What If? Wildlife Management

[dana]

With all the talk of 'we need to be united and never speak our minds for fear of the antis' I wonder what if we played a game of 'what if' wildlife management.
What if at the spur of the moment 'bear baiting' was suddenly legalized because the GOABC have a tuff time filling their quota? Would you think it was a great idea?

What if due to the large number of mulies along the fraser, the bio in charge of the Cariboo decided that night hunting them is the only way to get rid of them and appease the big cattle ranches. The GOABC are backing the decision because they know they now can sell big buck $$$ tags to the yanks with a good chance at getting big bucks. Would you support it, and ask hunters to post up pics of all their 'night kills'????

What if it was suddenly legal to shoot critters from the air (plane or heli)? Would you want hunters to post up pics of their 'air kills'???? Would you defend the rights of other hunters and make statements like, "All that matters is that it is legal"?

[ursus]

How many wobbley pops have you had tonight??:lol:

[mark]

Interesting thought. All those radical ideas would have similar responses to the Mulie/elk thing going on in 7b. Most would rant and rave about ethics, and right & wrong, say this and that and that they would never take part in such a hunt. But over time it would become normal, and as wed see pics of monster nocturnal bucks being taken, most people would figure "midas get in on it" People usually resist change, but they do adapt to it!

[Browningmirage]

Only if it was moral as well...i dont see the difference in being 1 week, 1 month, or 3 months pregnant, it is still pregnant, you are still killing a fetus, no matter how you look at it. I agree that people are sometimes idiots, but is it possible that the new bio has an idea as to what he is trying to accomplish????? the fact that the hunt will be closed 48 hours after the manager decides; indicates that there is a specific number of animals that they want to kill. A cull is a cull is a cull. We dont call it a hunt, we call it control because not enough animals were taken this fall.

There is hunting...there is culling...there is poaching...there is a huge difference between all of them, i am pretty sure none of us will be in the poaching category

[todbartell]

Im all for night hunting, sounds fun :lol:

[SteadyGirl]

Dana has a very valid point.

[dana]

Browning,
If it is legal, wouldn't it be moral????

[Browningmirage]

nope...theres tonnes of things that are legal that arent moral. The list is infinite but i could give a few that i think are immoral in some way shape or form

[Brambles]

Oh god not another MORALS debate,

What is moral for one guy might not be moral for another, so as long as its legal then no one is wrong.

[dana]

Browning,
So what would make these 'what if' management tools immoral???

[Barracuda]

Doesnt everyone get angry at American ,British, affluent etc for pushing their moral values on others :lol: So tell all of us lesser beings what your moral views are on the compensentory plucking of deer based on the size of their headgear? seems a little suspect if you ask me :lol:

This whole Morality thing could turn out to be really fun LOL!

[mark]

Ya browning, why would any of these ideas be IMORAL??? They are just different ways of hunting which are currantly illegal! But IMO a clean kill is a moral kill, doesnt really matter what method you choose! Blowing a moose to smitherines with a bazzooka is a moral kill! Is it ethical or practical or sensible, well No!

[Browningmirage]

Theres one big one...safety, beyond that comes sustainability (both of hunting, and of the species).

what would make them valuable management tools?

[dana]

Barrcuda,
Why do we have game laws? Why are some things illegal in this province whereas in other jurisdictions they are legal??? Bear Baiting is a prime example. Why does BC have the anti bear baiting rule???? No, this is not a trick question. It actually does have something to do with morals. The morals we as hunters hold dear. Many of our laws are based on the concept of FAIR CHASE. That concept is rooted deep in a strong moral ethic is it not?????

[mark]

Theres one big one...safety, beyond that comes sustainability (both of hunting, and of the species).

what would make them valuable management tools?

Safety, theres a degree of danger to everything in life, we all take our chances. sustainability, that is up to the bios!

[Browningmirage]

Ya browning, why would any of these ideas be IMORAL??? They are just different ways of hunting which are currantly illegal! But IMO a clean kill is a moral kill, doesnt really matter what method you choose! Blowing a moose to smitherines with a bazzooka is a moral kill! Is it ethical or practical or sensible, well No!

Morals and ethics come from the same place. follow through with that, the chances of wounding an animal at night or from air are greater, resulting in more animals lost, resulting in immoral and unethical kills.

[dana]

And we all know the bios are always right, right??? The issueing of thousands of LEH cow/calf elk permits in the eighties sure was a good thing for the koots wasn't it? Oh wait, the old bios all were idiots. Only the new bios know what they are doing right????

