population might be in a given area. They never go and count each individual animal to know how many there are in, say Manning Park.

Thanks GG, good document.

Habitat quality is not a constant - not even close, particularly for species such as elk, moose and deer. You can see huge swings in wildlife populations due to disturbance and long-term declines due to fire-suprression across much of BC. You even see huge swings in population trajectory for slow growing species such as grizzly bear. Habitat suitability and capability are two totally different things.

Here you go:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/fia_docs/sera_terp_summary.pdf

[GoatGuy]

Actually no, Yellowstone is not what I'm talking about.
But yes it's the Canadian wolves.
Wolves are crossing on their own into Washington State and Oregon and setting up in the Cascades.
They are crossing between Chilliwack Lake and Ross Lake (Skagit Valley)
They are now as far south as California.
This is just what I know. There may be more for sure.

:mrgreen:

http://www.defendersblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/wolf-sign-e1320244628835.jpg

The contiguous population was a result of the Yellowstone project and slow 'infilling' until populations merged.

I've seen the data from the collars, both sides of the border.

[GoatGuy]

Basically I have the same OPINION as Big Lew just stated. GG comes across as PROVE YOUR OPINION! Then picks apart the way you word things. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I was saying was not based on any study, after all who would have done that study. There is a right and wrong way of saying things and r106 you at least say it with a little more respect.

You didn't state it as opinion. Pretty easy to read the intent - harder to crawl out from under it.

[adriaticum]

Habitat quality is not a constant - not even close, particularly for species such as elk, moose and deer. You can see huge swings in wildlife populations due to disturbance and long-term declines due to fire-suprression across much of BC. You even see huge swings in population trajectory for slow growing species such as grizzly bear. Habitat suitability and capability are two totally different things.

Here you go:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/fia_docs/sera_terp_summary.pdf

It's constant over the long term.
Habitat is more or less a closed system along with animals in it.
If left alone.
If animals overgraze they will temporarily change the quality of the habitat. But then they will die out of starvation and it the habitat will regenerate.
It's a closed circuit.

[adriaticum]

The contiguous population was a result of the Yellowstone project and slow 'infilling' until populations merged.

I've seen the data from the collars, both sides of the border.

Sure they may have merged, but I was looking at this information about wolves crossing on their own.
That means only one thing in my mind.
Too many wolves in BC.

[GoatGuy]

It's constant over the long term.
Habitat is more or less a closed system along with animals in it.
If left alone.
If animals overgraze they will temporarily change the quality of the habitat. But then they will die out of starvation and it the habitat will regenerate.
It's a closed circuit.

Read the link, your interpretation doesn't include anthropogenic change.

[GoatGuy]

Sure they may have merged, but I was looking at this information about wolves crossing on their own.
That means only one thing in my mind.
Too many wolves in BC.

What information were you looking at?

[Rackem]

Back at turn of the 20th century in the wild west everyone was a hunter and game was decimated.
Elk used to be one of the most numerous big game animals before wholesale settlement of the west.
Even more abundant than bison.
Now not so much.

This was in the days of no bag limits, no sex limits, no closed seasons....http://peachlandsportsmen.com/bcwf100.html

a) Yearlong indiscriminate hunting, during the 1800’s and early 1900’s, decimated game populations and annihilated them in some areas. Deer,~ pronghorn, moose, wapiti and bear had been eradicated from large areas of the U. S. while the total North American population levels were very low as illustrated by estimates for white-tailed deer = 0.5 million, wapiti (elk)
41,000 and pronghorn (antelope) = 13,000 at the turn of the century

b) The Preservation Era began when major U. S. political leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt, implemented a new system of protecting remnant game populations by closing hunting in some states and limiting it to male-only, short-season fall hunting in others. Natural predation was reduced through extensive predator control programs

[adriaticum]

What information were you looking at?

Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife Wolf Conservation.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/

There are also documentaries about first recorded wolves in the US (besides Yellowstone) that unexpectedly showed up.

[thehammer]

"You didn't state it as opinion. Pretty easy to read the intent - harder to crawl out from under it. "

BS, if that was the case there would not be so many arguments on this site. You can't read intent! Maybe you can also read minds, what am I thinking right now?

