FSR de-activation: how can we make it work for better hunting??

[HarryToolips]

Was stopped last night by a CO doing his routine checks; anyway, through our long conversation on wildlife, he agrees with my viewpoint of forest service road de-activation. I'm not saying this should be done with every spur off the main-roads, but why not get the logging companies, who make alot of $$, to pay for de-activation of say, even 50% of spur roads in any given area once re-planting is done??? Leave the main roads of course open for all recreational users, and the other 50% of spur roads left open will satisfy the rest of the senior/dis-abled/regular road hunters..meanwhile, the other half of spur roads that are fully de-activated, will give the big-game species larger, better protected areas. As he sees it, this will of course benefit moose the most. Especially in the Okanagan and other areas that see high hunter-pressure, he believes that our current GOS for spike fork bulls that has been continually reduced over the last 6 years or so, will not help, not with the rate of First-Nation harvest, not to mention all bulls shot due to miss identification. He sees all moose hunting in these areas eventually going to LEH only, as our bull:cow ratio will not be sufficient with the current trends. He agrees that the best solution would be to reduce hunter/FN's access.. so why not take $$ from companies that are making good money from our forestry resource and get them to help sustain and better manage our wild-life resource?? How can we make this happen??

[hunter1993ap]

not sure how to make it happen but I agree 100%. I have noticed a bit of deactivation but there needs to be much more. with the amount of new access/logging there needs to be some restrictions to keep places relatively less accessible.

[Fisher-Dude]

Is there a forest company making "good money" given the state of the world's economy and the effects of the pine beetle on timber supply?

Do you realize that those roads are the forest companies' roads, and that it's up to them what they do with them? Do you know the cost of deactivation to companies, and do you know how they will pay for deactivation that is not necessary until third pass logging is done, perhaps in 20 to 30 or more years from now?

Do you know what the cost is to forest companies with lost access for fire suppression?

Is there a conservation concern for ungulates in this region? Do you have population stats that indicate so?

Lots of questions that I don't think have been brought into the thought process yet.

[HarryToolips]

Is there a forest company making "good money" given the state of the world's economy and the effects of the pine beetle on timber supply?

Do you realize that those roads are the forest companies' roads, and that it's up to them what they do with them? Do you know the cost of deactivation to companies, and do you know how they will pay for deactivation that is not necessary until third pass logging is done, perhaps in 20 to 30 or more years from now?

Do you know what the cost is to forest companies with lost access for fire suppression?

Is there a conservation concern for ungulates in this region? Do you have population stats that indicate so?

Lots of questions that I don't think have been brought into the thought process yet.

If they weren't making good money, why would they be doing it?? Please educate me, I thought they are on this rampant pace to harvest beetle-kill to salvage it while it is still useable as they say, so is it not still use-able?? Because if it wasn't, why would they be harvesting it?? If they are doing the work and spending the money to harvest it, they definitely are not losing money..

How are they the forest companies roads when they are on crown land owned by everyone in this province?? Cost of de-activation, that would be the cost to move a machine on a low-bed truck up to that area, and dig out the road..not a big cost I would think in the grand scheme of things..I have a good friend who drives these low-beds, I don't recall him ever mentioning a monumental cost to his boss for doing so..

Most of these logging roads are in mid to high elevation areas, areas that see snow from november through end of May or June, how many fires do you hear about starting in these elevations?? These are elevations that see good moisture for most of the year..majority of forest fires start in lower elevation dry green belt areas close to urban areas correct??

Yes there is a conservation concern, for moose that is, specifically in Reg 8, see how the seasons have been reduced in the last 6 years, would that not be good enough indication??

[one-shot-wonder]

Road deactivation is finally becoming a reality in your region Harry, slowly but surely. It starts with stakeholders such as conservation organization's and biologists meeting with the forest companies who hold the tenure. Located critical habitat zones and identifying areas where roads should not be constructed, and in the common case where they were, deactivate upon leaving the area.

I admit the access has become an issue and we all know the "unregulated harvest" that the CO is referring to will not be limited in our lifetime. This is perhaps the most reasonable and economic way to help the declining bull-cow ratio in R8.

[one-shot-wonder]

Who gives a $hit about FSRs for fire suppression. Do you think that matters, when a fire is attacked the D8 gets unloaded and a new road is put in lickadee split!

If the government really cared about fiscal prudence or in this case saving the forest companies money, they wouldn't throw hundreds of millions at fighting wildfires. It's best to let the dead stands of pine burn that have a contractor pile and burn them and haul the rest in for pulp production.

[hunter1993ap]

if it costs too much to deactivate the roads, just make a few vehicle restrictions for the purpose of hunting. although I'm unsure how effective these closures are, because the area like this I have hunted, had quite a few FN's who didn't respect the closure.

[j270wsm]

It takes more than just road deactivation to increase overall animal populations. Wolves are the biggest problem we have and they aren't going anywhere any time soon

[one-shot-wonder]

if it costs too much to deactivate the roads, just make a few vehicle restrictions for the purpose of hunting. although I'm unsure how effective these closures are, because the area like this I have hunted, had quite a few FN's who didn't respect the closure.

Vehicle restrictions are a joke, the hunters are not the problem, they are already limited to a 2 week season of shooting spike bulls, can you say CONSERVATIVE. Restrictionsare an enforcement nightmare and do not apply to FN's

Therefore they are of no value what so ever.

[hunter1993ap]

It takes more than just road deactivation to increase overall animal populations. Wolves are the biggest problem we have and they aren't going anywhere any time soon

yes but every little bit helps. its not only a management tool, there are guys who enjoy hiking without having to worry about quads and vehicles. I know, find a place more remote, but the truth is there is way more area that is hacked up than not. especially in the Okanagan.

[Liveforthehunt]

I am curious to know how accurate these statistics are with the declining moose population. I know in other regions they have dropped dramatically but in reg 8 I see my fair share every year in the areas I hunt some areas you cant take 5 steps without stepping in droppings. What I have noticed is alot more predators on my cams for example last year I had 3 different grizz on a camera not to mention running into a couple where 10 years ago it was pretty rare to see a grizz in the area. Deactivations wouldn't limit hunters, they would still find a way to get there quad through or truck sounds like a waste of time and money. Why not have a massive wolf kill in the area ? Then you may see a stronger population.

[Fred1]

Deactivation and rehabilitation are two different things. Deactivation doesn't make a road impassible. Just means the structures (culverts, bridges etc) are removed and water bars installed. When forest companies rehab a road, it gets put back to its natural state where it is productive growing trees again - debuilt if you will - fairly costly. Those are temporary access structures - TAS roads. Some TAS are rehabbed where needed or not beneficial and some deactivated. A cut block is allowed to maintain about 7% of its disturbed area as road or landings - more than that gets rehabbed. As mentioned roads are kept to be used to access and fulfill silviculture objectives. This may take a few years. In addition many of those roads are left as permanent access structures (PAS roads) to access future timber - there really is a plan out there. Most deactivation or rehab of roads is part of the loggers contract - so yes it is costly, to him. He does it right after the logs are removed while his machine is still on site. Sometimes roads need to be left for silviculture access - low bedding a machine back in to do this is costly. Not only in $$ but in time. How this is paid for could be in any number of ways, by contractor or timber Licensee. Roads are huge liabilities to timber licensees - mostly though the negative impacts of water. So I guess when our wildlife management objectives become as valuable as resource extraction, maybe we will see changes in/with access issues. Im not saying its perfect right now, in fact I believe fragmentation of our landscapes and timber road densities is becoming detrimental to our wildlife populations - said it a few times on here before, but there are reasons to why the roads out there are the way they are. In fact in some places the road at the back end of a block is deactivated and the road at the front is rehabbed just for the purpose of limiting access. We just don't always recognise it. ;) Roads are good for timber extraction, hunters and wolves, not so good for moose...

[HarryToolips]

Some very good points on here..the main thing I would think is we need to do something before it's too late, I sure do not want to see moose in reg 8 or any of the other regions that are having issues go to LEH.. Reg 8 also has more moose hunters than any other region, so it going to LEH would be a bad thing for revenue as well... maybe to help the cost of de-activating some of the access in areas, they should just increase the hunting license fees by just a bit, and put that money into this??

[Fisher-Dude]

Some very good points on here..the main thing I would think is we need to do something before it's too late, I sure do not want to see moose in reg 8 or any of the other regions that are having issues go to LEH.. Reg 8 also has more moose hunters than any other region, so it going to LEH would be a bad thing for revenue as well... maybe to help the cost of de-activating some of the access in areas, they should just increase the hunting license fees by just a bit, and put that money into this??