[Browningmirage]

Safety, theres a degree of danger to everything in life, we all take our chances. sustainability, that is up to the bios!

But theres some dangers that can be avoided, drinking and driving is illegal because it is dangerous, night hunting is illegal partly because of safety, yes there is a certain degree of danger in life, but it is mitigated because things that are dangerous and stupid are mostly illegal (not to mention immoral).

[Barracuda]

I understand the concept of the rules and regulations in place but I would say it is far more conceivable that people that are not hunters have more to do with obvious emotional knee jerk laws then research.
In the end it is going to boil down to the more advantages the law is (politcally or financially) the more likley it will be in effect and or enforced . Morals change and sway with each generation and are reflective of social consciousness not neccasarily it subconsciousness.
In a sense Morals are a living breathing organism that is ever evolving

[Browningmirage]

And we all know the bios are always right, right??? The issueing of thousands of LEH cow/calf elk permits in the eighties sure was a good thing for the koots wasn't it? Oh wait, the old bios all were idiots. Only the new bios know what they are doing right????

Im just getting into the field, give me a little time here. Fisheries, forestry, and wildlife management policies in the 80s were not very intelligent in their treatment of their respective areas. I believe that 20 years of improvements in technology means better population estimates, better population dynamics understanding. The old bios werent all idiots (although im sure there are some) the new ones have better technology at their hands, and as long as they understand how to use it, im sure they can put forward strategies that are better suited to manage.

I understand more than some but know less than others, but i am just being educated, theres time for learning.

[dana]

Baracuda
Soooo,
If that is the case, picture another what if. What if hound hunting became illegal just like in Cali, would you just accept it and bow out gracefully because you don't want to rock the boat, or would you fight and be loud and vocal about your passion?????

[dana]

Browning,
Here's one for ya. Way less hunters now than in the past. Guess what that means, way less money for the bios. Do you think they have the money to do expensive arial counts???? I just went through what a sad state of affairs we are in in this province. Just had my 10 year old take the CORE course. The program is sooo behind the times that they are showing NRA videos from the 60's and early 70's.

[Barracuda]

Baracuda
Soooo,
If that is the case, picture another what if. What if hound hunting became illegal just like in Cali, would you just accept it and bow out gracefully because you don't want to rock the boat, or would you fight and be loud and vocal about your passion?????

I understand what you are saying but morals that are reflective of the vocal minoritys that influence the majority are such that emotional buttons very often are used to promote an agenda. Our gun laws and criminal sentencing are prime examples of this .
In all honesty Hound hunting is by & large deemed immoral by the majority but it has been flying under the radar because it is out of sight and out of mind for the most part .
If i felt that it was threatened then I might feel a need to lobby and seek to sway the public perception of the activity because i know that how it is perceived is how it will be believed by the majority .
That is the exact same tried and true tactic used by the majority of special interest groups and it works.

[GoatGuy]

And we all know the bios are always right, right??? The issueing of thousands of LEH cow/calf elk permits in the eighties sure was a good thing for the koots wasn't it? Oh wait, the old bios all were idiots. Only the new bios know what they are doing right????

Here's something to consider: biologists aren't actually out to kill all the game in your backyard and 99% of the time they are also doing the best they can.

There have definitely been mistakes and few are/were really bad but overall the vast majority are on 'our' side. These are the same people who go to bat for resident hunters with the government about issues like allocations and then go to meetings and take sh&t from us (think Bill Bennett for one and most of the folks in Victoria and your regionals). Sound fair?


If we knew everything about habitat and biology we wouldn't need biologists. It wouldn't be a science it would be fact.

Nobody ever said to go along with things but as a resident you won't get anywhere by calling them idiots - there's the big problem. Meetings where guys are wagging their fingers and shaking their fists. And then guys have the audacity to wonder why the biologists don't come by more and speak??????


Most of the biologists are wayyyyyy more passionate about 'their' fish and wildlife than we are. I know that won't sit well with many, but if you were as passionate about fish and wildlife you would have become a biologist. It's that simple. In the least you'd be an active member in any conservation group.

It feels good to point your finger from a distance but when you're right down in the mud working as hard as you can and still being heavily criticized by the people you're looking out for certainly makes you wonder why???????

Just something to think about - I think we all lose site, myself included, of what we're really trying to achieve and what the best way to go about it is.

[WoodOx]

There are NO right or wrong morals, or ethics per se. Morals and ethics are entirely percieved, and as such each one ofus on here will likely have a slightly different opinion as to what is 'right' or 'wrong'. This arguement is age old, and can/has been applied to thousands of different situations besides hunting. troll thread imo b/c this is a vicious cycle - no one can win or attempt to convince in this discussion, because someone can always "question the question", once again showing that everyone has differnt moral and ethical standards. Just because one has been taught one way, doesnt mean its right.