[adriaticum]

No Rackem, there were no limits.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have that again.

[Rackem]

by GoatGuy (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?180-GoatGuy)
Please support your argument so we can all understand.




"A sharing of 'inform'ation, maybe?

Not much for the Easter bunny, fairies, or unicorns. If you don't know, look it up - the internet is a great place for 'inform'ation."


Thanks for the info GG, so no opinions or personal observations only written down gospel facts off the internet, got it. AH



Opinions and observations usually start with "I think", "I believe", or "I see."

Not:

http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by thehammer http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=1437151#post1437151)
There wouldn't be enough crown land for a 172K hunters now. There are fewer hunters now than when I started hunting over 40 years ago but the illusion is there is more as there is less hunting area all the time. More restrictions and closed areas, more 4 wheel drives and ATV's, not to mention less road access in many areas."





Not a fan of spreading BS, rumours, or other bits of fiction. Most of what you wrote is inconsistent with reality.

I think if we're going to look at hunting, hunters and wildlife management we have to start with fact and work our way up from there. Poor information makes for poor decisions.






I think (note, here comes an opinion) that GG was simply asking fairly patiently and consistently if you had any data to back up your statement. For our "edification" and information. He did it with a sense of humor and style. If your skin is that tissue thin, the internet may not be a safe place for you to play.

The statements you made were bold and sweeping, which leads a thinking person to ask questions.

If I were to say, "Grizzly bears should not be hunted because there are not enough bears left in BC, and less all the time", I would be expecting someone to ask me how I know this or how I can back up such a statement.

To expect such statements to go unchallenged by thinking people is ludicrous.

If I said, "I think Grizzly bears are decreasing because I see less in areas I used to see them" That is a personal observation statement.

Why do I feel like it's English 101 day today?

[Rackem]

No Rackem, there were no limits.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have that again.

No not in our present reality anyway...perhaps if a massive virus wiped out a largish chunk of Canada's and the world's population...

[adriaticum]

Read the link, your interpretation doesn't include anthropogenic change.

Yes,
"If left alone".

[r106]

No Rackem, there were no limits.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have that again.

Your getting a little to far ahead of yourself. You have to get a deer before you need to worry about bag limits. Lol:mrgreen:

[Rackem]

Your getting a little to far ahead of yourself. You have to get a deer before you need to worry about bag limits. Lol:mrgreen:

LOL, I know, it's a long way off...sad.

[adriaticum]

Your getting a little to far ahead of yourself. You have to get a deer before you need to worry about bag limits. Lol:mrgreen:

Ha,ha exactly. Too many hunters, I'll have to move north :mrgreen:

[curt]

Funny the stats say there are less around but Im tripping over guys way more than I 'd like to be !!! :)

[BlackOwL]

Please support your argument so we can all understand.


All You have to do is read between lines. :biggrin:

[r106]

Ha,ha exactly. Too many hunters, I'll have to move north :mrgreen:


lol. You don't have to move north. Just walk off the road a 100yards. They're no hunters and deer everywhere :mrgreen:

[HarryToolips]

It's great that there's more hunters now than 10 years ago for a bigger voice and revenue etc, now we just need to get the government to put all of the money from tags and licences etc into hunting, fishing and habitat and not general revenue..and how do we get them to push the logging companies to de-activate more roads once cut blocks are re-planted?? I'll ask at the next gameclub meeting I guess..

[Jagermeister]

We're what....about a month past the end of the season? And everyone is pissing in each other's cornflakes. I wonder what it will be like by the end of February? Should be a whole bunch sitting in exile.
I think a bunch of you younger dudes should get organized and get out and do some serious predator hunting. Drop a 'yote or two, see if you can stroke a wolf. Check out http://wolftracker.ca/ for some more info.

[BiG Boar]

Ha,ha exactly. Too many hunters, I'll have to move north :mrgreen:

Dude,
10 posts a day...(literally)....(on average)....I don't know how to say this.
Head north...

to where there is no internet.

You may actually stop posting, and start hunting.

hahahaha

[adriaticum]

Dude,
10 posts a day...(literally)....(on average)....I don't know how to say this.
Head north...

to where there is no internet.

You may actually stop posting, and start hunting.

hahahaha

Lol, I would like nothing more.
But in my shoes you can't just take off.