The moose population in region 8 has basically doubled in the last 8 years. 2,200 to 4,170.

That's with one of the highest road densities in the province and considerable non-regulated hunting.

Care to enlighten me on your theory again, this time using the facts about the moose population instead of rhetorical roadside conversations?

[budismyhorse]

de-activate more roads..........increase hunter lic fees.............wow I've been missing a lot taking a break from this website!

FD..........you must be having a fit these days!

Ya I say block em all..............tank trap the junctions......concrete barricades.......turn the bush into a library for me to read GoatGuy's articles while I trod down the center of the FSR....

;)

[TPK]

My personal feelings are ... Road closures (de-activations) ONLY when an identifiable and credible concern to habitat or safety is present. Hunters are not the only ones using these roads and as pointed out hunters are not the reason some of our animal populations are in trouble. I enjoy the access.

[Walking Buffalo]

It takes more than just road deactivation to increase overall animal populations. Wolves are the biggest problem we have and they aren't going anywhere any time soon

Roads are one of the leading man made environmental changes causing increased wolf populations. Deactivating roads to reduce wolf predation rates needs to be more than just a ditch to prevent vehicle access, long sections of the whole road must be made unconducive to travel on foot.

[604redneck]

yes but every little bit helps. its not only a management tool, there are guys who enjoy hiking without having to worry about quads and vehicles. I know, find a place more remote, but the truth is there is way more area that is hacked up than not. especially in the Okanagan.
This is the truth!

[Fisher-Dude]

Who gives a $hit about FSRs for fire suppression. Do you think that matters, when a fire is attacked the D8 gets unloaded and a new road is put in lickadee split!

If the government really cared about fiscal prudence or in this case saving the forest companies money, they wouldn't throw hundreds of millions at fighting wildfires. It's best to let the dead stands of pine burn that have a contractor pile and burn them and haul the rest in for pulp production.

Timber companies that have millions in standing timber inventory care about suppression. Any delay in attacking a fire could result in millions in losses. When I worked in the industry it was always a hot topic to keep access for fire suppression. Might not be best for habitat to suppress but that is the economics side if it.

Pulp or dead and dry timber production helps offset the cost of the licensee's legal obligation to reforest the site. Making some money is always better for them than making none.

The companies are also obligated under utilization rules to make what they can from stands. Government also gets stumpage from those stands, so you'd have an uphill battle changing that legislation.

[HarryToolips]

The moose population in region 8 has basically doubled in the last 8 years. 2,200 to 4,170.

That's with one of the highest road densities in the province and considerable non-regulated hunting.

Care to enlighten me on your theory again, this time using the facts about the moose population instead of rhetorical roadside conversations?

Where did you get this 4,170 number from?? Please I would like to know..facts I have gathered from our gameclub meetings with Peachland Sportsman's Club, is yes the moose population is higher, but our bull:cow ratio is low, so this higher population is not sustainable for long..hence why we now only have a season from Nov 1 to the 15th.. this also supports what the CONSERVATION OFFICER said, so not exactly a rhetorical roadside conversation since all this is a big part of his living wouldn't you say??

My theory is, many of the logging spur roads way off the main logging roads, if we could just de-activate a bunch of those (50% unrealistic??), then this will greatly benefit the moose..wouldn't it be nice folks if we could have a Sept20 to Oct 31 GOS for spike-fork bulls again in region 8???

[Fred1]

The way to get more roads rehabbed would be to get the rules changed regarding the allaowed disturbance limits for a block. The precentage of the block (7%) that is allowed to be left as road or landing post harvest. Im not sure how to get that wheel rolling but I bet it wont be on any minisrty or politicians "to do" list until/unless its proven that these roads kill moose. Makeing that connection will involve lots of time, science, study and $. We are a reactive society. Its kind of sad we have to wait and see if we have aproblem and prove it before we do something to try and avoid it... Along comes the term: mitigate....

[GoatGuy]

Moose sex ratios are low in some spots of the okanagan. That is due entirely to changes in access.

I would suspect there are also a couple MUs where mule deer sex ratios are also low - again due to access.


You can reduce/eliminate hunter opportunity or reduce access. Region 8 has the highest road density and the highest hunter density in the province. Reducing access is needed to maintain sex ratios.... the alternative is to zap the spike-fork season and further restrict mule deer hunting opportunities in a few MUs.

[snakeplain]

deactivation, creating water bars, making roads impassable for wolves is all a fools dream and only restricts the freedom of those to enjoy the outdoors with family and friends. if there is a problem with wolves, over hunting, etc, restrict hunting and close the season for the ungulates, hunt the wolves, do what has to be done to improve game counts. nature will take care of the old roads, no need to spend tax payers money to fill some contractors pocket to make the forestry bureaucrat look good in victoria, all these ridiculous notions about deactivation has caused injury and fatalities to some who are not hunting and simply want to enjoy the outdoors, it is the intent of the government to restrict freedom. who is behind this, years ago, the big game guides did in 5-13 and others, what do you think the reason is, to fill their pockets with american money, anyhow, what has changed since then and how are the game populations in those areas, worst, i would bet, and what about those people that don't hunt during the spring and summer, who are they hurting, this idea is simply causing the loss of freedom and a money making issue for those in forestry.

[ellenbill]

It would only make exclusive hunting areas for those that can afford quads etc. Believe me they will find a way to get through. I'm not for It. Better to have forest company's spend their money cleaning up the ugly forest floor they leave behind! Man nor beast can not walk thru it without risk of injury not to mention the forest fire fuel!

[Fisher-Dude]

Where did you get this 4,170 number from?? Please I would like to know..facts I have gathered from our gameclub meetings with Peachland Sportsman's Club, is yes the moose population is higher, but our bull:cow ratio is low, so this higher population is not sustainable for long..hence why we now only have a season from Nov 1 to the 15th.. this also supports what the CONSERVATION OFFICER said, so not exactly a rhetorical roadside conversation since all this is a big part of his living wouldn't you say??

My theory is, many of the logging spur roads way off the main logging roads, if we could just de-activate a bunch of those (50% unrealistic??), then this will greatly benefit the moose..wouldn't it be nice folks if we could have a Sept20 to Oct 31 GOS for spike-fork bulls again in region 8???


Figure came from the last moose population study released 2013.

Bull:cow is low because we harvest too many spike-forks, so the season has been adjusted.

What good is a longer season if you can't access the country?

Conservation Officers are not game biologists. We'll go with the bios' rationale on why seasons are adjusted.

So you want to deactivate 50% of the roads. Yet, hunter demographics indicate that only 23% of the hunters in the Okanagan are under 40 years of age. Mean age of Okanagan hunters is 48. And this is right on your very own fish & game club's website!!! http://peachlandsportsmen.com/declininghunters.pdf

We should be structuring hunting for the majority of hunters. The vast majority of hunters are older and limited mobility comes with age. You want to shut down 50% of the access, yet 77% of hunters are in or approaching the age where access is a key factor in their participation.

I don't think you've done your homework.

[Fred1]

it would only make exclusive hunting areas for those that can afford quads etc. Believe me they will find a way to get through. I'm not for it. Better to have forest company's spend their money cleaning up the ugly forest floor they leave behind! Man nor beast can not walk thru it without risk of injury not to mention the forest fire fuel!

barff!!.....

[huff]

Funny when you take a hike up a deactivated spur and 1/2 the time a quad follows you in...

[HarryToolips]

Do you have the link to the moose pop study 2013? Fine. De-activate a percentage smaller than 50% but do something!! It's not just the spike forks getting shot that is hurting the pops..I am told there are quite a few bulls shot that are mis-identified that greatly hurts the pops as well...we cut down on access, we are helping them hide from FN's hunters as well that will shoot any bull, and of course sometimes cows, though I am told within the Okanagan they have their own regs where they are supposed to harvest only bucks/bulls...

[Good2bCanadian]

Funny when you take a hike up a deactivated spur and 1/2 the time a quad follows you in...

Curious. Does a deactivation mean zero motorized transport by law?

[Mulehahn]

To me there is a big difference between deactivating a road, and making access difficult. Give any competent hoe operator a couple of hours and he could dig a trench at the beginning of a spur road, with the berm on the main road side to stop idiots from driving into it. They could easily make the road accessible again in even less time. There is no way that it doing this could add any extraordinary financial hardship to anyone, Logging company or government alike. They used to do this all the time in the Chilliwack area, and probably still do. Do this on say 2 roads, skip 3 and so forth, and put a sign at the beginning of the closed roads stating no OHV vehicles, enforce it (should be easy with the new plates, take a picture :mrgreen:), and I think major benefits to wild life would be seen. The fact that there is an imbalance between males and females directly points to this being human caused problem and not predators. Wolves are not selective in their kills. Limiting the areas that people can access easily will help to correct this.