GG summed it up perfectly - if we knew what was exactly right about game management it wouldnt be a science...


Have at er! thisll be a long discussion :D :D

[Gateholio]

Most of the biologists are wayyyyyy more passionate about 'their' fish and wildlife than we are. I know that won't sit well with many, but if you were as passionate about fish and wildlife you would have become a biologist. It's that simple. In the least you'd be an active member in any conservation group.



I'd certianly go along wiht that, for the most part. I have had several conversations with bios that basically went liek this:

Bio: "I care about the fish and wildlife. Not just the deer and the sheep or the ducks or the salmon or whatever you personally like to hunt or fish for, I care about it all, big and small. And I don't care about much else. To me, development, the economy, humans hobbbies, and everythign else take a back seat to wildlife"

Now, they all know they have to work together with others and other stakeholders and user groups etc- They hunt and fish, But thier passion is LIVE wildlife.

[Kirby]

Im just getting into the field, give me a little time here. Fisheries, forestry, and wildlife management policies in the 80s were not very intelligent in their treatment of their respective areas. I believe that 20 years of improvements in technology means better population estimates, better population dynamics understanding.

Guess we'll find out in 10 or 20 years if we are any better:lol:. Lets hope we are cause damn we have made some stupid mistakes in the past. I hope that the biologist we have now and the up coming biologist are better at maintaining herds, populations etc but you gotta watch the politics involved cause managment by popularity can be a bad thing.

Kirby

[willyqbc]

great post Goat Guy!! I agree 100%

Chris

[Browningmirage]

I'd certianly go along wiht that, for the most part. I have had several conversations with bios that basically went liek this:

Bio: "I care about the fish and wildlife. Not just the deer and the sheep or the ducks or the salmon or whatever you personally like to hunt or fish for, I care about it all, big and small. And I don't care about much else. To me, development, the economy, humans hobbbies, and everythign else take a back seat to wildlife"

Now, they all know they have to work together with others and other stakeholders and user groups etc- They hunt and fish, But thier passion is LIVE wildlife.

Ive been wondering how to accurately describe my feel for being a biologist. This sums it up beautifully. I dont understand development anymore, and it definately takes a backseat to the wildlife.

[GoatGuy]

I'd certianly go along wiht that, for the most part. I have had several conversations with bios that basically went liek this:

Bio: "I care about the fish and wildlife. Not just the deer and the sheep or the ducks or the salmon or whatever you personally like to hunt or fish for, I care about it all, big and small. And I don't care about much else. To me, development, the economy, humans hobbbies, and everythign else take a back seat to wildlife"

Now, they all know they have to work together with others and other stakeholders and user groups etc- They hunt and fish, But thier passion is LIVE wildlife.

I think you need that - we'd be in a lot worse shape if it weren't for people like this.

[Rainwater]

Dana, You make a very valid post with your series of questions and as you can see people will just about agree with any hunt with any weapon at any time of the year under the disguise of "opportunity". Let us just hope that our bios don't go to the Andy Ackerman school of game management. HOWEVER, these are probably the same guys that come unglued when you mention a nine day bow only grouse season, aghast that someone would even mention it.

[Gateholio]

[quote=dana]
What if at the spur of the moment 'bear baiting' was suddenly legalized because the GOABC have a tuff time filling their quota? Would you think it was a great idea?


It wouldn't surprise me to find that guides already use a 'defacto' baiting system for grizzlies, in that they proabably keep an eye on areas they have made a previous kill.

I don't see why *any* outfitter in BC woudl want to engage in a baiting system for black bears, as it woudl be too much work and not nearly as cost effective as driving thier clients aorund in a 4x4. Nor would they be able to charge the higher dollars that BC outfitters seem to get for a "spot & stalk" hunt as opposed to a baited Sask hunt.

That being said, I am not opposed to baiting on any ehtical grounds. It's 100% legal to bait every species in BC for hunting purposes- except bears- already.

I wouldn't particiapte, beacause it's too much work and not nearly as fun as hiking the roads and trails as the green up.:lol:



What if due to the large number of mulies along the fraser, the bio in charge of the Cariboo decided that night hunting them is the only way to get rid of them and appease the big cattle ranches. The GOABC are backing the decision because they know they now can sell big buck $$$ tags to the yanks with a good chance at getting big bucks. Would you support it, and ask hunters to post up pics of all their 'night kills'????