[fuzzy 63]

it is very unfortunate when a good thread turns into a pissing match . Everybody has views , some are good some are bad . It is mostly in perception and it is peoples prerogative to voice themselves in a manner that they feel is appropriate to the thread . A lot of it conveys the message that we are passionate about what we like and dislike . I believe that we we should all try to do some good and then disappear ,with out looking to be recognized for their actions .
On another forum I belong to , there is a excellent sig that is one of my favourites
'' never argue with a idiot , they will only bring you down to their level,and then beat you with experience''
Please everyone lets work together
Enjoy your day
Cliff

[Wild one]

There are less hunters but the way the seasons are laid out can make it seem like there is a lot more hunters in the bush. Most hunters are choosing to hunt the areas or opening that are less restrictive. Take the deer seasons for example GOS any buck can be a gong show in an area but if you go during 4pt or archery season you will only see a fraction of the hunters.

Seasons were less restrictive in the past and this spread out the pressure through out the season better than it does today. Yes, BC still has a long hunting season but there are a lot of point restrictions compared to the past and they are a big deterrent to many who only get 1 or 2 weeks a year.

It also seems like there are more hunter who choose to road hunt making them easier to notice

[markomoose]

Whew, I,m EXHAUSTED!!That is one good thread!

[horshur]

we hunted a lot this past season and never felt like it were crowded once however I expect to see hunters on the FSR's driving and walking.....however when walking I can not count on one hand the hunters I have run into last ten years it just does not happen.....so many of our modern trappings become a crutch...

[dana]

Either some of you are very young or some of the older hunters here have selective memories. Who remembers what the Christian Valley was like in the 80's? Today's hunters don't even come close to how busy it was then. Gobs and gobs of hunters. Camps every km or so with 3 or 4 or 5 deer hanging from game poles. The COs would blitz with COs brought in from all over the province. Then there was the EK in the 80s. Hunters sitting every couple hundred metres on mainlines waiting for the elk to cross. FSRs were so busy they could have put up traffic light at junctions. The hunting pressure nowadays is nothing compared to those days.

[pgpapa]

I have to agree with Dana on this, I remember in the sixties up the north Fraser and barney creek roads here in PG during the migration approx third week in Oct the trucks / cars etc were like only 100 yards apart and after a week or so you could look from one gut pile to another down the road. There was way more hunters in the 60s thru the 80s than is is now.

Larry

[358mag]

Either some of you are very young or some of the older hunters here have selective memories. Who remembers what the Christian Valley was like in the 80's? Today's hunters don't even come close to how busy it was then. Gobs and gobs of hunters. Camps every km or so with 3 or 4 or 5 deer hanging from game poles. The COs would blitz with COs brought in from all over the province. Then there was the EK in the 80s. Hunters sitting every couple hundred metres on mainlines waiting for the elk to cross. FSRs were so busy they could have put up traffic light at junctions. The hunting pressure nowadays is nothing compared to those days.
Merry Christmas Dana just one point I would like to bring across re the Christian Valley back in the 80's yes there were camps every were on the main and only road that was going up the Christian Valley . In the 90's they started logging the crap out of the valley with roads heading up into the high country on both's sides of the Kettle + West Kettle river and over into the Granby country . Still have to say there's a ton of hunters < and they all seem to be driving quads> over there just spread out over a lot more country , as far as deer # you will have to ask the internet experts .:wink:
Cheers

[adriaticum]

Either some of you are very young or some of the older hunters here have selective memories.

Probably a bit of both.
I would say growing population, resource exploitation can't be good for deer populations.
I've only heard of stories about Christian Valley, Rock Creek from older hunters who say they were "once" great hunting grounds.
But apparently not so much anymore. Once the word gets out you can bet there will be hunters.

[358mag]

But apparently not so much anymore. Once the word gets out you can bet there will be hunters.
Bingo we have a winner !! Gut pile hunters just Love the Internet .

[Wild one]

Probably a bit of both.
I would say growing population, resource exploitation can't be good for deer populations.
I've only heard of stories about Christian Valley, Rock Creek from older hunters who say they were "once" great hunting grounds.
But apparently not so much anymore. Once the word gets out you can bet there will be hunters.