I don't think that the argument that the majority of hunters are getting older holds water. I am not a spring chicken anymore, but I have never hunted off a quad. My grandfather hunted until he was in his 70s and he never road a quad in his life, yet still took moose. Look at other jurisdictions such as Alberta where in many MUs you are not allowed to have weapon (gun or bow) on a quad from one hour before sunrise until noon. People still hunt.

[Vladimir Poutine]

Is there a forest company making "good money" given the state of the world's economy and the effects of the pine beetle on timber supply?

Do you realize that those roads are the forest companies' roads, and that it's up to them what they do with them? Do you know the cost of deactivation to companies, and do you know how they will pay for deactivation that is not necessary until third pass logging is done, perhaps in 20 to 30 or more years from now?

Do you know what the cost is to forest companies with lost access for fire suppression?

Is there a conservation concern for ungulates in this region? Do you have population stats that indicate so?

Lots of questions that I don't think have been brought into the thought process yet.

Canfor's end of year for 2013 was 228.6 million. Boo hoo.

[HarryToolips]

To me there is a big difference between deactivating a road, and making access difficult. Give any competent hoe operator a couple of hours and he could dig a trench at the beginning of a spur road, with the berm on the main road side to stop idiots from driving into it. They could easily make the road accessible again in even less time. There is no way that it doing this could add any extraordinary financial hardship to anyone, Logging company or government alike. They used to do this all the time in the Chilliwack area, and probably still do. Do this on say 2 roads, skip 3 and so forth, and put a sign at the beginning of the closed roads stating no OHV vehicles, enforce it (should be easy with the new plates, take a picture :mrgreen:), and I think major benefits to wild life would be seen. The fact that there is an imbalance between males and females directly points to this being human caused problem and not predators. Wolves are not selective in their kills. Limiting the areas that people can access easily will help to correct this.

I don't think that the argument that the majority of hunters are getting older holds water. I am not a spring chicken anymore, but I have never hunted off a quad. My grandfather hunted until he was in his 70s and he never road a quad in his life, yet still took moose. Look at other jurisdictions such as Alberta where in many MUs you are not allowed to have weapon (gun or bow) on a quad from one hour before sunrise until noon. People still hunt.

This guy has his head on straight it seems..people, listen to guys who really know their stuff like Goat Guy on page 3...Fisherdude looks like you lose buddy sorry to spoil your negative resistance to new ideas to make things better for everyone:-D

[Fred1]

Curious. Does a deactivation mean zero motorized transport by law?

No ... it has nothing to do with vehicular law. Its a term used to class a forest road. Deactivation is just essentially making the road inert to further decay - remove the culverts, install water bars and cross ditches - keep the water flowing where it should and there shouldn't be any problems. A deactivated road is a road that is no longer maintained.

[Fred1]

Canfor's end of year for 2013 was 228.6 million. Boo hoo.

Sounds big huh? Not really though considering the gross sales would be at the very least in the 2 billion plus range - So what does that kind of revenue generate for taxes, jobs and spin off industries? Looks like a lot of $$ generated and most of didn't go into the owners pockets. Sure we could ask them to rehab more roads, but how many people ask you for a free buck on your earned money and you freely give it? Its the rules that would have to change, not the practices. Just sayin...

[Fisher-Dude]

Canfor's end of year for 2013 was 228.6 million. Boo hoo.

That equates to less than 5% earnings per share. That's excessive in your world?

[two-feet]

Instead of trying to reduce the things that lower the moose population (hunters, fn, wolves etc) lets make more moose! Lobby your local govt for large scale controlled burns and we will have much more game.

[Fred1]

Instead of trying to reduce the things that lower the moose population (hunters, fn, wolves etc) lets make more moose! Lobby your local govt for large scale controlled burns and we will have much more game.

Now there ya go!!

[j270wsm]

Roads are one of the leading man made environmental changes causing increased wolf populations. Deactivating roads to reduce wolf predation rates needs to be more than just a ditch to prevent vehicle access, long sections of the whole road must be made unconducive to travel on foot.

I live in an area that is 90% road closures during hunting season and I don't see it helping animal population as much as proper game management. Deactivating roads will not help reduce wolf populations

[gunpower]

just close moose season down for a few years.

[steel_ram]

I'm all for turning hunting away from the motor sport, equipment race it has become. That's my opinion, as is my belief that present mechanized hunting has nothing to do with honoring or heritage or feeding our families.

[Fisher-Dude]

This guy has his head on straight it seems..people, listen to guys who really know their stuff like Goat Guy on page 3...Fisherdude looks like you lose buddy sorry to spoil your negative resistance to new ideas to make things better for everyone:-D

So this is all about personal wins for you? I thought it was about wins for wildlife management and hunting opportunity?

Perhaps you need to look beyond your personal wants and you'll have more success when bringing your ideas forward to the decision makers.

I have had several proposals that I wrote adopted and in both the hunting and fishing regulations over the past 5 or 6 years, but not by ballyhooing my personal "wins" as I brought them to the table. They were adopted because I researched the science behind them, interviewed fish and wildlife staff, demonstrated what that opportunity would mean to the hunting and fishing community as a whole, and put together sound rationales.

I guess I've done okay changing the regulations to grant more opportunity and better management, considering that I'm apparently so resistant to change. ;)

[Fisher-Dude]

Instead of trying to reduce the things that lower the moose population (hunters, fn, wolves etc) lets make more moose! Lobby your local govt for large scale controlled burns and we will have much more game.


You're a wise man.

We've spent 30 - 40 years regulating hunters to death. Antler restrictions, shortened seasons, access restrictions, GOS changed to LEH. We now have less game than 30 - 40 years ago. Hmmm. How's that working out guys?

Not sure why those screaming for more point restrictions, shorter seasons, access restrictions, and LEH can't see that those things simply don't work.

[HarryToolips]

So this is all about personal wins for you? I thought it was about wins for wildlife management and hunting opportunity?

Perhaps you need to look beyond your personal wants and you'll have more success when bringing your ideas forward to the decision makers.

I have had several proposals that I wrote adopted and in both the hunting and fishing regulations over the past 5 or 6 years, but not by ballyhooing my personal "wins" as I brought them to the table. They were adopted because I researched the science behind them, interviewed fish and wildlife staff, demonstrated what that opportunity would mean to the hunting and fishing community as a whole, and put together sound rationales.

I guess I've done okay changing the regulations to grant more opportunity and better management, considering that I'm apparently so resistant to change. ;)

LOL nope just trying to get your goat a bit, as you were negative with every single idea I brought forward...many others agree with this, and by reducing hunter access in say a certain percentage of spurs off the main roads, you are still satisfying road hunters by the roads that are left open, and satisfying hike in hunters like myself, by having more remote areas not easy to access...not to mention we would be, as other knowledgeable people like Goat Guy have pointed out, helping the more vulnerable species, like moose and mule deer, out...wouldn't it be awesome if Reg 8 had a GOS from Sept 20 to Oct31 again for spike fork bulls?? How, along with large scale controlled burns, can we make this happen?? As I don't see large scale burns getting the government's ok very often..

[Fisher-Dude]

Without habitat enhancement, you'll never have a GOS of that length again.

"Hunter controls" will only allow the continued degradation of overall game numbers to continue, as they have for the past 40 years.

What do you want? Walk a torn-up road Nov 1 - 15 moose hunting, or a GOS from Sept 20 - Oct 31? That's the choice you have to make.

[Vladimir Poutine]

That equates to less than 5% earnings per share. That's excessive in your world?

Nope. It's profit after EBIDTA. Don't forget that if they predict profit of 100 mil and they get 90 they show that as a loss of 10 mil. Oh to be a Corporation.

[Vladimir Poutine]

Sounds big huh? Not really though considering the gross sales would be at the very least in the 2 billion plus range - So what does that kind of revenue generate for taxes, jobs and spin off industries? Looks like a lot of $$ generated and most of didn't go into the owners pockets. Sure we could ask them to rehab more roads, but how many people ask you for a free buck on your earned money and you freely give it? Its the rules that would have to change, not the practices. Just sayin...