We had a good thread abotu night hunting for predators on private land. Night hunting for predators is done in alot of the world and I dont' have any ethical problem wiht that as well- as long as there is a surplus and not an shortage of predators.

In your scenario, I htink it woudl be far more effective to simply make seasons and bag limits more generous, allowing any deer to be killed, it woudl solve your issue in short order, during dayligth hours.



What if it was suddenly legal to shoot critters from the air (plane or heli)? Would you want hunters to post up pics of their 'air kills'???? Would you defend the rights of other hunters and make statements like, "All that matters is that it is legal"?


Generally, aircraft hunts have been culls, and form what I understand, they are not always sucessful. They kill animals, but I'm not sure they accomplish what they set out to do.

Very few hunters have the means to keep a plane or helicopter going for a long time at hundreds an hour, so this doens't seem very realistic. Again, if there was need to reduce populations, there are probably better, more cost effective, and easier ways than using aircraft.

8-)

[Browningmirage]

Cost effective means such as...possibly getting the hunters to do it for them????? would make sense now wouldnt it?

[Gateholio]

By cost effective I mean that most hunters can't afford to fly aroundin helis shooting at stuff...:)

[Browningmirage]

but you cant deny that by getting hunters to do the cull for them, it is made more cost effective for the government

[Gateholio]

uhh..yeah, sure..Whatever you like....it's not what I was talkgin about but you run with it...;)

[Tinney]

EXCELLENT THREAD!!

Geez, kid's only first year. He's not bad hey?

Gate I think you summed 'er up so very nicely with your Bio description. I have to agree. I have realized that I myself glean a greater enjoyment in knowing that I am playing a part in keeping the wildlife intact, than anything else. Did that make sense?

Also, to get back to your thoughts dana, it is ethics. I have never been able to draw a clear mental line between ethics and morals. I use the worrd ethics, it's more fun :)
Would I participate in night hunting or helicopter hunting? Never. It's not fair chase. I'm sure that, given the chance to snipe M&T from 400yards, you would not have done it (I think), you would have wanted a much more personal encounter with such a beast.
Ethics, personal ones, is what it comes down to.
A good example of this is the Fraser sockeye fishery (or flossery, as it has become known). Have you witnessed the slaughter of salmon on the bars? PegLeg and other associated areas? Just because it is legal does not mean that it is ethical. And even at that, BORDERLINE legal.....but it is the gateway to the illegal....treble barbed hooks, outright snagging, steelhead retention and a host of others.
Thinking about the flossery and the antlerless seasons opened up, I have a better idea of why you are such a vocal proponent against it?

Kris

[GoatGuy]

HOWEVER, these are probably the same guys that come unglued when you mention a nine day bow only grouse season, aghast that someone would even mention it.

Is this gonna turn into another one of these threads??????

:lol:

[dana]

GG,
I find it really interesting that you take that stand and yet you yourself have been the biggest outspoken person I've seen against Andy's old boss. What, you are allowed to say that guy is an idiot but calling into question Andy's intentions with these illconceived hunts isn't allowed? Hmmm makes ya wonder. I personally don't think the bios of the past did a bad job. Hell we've got the best hunting opportunities in any jurisdiction in North America. They obviously must have been doing something right eh? But this attitude from the younger generation that they somehow know better is rather alarming to me. Just look a Tinney's remarks. The guy thinks he is the shizit to wildlife management yet the guy has never heard of the name Val Geist.

[Tinney]

Who said I don't know who Val Geist is?
And for the record I never said I was God's gift to wildlife management. I'm a green rookie, admittedly. So is BrowningMirage. And we know it. But don't think for a second I'm stupid.
Notice how the two most outspoken wildlife majors are the ones continually pushing the lines on this site?

[Browningmirage]

Have you heard of Bruce Ward? How about Don McCubbing, and then how about Ian Flemming, and one more Curtis Knudsen???? These guys are huge in the fisheries, their technologies and research are being used all up and down the coast, and shaping policy. Just because someone doesnt know about a single biologist; doesnt mean anything, by only reading one biologists papers, you are getting a biased view of wildlife management. Just because i dont know about Val Geist, doesnt mean i know jack all about wildlife, it just means that i havent read his papers, maybe i will in the future;either way not reading doesnt make me less knowledgable then the next guy.

Oh and btw it is shiznit

[Tinney]

We'll chat about Geist. I'll bring you some reading material ;)

[dana]

The 'why should I explain myself to all these stupid peeons' attitude that Tinney has is what I'm talking about. The guy makes wild and uninformed statements and then never backs them up. In his mind he is the Shizit. This scares the HELL out of me. Can you imagine if this kid ever passes school and gets a real job.