You don't need to be that old to see a big difference when it comes to hunting that area

It is still not a bad area but not near as good as it was.

[r106]

Bingo we have a winner !! Gut pile hunters just Love the Internet .

Yup. You can notice trends from year to year. One year everyone is getting big bucks in Clearwater the next year it's Tunkwa next year it's Princeton. I think This year it was Kamloops. Thats were I got mine :wink::mrgreen: . I think in the early days of this site there was a little more honesty on were people were hunting. But people wise up quick. I wouldn't believe the locations people post now. Maybe the region but I bet a lot of people BS that on the internet as well.

We all know the big bucks are in Spences Bridge anyway

[Rackem]

Yeah I get all my big bucks in Region 5...:)

[dana]

Hogwash on blaming the internet. When I first moved to Clearwater there were a ton of OK and VI hunters hunting here. No internet then. Hmmm, how'd they find out??? My dad told me when he was in High school in Kelowna there was always groups of hunters traveling from the OK to Clearwater. Why? No internet back in those days. Word of mouth still worked the same back then. I shot my first monster muley in Clearwater in 92 and had it mounted by Harley White. For years afterwards I'd get calls from Kelowna hunters wanted to come hunt here in Clearwater. My buddy just got a buck mounted by Harley and he still remembered where I shot my 92 buck. Hahaha.

[dana]

The simple fact is the modern hunter is incredibly lazy. They spend more time doing donuts on their quads than they do hunting. You can blame access blah blah blah. I don't see too many 200 inchers standing still in cutblocks as the quad pounds through tank traps and up skid trails. Give the animals some credit people! They ain't that dumb! Back in the 80s I ran into alot more hunters while hiking than I ever do now. Hell, I probably could count on 1 hand how many hunters I've bumped into while hiking in the last 15 years. And that is 15 years of hunting Clearwater! HaHaHa!

[Big Lew]

During the fifties and earlier, 6 Mile and Savona Mountains had some of the highest concentrations of mule deer in the Province. My Dad first took me into that area in 1950, and you couldn't walk anywhere on Savona Mountain without stepping on many years of deer droppings. The north side of Kamloops was another wintering area with extremely high numbers of deer....there's not even a 10th (probably 20th) of those populations in those areas now.

[Jagermeister]

They didn't refer to the Christian Valley road as Blood and Guts alley for nothing. And it started long before the '80's.
What causes the flock-u-ations of hunters? Back then it was word of mouth.
"Hey, did you hear about them slaying the mule deer up Christian Valley?"
"No."
"Well Billy Bob told Ed who told me that every hunter up that way was just knocking them deer down like they was at a shootin' gallery. Everybody had their limit."
"No shit! Whatz say we head up there this weekend and getz our limit it too?"
"Let's get it on!"
And so it began.
Now you don't have to know someone, you just have to ask on the internet.
More on topic. We do not see the parade of road hunters like we used to back in the '60s, 70s, or '80s. In those decades, the FSR network was not deeply penetrating and so the road hunters were more concentrated. Today, with the spiderweb of roads, the hunters are strung out.
As for the increase or decrease in hunter numbers in the future. It will all depend on opportunity to harvest an animal. Decline in animal populations will drive hunters to other areas. Who wants to go hunting if the probable odds of winning a Lotto Max are better than harvesting a deer, elk or moose. Other hunters will give it up entirely and find other pursuits.

[dana]

What I can tell ya about the internet is that it gives the illusion of lots of bucks killed in one location over another. You see some pictures of some guy's success and you think everyone is having the same success. What you don't know is the countless hunters who didn't see success in that area. So you go and plan a trip there the next year only to find it difficult hunting. Therefore it is only logical to blame the internet, HBC or MonsterMuleys for you lack of success right. What you didn't take in account is some guys get lucky and other guys are just damn good hunters who do their homework. So you give up and head for the next goldrush and never actually get to know an area good enough to actually kill something decent.

[GoatGuy]

But apparently not so much anymore. Once the word gets out you can bet there will be hunters.
Bingo we have a winner !! Gut pile hunters just Love the Internet .

That isn't necessarily from the net............. more from 'the mouth'.