If the gross sales were in the 2 bil range, then that means in order to get that in sales they would have to get production to get it no? That means the spin off is on the 2 billion. Just sayin...

[Vladimir Poutine]

Without habitat enhancement, you'll never have a GOS of that length again.

"Hunter controls" will only allow the continued degradation of overall game numbers to continue, as they have for the past 40 years.

What do you want? Walk a torn-up road Nov 1 - 15 moose hunting, or a GOS from Sept 20 - Oct 31? That's the choice you have to make.

The habitat is the main ingredient as you say. To think that we will ever get GOS on any hunt that is LEH now is a pipe dream. It won't happen.

[Mulehahn]

Without habitat enhancement, you'll never have a GOS of that length again.
"Hunter controls" will only allow the continued degradation of overall game numbers to continue, as they have for the past 40 years.
What do you want? Walk a torn-up road Nov 1 - 15 moose hunting, or a GOS from Sept 20 - Oct 31? That's the choice you have to make.

Genuinely curious, why is habitat restoration and reducing vehicle access mutually exclusive? It takes a couple years for habitat to become strong enough to support a substantial population increase. During that time, steps should be taken to ensure a stable population exists to be able to expand.

I fully agree that we have to listen to the biologists. The biologists say that the the problem is hunters taking to many bulls, so they shortened the season. But I think that is because it is easy, not because it is effective. As you pointed out, we have over 30 years of proof that it isn't. Until habitat is created, it is a matter of debate whether a shorter season, or access would be more beneficial. One ensures that the cows are bred, but the other increases the likely hood of bulls surviving past the spike stage and its accompanying GOS, as well as hindering unregulated hunting. If you can provide a study that says limiting access is not as effective as reduced seasons I would be grateful, I can't find one. Hands down, moose are my favorite big game animal, and if it means me walking a for extra kilometers to be able to hunt them I will. If I have to be limited to when I can hunt them I will accept it. But I want to do something that is effective.

[Fisher-Dude]

Nope. It's profit after EBIDTA. Don't forget that if they predict profit of 100 mil and they get 90 they show that as a loss of 10 mil. Oh to be a Corporation.


Profit after EBIDTA? What is profit after earnings before interest, depreciation, taxes, and amortization?

Oddly, even with an accounting designation, I've never heard of profit after EBIDTA. lol.

And just in case you want to use it again, the acronym is EBITDA, not EBIDTA. But find out what it means before you use it in a sentence next time, k?

And budgeting for a $100 million profit does not mean a loss of $10 million if they only make $90 million. It just means they didn't make their forecast. They still made $90 million, report that on their income statement, and pay taxes accordingly.

[HarryToolips]

Genuinely curious, why is habitat restoration and reducing vehicle access mutually exclusive? It takes a couple years for habitat to become strong enough to support a substantial population increase. During that time, steps should be taken to ensure a stable population exists to be able to expand.

I fully agree that we have to listen to the biologists. The biologists say that the the problem is hunters taking to many bulls, so they shortened the season. But I think that is because it is easy, not because it is effective. As you pointed out, we have over 30 years of proof that it isn't. Until habitat is created, it is a matter of debate whether a shorter season, or access would be more beneficial. One ensures that the cows are bred, but the other increases the likely hood of bulls surviving past the spike stage and its accompanying GOS, as well as hindering unregulated hunting. If you can provide a study that says limiting access is not as effective as reduced seasons I would be grateful, I can't find one. Hands down, moose are my favorite big game animal, and if it means me walking a for extra kilometers to be able to hunt them I will. If I have to be limited to when I can hunt them I will accept it. But I want to do something that is effective.

Exactly what Mulehahn said...seriously Fisherdude, do you think reducing access in a smaller percentage of areas will hinder the moose population?? Of course not. So why can't we lobby to get them to try it out, see how it works..I would bet that even if 25 or 30 % of these areas were de-activated it would help greatly..

[ActionJackson017]

Profit after EBIDTA? What is profit after earnings before interest, depreciation, taxes, and amortization?

Oddly, even with an accounting designation, I've never heard of profit after EBIDTA. lol.

And just in case you want to use it again, the acronym is EBITDA, not EBIDTA. But find out what it means before you use it in a sentence next time, k?

And budgeting for a $100 million profit does not mean a loss of $10 million if they only make $90 million. It just means they didn't make their forecast. They still made $90 million, report that on their income statement, and pay taxes accordingly.

I was just about to chime in on this too. EBITDA is inclusive of Net Income. Canfor looks to have had a tidy year in 2013 - I'd spitball about 15% net profit margins on their ~3.2B in revenues, but let's not forgot these companies all took a $hit pounding over the last few years.

PS> Look at the cozy little quid pro quo relationship with their largest shareholder. Oh to be JP.

[Fisher-Dude]

Genuinely curious, why is habitat restoration and reducing vehicle access mutually exclusive? It takes a couple years for habitat to become strong enough to support a substantial population increase. During that time, steps should be taken to ensure a stable population exists to be able to expand.



The population is stable and expanding with the current access. The bull:cow ratios are below 30:100 in some MUs, so the bull season was shortened and the LEHs were cut back. Unfortunately, we don't manage MU specific, so MUs with above 30:100 get cut too.

There's no conservation concern until we get down around 10:100 with moose. That 30:100 management objective is stuffed full of social values rather than science-based conservation...values like representative bull specimens from various age classes to provide photography and wildlife viewing experiences.

When my freezer's empty, I curse stockpiling bull moose for photographers and wildlife viewers, but I don't expect the ratio to be changed any time soon.

I don't think access management and habitat restoration have much to do with one another. If there were a conservation concern, and access restrictions would help, then I'd be all for it.

All there is now are certain hunters whining to have what they think will be exclusive access to game populations, and that won't happen in science-based game management. Unfortunately, we see certain game managers giving in to whining and lobbying by guide-outfitters to exclude others from hunting some areas. Social management always seems to lead to less game and less hunters, which helps no one and no animal.

[Sitkaspruce]

It would only make exclusive hunting areas for those that can afford quads etc. Believe me they will find a way to get through. I'm not for It. Better to have forest company's spend their money cleaning up the ugly forest floor they leave behind! Man nor beast can not walk thru it without risk of injury not to mention the forest fire fuel!

The "ugly forest floor" is actually very productive for new forests. It called CWD (course woody debris). Much better than burning or cleaning it up. Do some Google research about the reason why the CWD is left .

As to the original post, road were never built for the public use, they were simply built for resourse extraction, not for you to drive your truck or quad around hunting, mushroom picking etc. A logging company, once issued a road permit, is now responsible for everything with that road; safety, environment and the road itself. The life of the road is up to the company, nobody else. As long as they hold the permit, they can either leave it or deactivate. If they leave it, they carry all the liability that goes along with it. In the old days, they left most roads as there was no money to be made by lawyers on the liability issue and we were not environmentally aware of what the results of leaving side cast on the side of a 40% slope. Nowdays, unless the road has no water issues, no slope and is basically in a pine flat or is to be used in the future, the companies deactivate to reduce liability. Once a company wants to drop the road permit, they must apply to FLNRO and submit a deactivation plan. Once the road is deactivated, FLNRO will wait a year before taking over the road. This is to see a spring freshlet and summer/fall access. It now becomes a non-status road and liability falls to the crown.

The idea to not deacivate a road to provide access for hunting will cost us a lot of $$$. The maintenance of a road is expensive (Just ask the companies), the liability can bit the crown in the a$$. Nobody wants to leave culverts, bridges (which cost the company and crown $$$ and can be resued in other locations), side cast, unstable slopes and cuts and fills to mother nature. Legislations says that the road holder must maintain drainage patterns, provide fish passage, have a stable road prism and ensure that road is safe for industrial users (not public). Do you want the your taxpayers $$$ to pay to ensure 50% of the roads stay open??? I sure as hell don't. And once ambulance chasers know about that and beer gut Willy drives his death wooble Dodge truck into a hole where an old culvert once was, the cost of maintaining that road just went up 300%.

As was already posted once on here and numerous other times in other posts, to make more animals, we need more habitat. Cut blocks with deactivated roads do provide some of that habitat, its not great, but it is usable. And now you want to be able to access that habitat in your truck?? Animals need sanctuaries from 2 legged hunters as well as 4 legged. Your idea reduces those sanctuaries.

Cheers

SS

[Fisher-Dude]

Exactly what Mulehahn said...seriously Fisherdude, do you think reducing access in a smaller percentage of areas will hinder the moose population?? Of course not. So why can't we lobby to get them to try it out, see how it works..I would bet that even if 25 or 30 % of these areas were de-activated it would help greatly..