[Tinney]

Get real dana. Why should I explain commonn knowledge like deer dietary requirements to the membership of this site? I'm not a goddamn thirds grade teacher. What do I have to prove to anyone here? Nothing. That's what.
Wild and uninformed? Elaborate please. I don't think I've ever made an uninformed statement. Maybe a statement you don't like, but not uninformed.

[GoatGuy]

GG,
I find it really interesting that you take that stand and yet you yourself have been the biggest outspoken person I've seen against Andy's old boss. What, you are allowed to say that guy is an idiot but calling into question Andy's intentions with these illconceived hunts isn't allowed? Hmmm makes ya wonder. I personally don't think the bios of the past did a bad job. Hell we've got the best hunting opportunities in any jurisdiction in North America. They obviously must have been doing something right eh? But this attitude from the younger generation that they somehow know better is rather alarming to me. Just look a Tinney's remarks. The guy thinks he is the shizit to wildlife management yet the guy has never heard of the name Val Geist.

Yep, yep, I know. Course I have proof and can back up what I've found on several accounts re the regional. I don't think I said he was an idiot either - just that he was against resident hunters! I can back that up though several times over.

Trying to say that calling biologists idiots does more bad for us than it'll ever do good. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing - but do it with an informed opinion and a semi-level head.

Heck just look at the LEH post up top and the responses in there. Why would someone from MOE ever have to be exposed to the f****** and the 4 letter vocabulary when they are simply trying to inform and educate people? The person who's responding has heard all the questions hundreds of thousands of times and he's had to put up with all kinds of bs when all he's trying to do is to maximize resident opportunity.

How would you feel about being accused of being corrupt by the group you support?

Most of the people don't do the research first and fire off the cuff remarks and rhetoric - doesn't make sense and there's no reason for it. In the least they could ask a question, not fire a comment and then when they get a response think about it - somehow disconnect the hardwire from brain to mouth if you know what I mean. That's all I'm trying to get across.


Tinney's one person as is Val Geist -- they don't make up the majority or the minority on any account so don't get your feathers all ruffled. Their two people amongst thousands of biologists/would be etc., across the country.

[dana]

Tinney,
Common now. 'The fields of hybrids in Mcbride' is just one of many uninformed statements your have made. You say something stupid, you get called on it, and then you say, 'I don't have to explain myself to all of you stupid people.'

[Tinney]

Damn rights GG. But you gotta kick and scream and fight for what you believe in.

[Browningmirage]

The 'why should I explain myself to all these stupid peeons' attitude that Tinney has is what I'm talking about. The guy makes wild and uninformed statements and then never backs them up. In his mind he is the Shizit. This scares the HELL out of me. Can you imagine if this kid ever passes school and gets a real job.

I dont know dude, most of the info is common knowledge, i mean if i were to talk at a town meeting, i think i would leave pretty quickly if people started to ask what deer eat, and what happens when populations are high.

[Tinney]

Tinney,
Common now. 'The fields of hybrids in Mcbride' is just one of many uninformed statements your have made. You say something stupid, you get called on it, and then you say, 'I don't have to explain myself to all of you stupid people.'

I thought the Hybrid thing was over. Well, maybe chapter one. :twisted:
Get over the Hybrid junk dana, that whole thing got hellishly blown out of proportion and I was not allowed to clarify what I was trying to say as I was obviously wrong because I'm nothing but a dumb kid. Get over the hybrid shit and go back to counting fir beetles, OK?
You want to debate, debate, but don't drag up ancient history :twisted:

[dana]

GG,
Have you ever heard of the word 'sarcasim', I've been known to use it a time or 2 on these boards. ;) If you read my comments about bios you'll see that it was pointed at you as I have indeed seen you on more than one occasion hammer the 'old school'. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the old bios didn't know what they were doing and yet we shouldn't question the decisions of the new bios cause they do know what they are doing.

[Tinney]

GG,
Have you ever heard of the word 'sarcasim', I've been known to use it a time or 2 on these boards. ;) If you read my comments about bios you'll see that it was pointed at you as I have indeed seen you on more than one occasion hammer the 'old school'. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the old bios didn't know what they were doing and yet we shouldn't question the decisions of the new bios cause they do know what they are doing.

Why not? The science of today is better than in the 80s and 90s. There is better understanding of integrated systems today than ever before. Why shouldn't the new bios be better than the old? They have much better planning systems, better knowledge of how biological systems work and better understandings of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect wildlife populations.