[dana]

Gut pile hunters have always been around. I can remember stories of guys staking out a hard-core Kelowna hunter's house in the 80's just to see where he'd go. The bulk of the current gut pile hunters are just too lazy for their own good. They spend more time looking at pics and google earth than actually being out in the field. And when they do find where you hunt, they spend more time chasing you than actually chasing bucks. I've had it happen to me. They have seen my vehicle and jump out where it is parked thinking I must be on something big. HaHaHa. They never do their own homework and learn the area for themselves so they are pretty easy to use to your advantage.

[Sitkaspruce]

We used to hunt the GR back in the 80's, Princeton in the early 90's and the famous Clearwater in the 2000's. GR was by word of mouth, from an old GF dad, who had some nice bucks from there. We hunted there for 5-6 years, killed some nice deer, but left due to the crazy amount of truck hunters who shot cows, a horse and even 2 does right in the ranch. What sold it for us was when a camp down the road had 3 bucks stolen off the meat pole one day while out hunting and we had someone go through our camper....Princeton was word of mouth and an invite from a local, had a great time there, killed some nice deer and enjoyed the hunting, moved to FSJames and quite hunting deer. Clearwater was a mix of word of mouth and the internet and all the big bucks being killed there....so we had to see for ourselves what the hype was...did 2 trips, killed a couple deer and liked what we saw, but there was not a buck around every tree, so we moved on to see where other gutpiles were....:mrgreen:. Now we will be following Mark, Coach, Ourea and a few others. So if you are down in Kelowna next fall and see a red Chev CC 4X4 towing quads and a grey Chev 4X4 towing a trailer, get out of the way as we are looking for Coach and where he hunts.....:wink:

There is lots of bush and animals for all of us and we need to stop worring about what others do for hunting or how they do it or where they go and just remember that we are all on the same side and thatw e are all out there forthe same thing; enjoying the outdoors and spending time with family and friends. getting an animal is just a bonus.

Cheers

SS

[coach]

Gee, Sitkaspruce, we better time things right for next season. I was planning on heading up your way to chase your crew's gut piles. I'd hate to be up north looking for your camp while you're tromping around the Okanagan. That Dawson Creedmore guy might be worth following, but he changes his name so often it could be next to impossible to track him down. :-D

[dana]

A guy can learn something from that Dawsondude. Changing you name might be a way to keep the gutpile chasers off your trail. ;)

Sitka,
Missed ya this year from the rest of the crew that came to Clearwater. Hopefully you'll throw in the next time they come up.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Gee, Sitkaspruce, we better time things right for next season. I was planning on heading up your way to chase your crew's gut piles. I'd hate to be up north looking for your camp while you're tromping around the Okanagan. That Dawson Creedmore guy might be worth following, but he changes his name so often it could be next to impossible to track him down. :-D

You should both time it right so you can stay in each other's houses:-D.
"Criss-cross"!

SSS

[Rackem]

--Yeah, I didn't get anything up here at all, uh huh, nada. You all saw the evidence, unpunched tags, those weren't taken earlier in the season, no no, those were just taken the other day...and if I did get anything it was in Region 5...:)

[saskbooknut]

From what I hear, on this site and from others in BC, hunters on Vancouver Island have been squeezed out of much of the land that we hunted in the 60's and early 70's. The spread of housing developments and the closure of private gates has resulted in much less access and much crowding for those who still pursue the game. We had a much more numerous deer population and a much higher grouse population on Vancouver Island to go after.
The Sooke road sweepstakes were certainly not attractive, but if you walked a lot, as we did, you usually got separated from the crowd. Hunting the high country by climbing resulted in a prime hunting experience with no other hunters sighted.
I have lived in Saskatchewan since 1986. I appreciate the hunting opportunity that I have had here. We are now experiencing a shocking low point in available deer and upland birds due to repeated and severe winter mortalities. There are always new opportunities developing. We shared a nice bull moose this year, taken with a Muzzleloading rifle in the thickets bordering farmland of S. Saskatchewan.
If I miss anything in BC it is the mountain experience. Climbing in the predawn to be in the high country for the day, glassing for miles and trying to work out a stalk.
Blue grouse and Bandtail pigeons on Vancouver Island, and the elusive Blacktail deer, Elk and mule deer in the E. Kootenay - those were the days.