We've tried access restrictions for 40 years and game populations have fallen. Want to keep trying it, and expect a different result than a 40 year experiment gone bad?

What will you try after another 40 years and fewer animals than we have now? Praying?

[boxhitch]

How, along with large scale controlled burns, can we make this happen?? As I don't see large scale burns getting the government's ok very often.. Wholesale burning isn't the answer for moose. A large % of the forest is in some form of reforestation there are not large plots being left for wildlife. The critters are using cutblocks during some optimal period and moving on when they need to.

Identifying and qualifying good habitat is the first step , then determine what if anything can be done to increase proper high quality habitat. Not many prescriptions are built to promote wildlife habitat , but some do protect critical winter habitat at the least.
Forestry in BC is in a mess of trouble , with a bleak looking future , wildlife and hunters will not be in the plans without some fight.

[Mulehahn]

We've tried access restrictions for 40 years and game populations have fallen. Want to keep trying it, and expect a different result than a 40 year experiment gone bad?

What will you try after another 40 years and fewer animals than we have now? Praying?

I usually agree with you FD, but this time I think you are wrong. We have tried LEH, point restrictions, and shortened seasons for over 40 years, but don't think we have done any meaningful attempts to reduce access. In fact I would argue the opposite, there is much more access then there was back then. Some of the major highways in this province are only 40 to 45 years old. But I could be wrong. I was not driving and hunting in 1974, but I hope someone on this site was. If so, could they compare amount of vehicle access, then and now, to gain a better understanding? In the last half century, huge swaths of habitat have been lost due to development, OHVs have granted access to areas previously inaccessible, and hunting equipment has improved dramatically. We can not continue to practice conservation how we did 40 years ago. Fortunately, over this time we have also gained a better understanding of what the animals need, and how to obtain it. I believe that with habitat restoration, combined with other tools (such as limiting vehicle access) populations can and will recover.

[Liveforthehunt]

LOL let it burn! I have seen nothing but strong heards of all sorts of critters in fires over the years ... Can't beat the vegetation which creates nothing but the land of milk and honey :D AKA hunters paradise

[OutWest]

If they weren't making good money, why would they be doing it?? Please educate me, I thought they are on this rampant pace to harvest beetle-kill to salvage it while it is still useable as they say, so is it not still use-able?? Because if it wasn't, why would they be harvesting it?? If they are doing the work and spending the money to harvest it, they definitely are not losing money..

How are they the forest companies roads when they are on crown land owned by everyone in this province?? Cost of de-activation, that would be the cost to move a machine on a low-bed truck up to that area, and dig out the road..not a big cost I would think in the grand scheme of things..I have a good friend who drives these low-beds, I don't recall him ever mentioning a monumental cost to his boss for doing so..

Most of these logging roads are in mid to high elevation areas, areas that see snow from november through end of May or June, how many fires do you hear about starting in these elevations?? These are elevations that see good moisture for most of the year..majority of forest fires start in lower elevation dry green belt areas close to urban areas correct??

Yes there is a conservation concern, for moose that is, specifically in Reg 8, see how the seasons have been reduced in the last 6 years, would that not be good enough indication??

Sorry Harry but this is a pretty naive post. You would be surprised at how many blocks are not profitable for a licensee but need to be harvested regardless. They build the roads and are responsible for them until they are turned back over. You being able to drive on them is a privilege.

If you don't think the cost to low bed machinery 200km or more and then run them for days on end is significant you should try footing the bill.

There are multiple high elevation fires every year and they are the ones that get into the crown unlike a lot ones you see in the valley bottom.

[Dannybuoy]

I think the way it is now is just fine , deactivating some of the roads and leaving others for outdoors persons to use ....I don't think the forest companies spend any money on maintaining roads they aren't using or have intentions of using ... why would they ?
The issue of how much money they are making is not relevant IMO . But I would think they are doing very well right now with the price of lumber @$325 M Fbm . The company I used to work for told us the break even was around $200 .... so that's a pretty good profit margin right now .

[one-shot-wonder]

The population is stable and expanding with the current access. The bull:cow ratios are below 30:100 in some MUs, so the bull season was shortened and the LEHs were cut back. Unfortunately, we don't manage MU specific, so MUs with above 30:100 get cut too.

There's no conservation concern until we get down around 10:100 with moose. That 30:100 management objective is stuffed full of social values rather than science-based conservation...values like representative bull specimens from various age classes to provide photography and wildlife viewing experiences.

When my freezer's empty, I curse stockpiling bull moose for photographers and wildlife viewers, but I don't expect the ratio to be changed any time soon.

I don't think access management and habitat restoration have much to do with one another. If there were a conservation concern, and access restrictions would help, then I'd be all for it.

All there is now are certain hunters whining to have what they think will be exclusive access to game populations, and that won't happen in science-based game management. Unfortunately, we see certain game managers giving in to whining and lobbying by guide-outfitters to exclude others from hunting some areas. Social management always seems to lead to less game and less hunters, which helps no one and no animal.

30:100 is the ministry's objective, people need to get over it and move on. There are some MU's in r8 where the population are is not stable and expanding, hence the reduction in the moose season. Thankfully we are not at conservation concern levels, save for the southern most MU's such as 8-01. The frustrating part is there are many MU's in the region which have a stable and expanding population however we have a blanket season for all; therefore we are missing out on opportunity and/or stockpiling wildlife to be eaten by predators or squashed by vehicles.

In cases where we have a very low bull:cow ration such as in the south, why are you opposed to implementing some access management measures?

I am not a certain hunter looking for exclusive access; quite contrary as you know. However when we are experiencing poor flight counts such as we have in particular MUs the past few winters than we have to start taking action. I applaud the biologist who is currently meeting with logging contractors discussing the location of proposed roads and targeted stands of timber in sensitive wildlife areas. Christy's government has opened the floodgate on timber harvest in the past few years and it appears to be to the detriment of our local moose population. It is very apparent she will not stop until every resource has been sucked out of the beautiful British Columbia we once knew.......

[Vladimir Poutine]

Profit after EBIDTA? What is profit after earnings before interest, depreciation, taxes, and amortization?

Oddly, even with an accounting designation, I've never heard of profit after EBIDTA. lol.

And just in case you want to use it again, the acronym is EBITDA, not EBIDTA. But find out what it means before you use it in a sentence next time, k?

And budgeting for a $100 million profit does not mean a loss of $10 million if they only make $90 million. It just means they didn't make their forecast. They still made $90 million, report that on their income statement, and pay taxes accordingly.

OK OK. So I said DT instead if TD. Doesn't change the meaning. And yes, profit after. The term is often used to describe profitability but not cash flow. It can be used as a gimmick to maybe hide certain things. That wasn't my point. It was that after all things taken into account, they made some serious coin. BTW, the end year period ending March 2014 their EBITDA is 688.6 million. Still damn good. I think they can deal with some roads.

[snakeplain]

each year, during the winter when the snow is deep in b.c., the train from prince rupert to edmonton kills several hundred moose(usually more than a thousand) when they hang out on the tracks, each year, in the cranbrook country, the same thing happens with the elk, yet no one seems to have knowledge or care about it, instead, they build a fence along the summerland highway to save a few mule deer, the first step for conservation is to stop the killing, stop predation, wolves, bears and so on, some old guy driving a quad down an old road with an leh that took him five years to obtain from the corrupt leh system will have little effect on the moose population, habitat in b.c. is good, drive around the okanagan, cariboo, burns lake, this is not a problem, stop importing hunters from other countries, provinces, apprehend the poachers, revamp the corrupt leh, keep it local, let the animals reproduce, if not, this will go the way of europe, only the rich will hunt, it is coming.

[TPK]

I'm all for turning hunting away from the motor sport, equipment race it has become. That's my opinion, as is my belief that present mechanized hunting has nothing to do with honoring or heritage or feeding our families.

So throw the people that can no longer walk the walk under the bus .. nice. I know many folks, fine knowledgeable, ethical hunters whose bodies have given out and if it were not for their quad, the could not hunt any more. These people packed, rode horse and did all the things you hold so dear and did NOT use motorized vehicles. Tell them that now their hunting has no honor, heritage, and has nothing to do with feeding their families. These guys are taking their young daughters out, teaching them the things they know and bringing them into the hunting fold with HONOR , HERITAGE, and SUSTENANCE very much the corner stones of what they do and why they are there.