[GoatGuy]

GG,
Have you ever heard of the word 'sarcasim', I've been known to use it a time or 2 on these boards. ;) If you read my comments about bios you'll see that it was pointed at you as I have indeed seen you on more than one occasion hammer the 'old school'. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the old bios didn't know what they were doing and yet we shouldn't question the decisions of the new bios cause they do know what they are doing.

I've only put the gears to one guy and its substantiated; I never said that person was an idiot merely that he was anti out of region resident and that he was very good at twisting arms. Even thinking about it frustrates me.

[BigD]

Having grown up thinking the only reason to kill something is to eat it, I have always thought, why kill it it if you are not going to eat it. But having been on this site I have been exposed to way more opions about hunting then I thought possible. My opionion is if its like the kangaroos in or Rabbits in Australia then by whatever means possible, kill them, they are just pests. So maybe doing it that way makes it moral, but it is NOT hunting inthat it requires skill. So if someone wants to go out and kill animals dont post the pictures on huntingbc.ca, post them on pestculling.com, or whatever. Hunting is a skill, too much technology and so on to me makes it a game.

On another note, my oldest sister is a high up with environment canada and if you think they know what is going on with wild populations of animals, well, your pretty deluded.

[Tinney]

So since I don't eat coyotes I shouldn't post pics of one if I ever shoot it? Like hell. Your logic is flawed in that many so called "pest species" are VERY difficult to hunt

[BigD]

I just mean, if you go out with floodlights pitlamping kangaroos with sniper rifles, is that really sport?

[BigD]

My logic has been known to be flawed, but not when it comes to hunting. (:

[Will]

I just mean, if you go out with floodlights pitlamping kangaroos with sniper rifles, is that really sport?
Depends.......some Folks think Golf is a Sport ? :rolleyes:

[Tinney]

You over-generalized. I corrected you :)

Ask sideofabarn if shooting foxes/bunnies and whatever else they have in Aussieland is hunting....I bet he convinces you it is ;)

[BigD]

Some folks do think golf is sport....And get this, when I went golfing in 100 mile house where I am from as a kid, the name of the golf course is Marmot ridge because of all the damn marmots on it. Last time I went out I sliced a ball and it whacked a marmot dead. I guess I am a good shot(:

[Will]

Some folks do think golf is sport....And get this, when I went golfing in 100 mile house where I am from as a kid, the name of the golf course is Marmot ridge because of all the damn marmots on it. Last time I went out I sliced a ball and it whacked a marmot dead. I guess I am a good shot(:
Well there you Go......
Roos with Sniper Rifles or Marmmots with Golf Balls.....It's ALL in Good Fun ! :lol:

[BigD]

I dont think so. Killing an animal is something that should be done with consideration. I do it because I dont want my family to eat the shit they sell us in the stores. My old man sold our ranch in the early eighties to keep our logging company going, so we cant live the way we want anymore, but if your just killing a steer or anything else, its the same. Hunting roos with a sniper rifle is a cull, a twelve year old kid in the bush with a 30.30 shooting a deer he stalked is different. Its need versus fun.

[Will]

Hunting roos with a sniper rifle is a cull, a twelve year old kid in the bush with a 30.30 shooting a deer he stalked is different. Its need versus fun.
NOBODY in North America "Needs" to go out and Kill animals for food.......We do it because we choose to.

[BigD]

Depends where you grew up I guess.(:

[Barracuda]

about the only people that can make the claim of nececcity are ones removed from society . (homesteaders, people that are self sustaining, off the grid etc. ) Anyone that lives within the structure of society makes a choice to hunt or not .

[BigD]

Or if you just dont have the $$ money in you pocket. Whats cheaper? A bullet or the store. the oldest story in the world, the price of beef is too low to eat beef, or its to high,cash money. Whatever else walks onthe property, eat it.

[dana]

GG,
You openly critized the old bio again and again. You say he's anti resident hunter. I openly critize the new guy because of his spur of the moment decision to appease the rancher's. What's the difference??? The point is, are we as BC hunters suposed to just follow like sheep or can we think for ourselves. The 'What If' scenerios ain't that far stretched. Would you just accept them if they were implemented without debating it and saying they are flawed???? You sure were vocal about the Allocation Policy. Why??? Cause you have something at stake? Yup. I'm vocal about these new so-called hunts because I have something at stake too. I don't want to see this style of hunt come to my back yard. I don't want to see us kill the great hunting opportunities we have based on appeasing one user group. I don't want to see my local herd cut back by 50% because what is good up there should be good down here. Like I've said before, it is a slippery slope that Ackerman is treading. It has bigger consquences that just a few deer and elk getting killed.

[Tinney]

Hey Steve,

Don't be so blind to think that managers are stupid. They know better than you that what works in the Peace will not work in the Kootenays, or anywhere else for that matter.

[BigD]

The thing is, are you a sport hunter, or a meat hunter?

[Buck]

I agree Big D personally i am a sport hunter.I could shoot as many elk as i want at night and the ranchers would'nt give a hoot.But i don't go there.Elk are a problem for the ranchers i've seen it myself they come in at night and are gone by morning damn smart. Very hard to hunt without making a big commitment to cutting them off going to the bedding areas.Most people are lazy and want them standing in the field so they don't have to work.But to me a hard hunted sweat is the greatest thing in the world

[Gateholio]

Depends.......some Folks think Golf is a Sport ? :rolleyes:


Excellent point8-)

[Tinney]

The thing is, are you a sport hunter, or a meat hunter?

If you try to tell me you hunt but you don't do it for sport I'll call you a liar. If hunting wasn't fun, noone would do it.
I am a meat hunter, but I hunt for the excitement of the chase!

[Gateholio]

[QUOTE=dana]GG,
You openly critized the old bio again and again. You say he's anti resident hunter. I openly critize the new guy because of his spur of the moment decision to appease the rancher's. What's the difference??

When a person has made the same choices again and again, they form a pattern, and thier motovations are relativly easy to interpret.

When someone has made ONE decision/choice thier motovation is virtually impossible to determine, and that is the difference.


? The point is, are we as BC hunters suposed to just follow like sheep or can we think for ourselves. The 'What If' scenerios ain't that far stretched. Would you just accept them if they were implemented without debating it and saying they are flawed????

Well, yes, your "What if" scenarios (witht he exception of bear baiting perhaps) are very far fetched. The only reason I say that bear baiting may not be far fetched is because it is 100% legal to bait every other species for the purpose of hutning other than bears, so someone may ask *why*?



You sure were vocal about the Allocation Policy. Why??? Cause you have something at stake? Yup. I'm vocal about these new so-called hunts because I have something at stake too. I don't want to see this style of hunt come to my back yard. I don't want to see us kill the great hunting opportunities we have based on appeasing one user group. I don't want to see my local herd cut back by 50% because what is good up there should be good down here.

Is it common practice for one region in BC to base thier management techiniques on another region that is half way across the province? My understanding is that the opposite is actually true. Management of Region 3 probably has more to do wiht bordering regions of 5 etc, than 7.


Like I've said before, it is a slippery slope that Ackerman is treading. It has bigger consquences that just a few deer and elk getting killed.

Well, that is your opinion, and you are entitiled to it. The fact remains is that a small number of deer and elk were killed by hunters in an effort to reduce some crop predation. The fact is that there will be virtually zero impact on any deer/elk herd.

if there is a "slippery slope" that effects other regions, I would suggest that it makes other bios for different regions aware that if ther are population/carrying capacity/crop predation issues in the region, maybe they can introduce other methods into the equation, like antlerless LEH should be expanded, or the seasons longer, or antler restrictions relaxed or......???

[Tinney]

Musta used spellcheck this time :lol:

[Gateholio]

Musta used spellcheck this time :lol:


No, I just got home from a buddies place and I am DRUNK...:lol:

When you see perfect typing from me, assume I am loaded.:lol:

Actually, I see a few typos, anyway.The o and the i are close together in motivation8-)

[Will]

The thing is, are you a sport hunter, or a meat hunter?
I'm Both ! 8)

[GoatGuy]

GG,
You openly critized the old bio again and again. You say he's anti resident hunter. I openly critize the new guy because of his spur of the moment decision to appease the rancher's. What's the difference??? The point is, are we as BC hunters suposed to just follow like sheep or can we think for ourselves. The 'What If' scenerios ain't that far stretched. Would you just accept them if they were implemented without debating it and saying they are flawed???? You sure were vocal about the Allocation Policy. Why??? Cause you have something at stake? Yup. I'm vocal about these new so-called hunts because I have something at stake too. I don't want to see this style of hunt come to my back yard. I don't want to see us kill the great hunting opportunities we have based on appeasing one user group. I don't want to see my local herd cut back by 50% because what is good up there should be good down here. Like I've said before, it is a slippery slope that Ackerman is treading. It has bigger consquences that just a few deer and elk getting killed.

The distinguishing factor is that I knew what the bio was up to and proved what he was doing was anti-res - I didn't call him an idiot and I backed it up with facts.