Ask yourself the question ...and be HONEST! If your knees or legs gave out or stopped working, would you simply give up what you Love and hold so dear or would you not find a way to continue? Honor, heritage, sustenance .. these things are not forgone because of your mode of travel.

[Fred1]

"The "ugly forest floor" is actually very productive for new forests. It called CWD (course woody debris). Much better than burning or cleaning it up. Do some Google research about the reason why the CWD is left .

As to the original post, road were never built for the public use, they were simply built for resourse extraction, not for you to drive your truck or quad around hunting, mushroom picking etc. A logging company, once issued a road permit, is now responsible for everything with that road; safety, environment and the road itself. The life of the road is up to the company, nobody else. As long as they hold the permit, they can either leave it or deactivate. If they leave it, they carry all the liability that goes along with it. In the old days, they left most roads as there was no money to be made by lawyers on the liability issue and we were not environmentally aware of what the results of leaving side cast on the side of a 40% slope. Nowdays, unless the road has no water issues, no slope and is basically in a pine flat or is to be used in the future, the companies deactivate to reduce liability. Once a company wants to drop the road permit, they must apply to FLNRO and submit a deactivation plan. Once the road is deactivated, FLNRO will wait a year before taking over the road. This is to see a spring freshlet and summer/fall access. It now becomes a non-status road and liability falls to the crown.

The idea to not deacivate a road to provide access for hunting will cost us a lot of $$$. The maintenance of a road is expensive (Just ask the companies), the liability can bit the crown in the a$$. Nobody wants to leave culverts, bridges (which cost the company and crown $$$ and can be resued in other locations), side cast, unstable slopes and cuts and fills to mother nature. Legislations says that the road holder must maintain drainage patterns, provide fish passage, have a stable road prism and ensure that road is safe for industrial users (not public). Do you want the your taxpayers $$$ to pay to ensure 50% of the roads stay open??? I sure as hell don't. And once ambulance chasers know about that and beer gut Willy drives his death wooble Dodge truck into a hole where an old culvert once was, the cost of maintaining that road just went up 300%.

As was already posted once on here and numerous other times in other posts, to make more animals, we need more habitat. Cut blocks with deactivated roads do provide some of that habitat, its not great, but it is usable. And now you want to be able to access that habitat in your truck?? Animals need sanctuaries from 2 legged hunters as well as 4 legged. Your idea reduces those sanctuaries.

Cheers

SS"
Thank you.... Agreed! All around!!

[steel_ram]

Ask yourself the question ...and be HONEST! If your knees or legs gave out or stopped working, would you simply give up what you Love and hold so dear or would you not find a way to continue? Honor, heritage, sustenance .. these things are not forgone because of your mode of travel.

I personally take care of myself, exercise and eat well. Hopefully I will stay on foot as long as possible, most likely longer than most. When the time comes that all I have left is to drive around and shoot animals from machines, I will be done. Honestly! In not so distant history, our heritage, only the fittest, best hunters got game. We live artificially longer than we should.

[TPK]

I personally take care of myself, exercise and eat well. Hopefully I will stay on foot as long as possible, most likely longer than most. When the time comes that all I have left is to drive around and shoot animals from machines, I will be done. Honestly! In not so distant history, our heritage, only the fittest, best hunters got game. We live artificially longer than we should.

My Wife takes care of herself, much better than I look after myself, she has MS and is now wheel chair bound. No fault of hers, nothing she did or didn't do, luck of the draw. She still likes to shoot grouse from a vehicle, perfectly legal with the right permit. She will not give up what she Loves. Her ability to hunt on foot was taken from her way too early in her life, she didn't get decades of hunting in before she lost her ability to hunt on foot. I applaud her efforts to keep alive what she Loves.

In your scenario you hunt until you can no longer hunt on foot due to age .. and are OK with that as you got all of your hunting in and feel satisfied with your many years of accomplished hunting. OK, if you get hit a bus tomorrow and lose your legs, you gonna give it up? ya still got good hunting years ahead of you. Personal choice I know, but me , personally, if using a machine keeps me hunting .. I'll take two please!.. and what about the folks that are disabled but want to start hunting, they have a life time of good memories ahead of them, should they not have the ability to use a machine and hunt on the many miles of logging roads instead of running into deactivated roads and no machine access?

I have two words to consider .. hunter "recruitment" and "retention" , vehicle usage and access both play a part in this.

[MichelD]

"I'm all for turning hunting away from the motor sport, equipment race it has become. That's my opinion, as is my belief that present mechanized hunting has nothing to do with honoring or heritage or feeding our families."

Makes sense. Wasn't it just last week I saw a posting here from a new hunter stating that after spending his first season on foot, he was excited about getting a quad now? Seems like people feel like they can't even start thinking about hunting unless they've got a plastic fantastic stainless 360 Turbo Whiz Double Magnum rifle and a $12,000 quad.

If people are genuinely disabled, there are permits available to use vehicles in non-motorized areas.

[TPK]

"I'm all for turning hunting away from the motor sport, equipment race it has become. That's my opinion, as is my belief that present mechanized hunting has nothing to do with honoring or heritage or feeding our families."

Makes sense. Wasn't it just last week I saw a posting here from a new hunter stating that after spending his first season on foot, he was excited about getting a quad now? Seems like people feel like they can't even start thinking about hunting unless they've got a plastic fantastic stainless 360 Turbo Whiz Double Magnum rifle and a $12,000 quad.

If people are genuinely disabled, there are permits available to use vehicles in non-motorized areas.

You're passionate about your beliefs and that is a good thing, but what good is a disabled permit when there is no access??

Keep in mind hunters are NOT responsible for the decline of our animal populations so it only makes sense that limiting hunters ability to harvest isn't going to address the real issues at hand.

[steel_ram]

Wildlife populations may be stable or good in some area's, but gone are they days when I could hunt a week and see a dozen bull moose (never mind cows and calfs). Now the only bull I might see is the one I shoot. This was when vehicle access was far more limited. I think the parade of machines definitely drives the game away, it does me.

I really wish that there was a special opportunity for disabled hunters, that other's couldn't exploit.

[358mag]

each year, during the winter when the snow is deep in b.c., the train from prince rupert to edmonton kills several hundred moose(usually more than a thousand) when they hang out on the tracks, each year, in the cranbrook country, the same thing happens with the elk, yet no one seems to have knowledge or care about it, instead, they build a fence along the summerland highway to save a few mule deer, the first step for conservation is to stop the killing, stop predation, wolves, bears and so on, some old guy driving a quad down an old road with an leh that took him five years to obtain from the corrupt leh system will have little effect on the moose population, habitat in b.c. is good, drive around the okanagan, cariboo, burns lake, this is not a problem, stop importing hunters from other countries, provinces, apprehend the poachers, revamp the corrupt leh, keep it local, let the animals reproduce, if not, this will go the way of europe, only the rich will hunt, it is coming.
Just a little FYI that little fence that was build along Highway 97 from Summerland to Peachland was to save more than a few Mule deer . There was more mule deer road killed on that stretch of highway than that was shoot by hunters in all of Region 8 . IIRC that fencing project was funded by ICBC , Summerland + Peachland Sportsman Association .Then they put in 97C and screwed everything up . But sure made a quick highway trip for all the lower mainland hunters to come up into the Okanagan . Careful what you wish for .

[HarryToolips]

So throw the people that can no longer walk the walk under the bus .. nice. I know many folks, fine knowledgeable, ethical hunters whose bodies have given out and if it were not for their quad, the could not hunt any more. These people packed, rode horse and did all the things you hold so dear and did NOT use motorized vehicles. Tell them that now their hunting has no honor, heritage, and has nothing to do with feeding their families. These guys are taking their young daughters out, teaching them the things they know and bringing them into the hunting fold with HONOR , HERITAGE, and SUSTENANCE very much the corner stones of what they do and why they are there.

Ask yourself the question ...and be HONEST! If your knees or legs gave out or stopped working, would you simply give up what you Love and hold so dear or would you not find a way to continue? Honor, heritage, sustenance .. these things are not forgone because of your mode of travel.

I completely agree with everything you say TPK...I have not started this thread so people can throw road hunters under the bus..hell if I'm tired some days I'll drive around for a bit too...one thing I'm sure everyone can agree on: logging through the years has opened up roads further and further into the moose and other creature's backyard..of course there will be advantages and dis-advantages impacting them from this...we know logging clear-cuts when not over-done and other habitat is left, is good for them and has created alot of forage...but at the same time, numerous studies and evidence from research is out there showing that moose and mule deer are susceptible to hunting when there is too much access everywhere... so no matter where the funds come from, whether it partially be from logging companies pockets or if it's from raising the cost by ten bucks on each hunting licence, I believe we need to cut down on that access just a bit, maybe aim for 25 or 30 % over a certain amount of time...this way, there would still be PLENTY of roads for people to hunt by truck or quad, plus a good portion of land where hike in hunters can enjoy a bit more seclusion, plus I'm sure alot of our wild game would also enjoy large portions of more secluded habitat..just my two cents..

[Sitkaspruce]

Harry

Not sure where you are going with this, you now want access cut down by 25-30%.

Those logging roads were not built for you to go use for recreationial purposes. Companies will not cough up funds and I sure as hell will not pay more $$$ so you can go off recreationaling in your truck/quad/SxS or other motorized vehicle.

Government and the companies will not assume liability so who do you think should cover the maintenance and liability of the roads you want left open??? That will cost a lot more than you think.

Check out section 79 of the Forest Planning and Practices Regulations for road maintenance and 82 of the same regulations for road deactivation. These set out the laws the the Government and the Companies have to follow. Your asking the laws to be changed so you can go for a drive.

Cheers

SS

[Timbow]

Anyone remember when the NDP implemented the Forest Practice code back in the early '90's? FRBC (Forest Renewal BC) was introduced which was funded by a super stumpage collected by the Ministry. A lot of road networks were deactivated east of Quesnel in the Bowron/Willow river systems as well as other areas in BC using this fund. Unless this type of super stumpage is re-introduced (which will likely never happen again) you probably won't see Licensee's volunteering any kind of deactivation that is not necessary. You will find different levels of deactivation in areas identified by user groups or by sensitive areas such as Mtn Caribou outlined in the pre-harvest phase.

[Fisher-Dude]

Anyone remember when the NDP implemented the Forest Practice code back in the early '90's? FRBC (Forest Renewal BC) was introduced which was funded by a super stumpage collected by the Ministry. A lot of road networks were deactivated east of Quesnel in the Bowron/Willow river systems as well as other areas in BC using this fund. Unless this type of super stumpage is re-introduced (which will likely never happen again) you probably won't see Licensee's volunteering any kind of deactivation that is not necessary. You will find different levels of deactivation in areas identified by user groups or by sensitive areas such as Mtn Caribou outlined in the pre-harvest phase.


Yes, I do remember, and was one of the thousands of forest industry people who lost their jobs thanks to the NDP's crippling of what was BC's largest employer. Now the industry is a shell of its former self. Thanks, NDP, for destroying the industry. When the NDP heaped that legislation on the companies, it made them the 2nd most regulated industry in Canada next to nuclear power. Good grief!

BC's remaining forest companies operate on a very slim margin and have a lot of trouble trying to manage costs, as in a commodity market they have little control over the selling price of their products.

Layering another bunch of costs on an already struggling industry could very well be the nail in the coffin that would do them in.

[HarryToolips]

SitkaSpruce:

The woods that you know where you live must be far different from mine because, here in the Okanagan, I find most of these FSR's are left open - they are not de-activated whatsoever.. That's why I brought all this up, because I rarely see logging spur- roads that are de-activated in this region.. my last post was merely trying to find a solution that would appease everyone, hike-in and road hunters...what your saying is these logging companies de-activate all these roads so they no longer have to maintain them.. well then how come most of these roads here in the Okanagan still are not de-activated??

[Fisher-Dude]

but at the same time, numerous studies and evidence from research is out there showing that moose and mule deer are susceptible to hunting when there is too much access everywhere... so no matter where the funds come from, whether it partially be from logging companies pockets or if it's from raising the cost by ten bucks on each hunting licence, I believe we need to cut down on that access just a bit, maybe aim for 25 or 30 % over a certain amount of time...this way, there would still be PLENTY of roads for people to hunt by truck or quad, plus a good portion of land where hike in hunters can enjoy a bit more seclusion, plus I'm sure alot of our wild game would also enjoy large portions of more secluded habitat..just my two cents..


Care to post some links to those numerous studies?

Have you read the study I linked to that says one of the worst things we can do for hunter numbers is to increase the price of licensing?

Over 16% of the Okanagan is in protected areas and parks, and when you consider "huntable" area outside of private land and the valley bottom, that figure is much higher, probably closer to 25%. Hike-in hunters have plenty of "seclusion" if they want it.

[Walksalot]

each year, during the winter when the snow is deep in b.c., the train from prince rupert to edmonton kills several hundred moose(usually more than a thousand) when they hang out on the tracks, each year, in the cranbrook country, the same thing happens with the elk, yet no one seems to have knowledge or care about it, instead, they build a fence along the summerland highway to save a few mule deer, the first step for conservation is to stop the killing, stop predation, wolves, bears and so on, some old guy driving a quad down an old road with an leh that took him five years to obtain from the corrupt leh system will have little effect on the moose population, habitat in b.c. is good, drive around the okanagan, cariboo, burns lake, this is not a problem, stop importing hunters from other countries, provinces, apprehend the poachers, revamp the corrupt leh, keep it local, let the animals reproduce, if not, this will go the way of europe, only the rich will hunt, it is coming.

The carnage which occurred on that stretch of highway between Summerland and Peachland was incredible. Any comment to the contrary is, at best, an uninformed opinion.

[Timbow]

SitkaSpruce:

The woods that you know where you live must be far different from mine because, here in the Okanagan, I find most of these FSR's are left open - they are not de-activated whatsoever.. That's why I brought all this up, because I rarely see logging spur- roads that are de-activated in this region.. my last post was merely trying to find a solution that would appease everyone, hike-in and road hunters...what your saying is these logging companies de-activate all these roads so they no longer have to maintain them.. well then how come most of these roads here in the Okanagan still are not de-activated??


These areas that you are referring to, are they the result of the MPB infestation?

[HarryToolips]

These areas that you are referring to, are they the result of the MPB infestation?

Alot of them yes, though I know of many that have been the same way since before the infestation..

[HarryToolips]

Fisher-dude:

-The increase in cost of licencing that I am proposing would be maybe $5 a moose tag, and maybe $5 extra per hunting licence...I would definitely fork out the extra dough for habitat enhancement, I'm sure most of the rest of us would feel the same way...

-Care to share the link about the percentage of the Okanagan in protected areas/parks?? Not meaning any dis-respect, I would like to seriously read about that, if it's true that's great news, I know Granby takes up a huge area so wouldn't surprise me..

Links:
This one is from our Ministry of Environment website, see the Conservation section:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/moose.pdf

Can't seem to copy a link on this one, so google this one:

ROAD DENSITY AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
SPECIES SUCH AS AMERICAN MOOSE
IN MAINLAND NOVA SCOTIA

[Drillbit]

The carnage which occurred on that stretch of highway between Summerland and Peachland was incredible. Any comment to the contrary is, at best, an uninformed opinion.

Sure, there was some animals killed on the highway and ICBC decided to build a fence to save $ on collision claims. All about $. Not game numbers.

How much damage does a moose or an elk do to a train? Are trains covered by ICBC?
None and no. And because $ is more important than game numbers, nothing will be done.

Talk to any Locomotive Engineer and you will be staggered with how many moose/elk the kill on the tracks every winter.

[Walksalot]

Sure, there was some animals killed on the highway and ICBC decided to build a fence to save $ on collision claims. All about $. Not game numbers.

How much damage does a moose or an elk do to a train? Are trains covered by ICBC?
None and no. And because $ is more important than game numbers, nothing will be done.
Talk to any Locomotive Engineer and you will be staggered with how many moose/elk the kill on the tracks every winter.

That fence was built by men/women from the local sports clubs.

[Drillbit]

That fence was built by men/women from the local sports clubs.

Right. So how come none of the sport clubs care about the train tracks then? Is it because nobody sees the carnage on the tracks?

1000's of animals are getting killed every winter on the tracks and being wasted, while many hunters have empty freezers.


Back on topic

FSR are used for much more than moose hunting. Deactivating them is BS, let the public roam & explore.
If moose numbers are a in fact problem. Close moose hunting in that area till the numbers come back. Do some burns to help with habitat. Open black bears up to NBL and no closed season and leave them where they fall to save the calves. Aerial hunt wolves too. Keep the access open for predator hunting.

Sounds like the OP is simply opposed to people motor-vehicle hunting in his area and is looking for a way to stop it, using moose numbers as a lever.

[pg83]

Burns and increased predator control would be wonderful.