In this case there is no conservation concern, more of a question of personal ethics and that's what is being debated (I believe but now am not so sure).

So far as the allocation policy goes I tried to stick to the facts and get people informed instead of making unsubstantied, unsupported off the cuff remarks (tried). From there folks can make their own decision. I still don't believe 90% of the people who have even worked with it understand it.


My comments are directed at those who argue and call people idiots or bagmen as I've been so wonderfully refered to as. If you have an argument support it, that's all.

I'd definitely say this thread was a flamer!

[Browningmirage]

I think gatehouse has some really valid points; Bios understand that each area of the province is different; and as such they wont be applying the same actions to different parts. A late season cull in 7b would not give people in region 1 the idea that hey...we have too many deer...why dont we knock a few off in the spring because they are doing it. Its based more on local science.

With reference to goatguy allegedly calling the old bios idiots; either way, they have made their choices and recommendations, their recommendations have been put into place, and some of the time; the results were sh*t. As such, yes we can say that those decisions werent very smart, and in the case of the decision being based on something other than scientific fact, yes i do believe we have the right to call them on it.

This applies for current bios as well. If they are basing their decision to open antlerless ungulates is based completely on public opinion, with no regard to science, i will stand up and be the first to call them on it (and then inform you all that maybe i was wrong in thinking these people were right) But as it looks now, the numbers are high, and when that happens, there are a multitude of problems that come out (disease, starvation, etc etc). Most likely; the decision to open was based on scientific fact, the fact that carrying capacity had been exceeded or whatever; the bottom line is if you cant show me proof that there arent enough deer there (and i mean scientific evidence, not just i saw, a buddy of mine heard, look what happened here) then i might start believing.

Convert me...show me the facts

[dana]

GG,
You have a way of making a post stay off the original topic and also have a really good way to avoid the questions being asked of you.
I posted a response on here that said,
"And we all know the bios are always right, right??? The issueing of thousands of LEH cow/calf elk permits in the eighties sure was a good thing for the koots wasn't it? Oh wait, the old bios all were idiots. Only the new bios know what they are doing right????"
This was a sacastic comment aimed directly at you for your constant slams of the old bio. If anyone was flamed it was you bud. ;)
This thread is not about bios being idiots, so stop trying to make it go that way. This thread is about whether we should all keep our mouths shut if a new policy that we disagree with is brought into effect. Should we be opportunists and jump on the bandwagon in direct support of everything a bio says???? Should we just trust them that they know what they are doing???? If poor management decisions were made in the past, how come poor management decisions won't be made in the future??? Are all the new guys perfect and their ideas are always completely sound??? Would hate to sit around the fire 20 years from now and say, "Shit, sure wish we were living in the good ol' days. Remember back in the day?"

[Tinney]

I think you're making a very vocal point about not keeping your mouth shut ;)

But you haven't claimed to tell A.A. what you think of his methods, you've just sat behind your computer screen and whined about it in HBC. Phone him. It's not like the man isn't approachable.

[GoatGuy]

GG,
You have a way of making a post stay off the original topic and also have a really good way to avoid the questions being asked of you.
I posted a response on here that said,
"And we all know the bios are always right, right??? The issueing of thousands of LEH cow/calf elk permits in the eighties sure was a good thing for the koots wasn't it? Oh wait, the old bios all were idiots. Only the new bios know what they are doing right????"
This was a sacastic comment aimed directly at you for your constant slams of the old bio. If anyone was flamed it was you bud. ;)
This thread is not about bios being idiots, so stop trying to make it go that way. This thread is about whether we should all keep our mouths shut if a new policy that we disagree with is brought into effect. Should we be opportunists and jump on the bandwagon in direct support of everything a bio says???? Should we just trust them that they know what they are doing???? If poor management decisions were made in the past, how come poor management decisions won't be made in the future??? Are all the new guys perfect and their ideas are always completely sound??? Would hate to sit around the fire 20 years from now and say, "Shit, sure wish we were living in the good ol' days. Remember back in the day?"

Sounds like more flaming!:lol:

Your thread was set up to stir the pot - after 8 pages that's all that has happened.

Nobody said support everything that biologists do; if you're against something that's going on substantiate your claim(s) and do it without 4 letter words, that's all.

[WoodOx]

HMm refer to my first post - trolling = flaming thread. I see your point Dana, but regardless, all it does is stir the pot. (And no, I dont think hunting from a helicopter is around the corner...)

[hunter1947]

Your statement is what if dana ?????? ,myself i don't think they will ever go that root ,they would rather put a bounty out to reduce the numbers ,???. hunter 1947.