[Sitkaspruce]

SitkaSpruce:

The woods that you know where you live must be far different from mine because, here in the Okanagan, I find most of these FSR's are left open - they are not de-activated whatsoever.. That's why I brought all this up, because I rarely see logging spur- roads that are de-activated in this region.. my last post was merely trying to find a solution that would appease everyone, hike-in and road hunters...what your saying is these logging companies de-activate all these roads so they no longer have to maintain them.. well then how come most of these roads here in the Okanagan still are not de-activated??

Harry

I did not say the roads had to be deactivated once finished. Let me start again - Company want to go harvest wood, applies to FLNRO and get Road permit, Company builds road under road permit tenure, company now is responsible for the road under that permit. That responsibility can last a life time as long as they maintain them, which could be do nothing. It is their risk, not the crowns. I know of roads that are 50 years old and still being used. As long as they meet the requirements on the regulations, roads never need to be deactivated.

There is a lot of reasons whey roads are not deactivated; They are to be used in future plans (1-5-10 years down the road), the ownership has been transferred to another company, the road is self maintaining (IE - flat, lots of rock, no drainage problems or concerns, does not need maintenance), it is under Wilderness Status (already turned over to the government), company spends limited $$$ on maintenace (Cheaper than deactivation) and could be left for silviculture puposes. It's up to who holds the tenure.

Forest Service Roads are roads built under contract by the crown or roads taken over by the crown after being built by another company. FSR's are then issues a road use permit to a Company as primary user. That company is now responsible for all maintenance until they apply to be removed as primary. The company that is primary can now enter into roads use agreements with other companies that use the road and charge maintenance costs to them.

If access is such a problem, then we need to change regulations, but for every one who would like to see more roads closed, there will be 2 who want them open. Thats is why it is up to the companies and nobody else.

If you want to get involved, find out when your local logging companies hold their open houses (usually in the spring) on the Forest Developement Plan (FSP) and ask questions, get to know the foresters and ask them their deactivation/maintenance plans. If we want to see change, get involved. The access group of the BCWF is another group to get involved with.

Cheers

SS

[HarryToolips]

SitkaSpruce: thanks for the info always good to learn..

[HarryToolips]

Right. So how come none of the sport clubs care about the train tracks then? Is it because nobody sees the carnage on the tracks?

1000's of animals are getting killed every winter on the tracks and being wasted, while many hunters have empty freezers.


Back on topic

FSR are used for much more than moose hunting. Deactivating them is BS, let the public roam & explore.
If moose numbers are a in fact problem. Close moose hunting in that area till the numbers come back. Do some burns to help with habitat. Open black bears up to NBL and no closed season and leave them where they fall to save the calves. Aerial hunt wolves too. Keep the access open for predator hunting.

Sounds like the OP is simply opposed to people motor-vehicle hunting in his area and is looking for a way to stop it, using moose numbers as a lever.

Read my above post, I am not against road hunting, hell I do it myself from time to time, plus it's a great way to learn the topography of an area..we live in BC, we have plenty of logging roads to drive on and explore, all I am proposing is de-activate even a smaller percentage of these, giving animals that have proven to be susceptible to road-access such as the moose, more breathing room.. if moose went to LEH in the Okanagan and similar regions with issues, there would be far more out-cry over that than if we de-activated a smaller percentage of these roads..there would be still plenty of logging roads to drive on..I agree with what your saying about animal fatalities from trains, it is a shame..I also agree of course on pred control, though opening up the black bear season like that sounds risky...

[Barracuda]

I if they simply closed down moose instead of closing roads wouldn't that be even better for the moose population you would still allow great access for other hunting yet give moose the protection from human predation . The trails network and use is huge in that area and non hunting users dump a lot of money into the economy so they can enjoy it I think deactivating roads would do more harm then good

[Sitkaspruce]

I if they simply closed down moose instead of closing roads wouldn't that be even better for the moose population you would still allow great access for other hunting yet give moose the protection from human predation . The trails network and use is huge in that area and non hunting users dump a lot of money into the economy so they can enjoy it I think deactivating roads would do more harm then good

And who is going to be patroling and watching for the dis-honest two legged hunters who will still hunt moose?? The CO's are so busy with BS calls and dealing with dangerous wildlife calls to spend all their time doign what they should be doing.

Explain how deactivating roads will do more harm then good?? And are you going to pay for the maintenance of these roads??

Cheers

SS

Cheers

SS

[Fisher-Dude]

Fisher-dude:

-The increase in cost of licencing that I am proposing would be maybe $5 a moose tag, and maybe $5 extra per hunting licence...I would definitely fork out the extra dough for habitat enhancement, I'm sure most of the rest of us would feel the same way...

-Care to share the link about the percentage of the Okanagan in protected areas/parks?? Not meaning any dis-respect, I would like to seriously read about that, if it's true that's great news, I know Granby takes up a huge area so wouldn't surprise me..




Read the link I posted. ANY increase in licensing cost affects hunter numbers. Get that straight.

As for the second point where you call me a liar on park percentage - go look it up yourself and do the math. I bothered to do it to refresh my memory from FHAC discussions and I'll be damned if I'm digging thru the Google results again for your benefit.

There is a huge land mass that is closed to vehicles in the Okanagan but apparently it isn't enough for you. Time to learn to share the sandbox.

[biggyun68]

I am confused were we not complaining about all the road closures and locked out access last month?

[Fisher-Dude]

I am confused were we not complaining about all the road closures and locked out access last month?

No kidding eh?

I think the OP should spend some time on Van Isle and see how much he likes the Timberwest gates. Might change his tune when he realizes that access to hunting is a delicate priviledge that has been a hard-fought battle to keep in many instances.

Maybe when the Indians block off his hunting area at the end of the pavement the light will come on.

I think those who yelp for closures/restrictions are just shitty hunters who think they'll have better luck if others are locked out or restricted in some way. Lemme tell ya, luck has SFA to do with it! ;)

[358mag]

Read the link I posted. ANY increase in licensing cost affects hunter numbers. Get that straight.

As for the second point where you call me a liar on park percentage - go look it up yourself and do the math. I bothered to do it to refresh my memory from FHAC discussions and I'll be damned if I'm digging thru the Google results again for your benefit.

There is a huge land mass that is closed to vehicles in the Okanagan but apparently it isn't enough for you. Time to learn to share the sandbox.

No problem sharing the sandbox, as long as we all have to play by the same rules. But in Region 8 we all know that there is no shortage of new FRS road and no shortage of FN after hours hunters, some how there has to be some control over both and good luck with the FN's .So if it de-activations on a few FSR roads to control it so be it, you have my vote . Even a few of the BCWF boys were saying , either we de-activate roads or its shorten the season ,take your pick .

[HarryToolips]

No problem sharing the sandbox, as long as we all have to play by the same rules. But in Region 8 we all know that there is no shortage of new FRS road and no shortage of FN after hours hunters, some how there has to be some control over both and good luck with the FN's .So if it de-activations on a few FSR roads to control it so be it, you have my vote . Even a few of the BCWF boys were saying , either we de-activate roads or its shorten the season ,take your pick .

You've got it exactly, how else can we control FN's harvest?? So we de-activate some FSR's and maybe, just maybe we can keep a sustainable GOS on spike-fork bulls...wouldn't that be awesome..meanwhile we still have lots of FSR's to drive on...doubt many would cry over some de-activations but I know many would cry over a GOS being shut down...and like everybody says, once a GOS is shut down, good luck getting it back people..so what do you all really want?

[HarryToolips]

Read the link I posted. ANY increase in licensing cost affects hunter numbers. Get that straight.

As for the second point where you call me a liar on park percentage - go look it up yourself and do the math. I bothered to do it to refresh my memory from FHAC discussions and I'll be damned if I'm digging thru the Google results again for your benefit.

There is a huge land mass that is closed to vehicles in the Okanagan but apparently it isn't enough for you. Time to learn to share the sandbox.

LOL did you not read what I wrote: again: Care to share the link about the percentage of the Okanagan in protected areas/parks?? Not meaning any dis-respect, I would like to seriously read about that, if it's true that's great news, I know Granby takes up a huge area so wouldn't surprise me..

so where did I call you a liar??

[Trigger Happy]

Pull out the 2x10's boys. This hole isn't gonna stop us :)

[btridge]

We've tried access restrictions for 40 years and game populations have fallen. Want to keep trying it, and expect a different result than a 40 year experiment gone bad?

What will you try after another 40 years and fewer animals than we have now? Praying?
You do know the definition of insanity....doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results:?