At what point are there too many hunters?

[untilthelastbeat]

I remember hunting with my dad as a young boy in the 90's and it seemed to me back then that there wasn't close to as many hunters in the woods back then as there is now. I'm not sure if it's because I wasn't as old or as involved as I am now but I remember my dad saying that by the time I grow up hunting could be a thing of the past. As iv grown up and gotten more involved especially over the last 10 years it seems like hunting has blown up and become insanely popular with alot more people.
These days the harvest of pure organic meat is important to people and the connection with nature is also a new agenda for most.
As a kid and still today I hear most outdoorsman encouraging others to introduce their friends and family to get others into hunting and fishing and conservation. But when do you draw the line? I understand fully that outdoorsman pay the way of conservation and wildlife funds and we need all the support we can get but over the last 10 years iv seen the number of fellow hunters in my hunting regions grow to an all time high and animal numbers steadily decrease.
I understand the need to harvest clean meat and provide for our families but how many of us do our fair share of predator control on top of our yearly ungulate harvests? What happens when tens of thousands of bc residents go out and take their yearly moose, elk, deer or sheep etc and fill their freezer but don't spend the time or money to go out and hunt wolves, coyotes or bears and such?
I know iv spent a good portion of my adult hunting career doing just that and and am just recently deciding to get more involved in wildlife management and predator control. I guess this is what has spiked this topic in my mind and and in no way am I attacking new hunters or people trying to get others involved as there's nothing better than taking new members into the woods and watching their success but I'm just curious to your opinions of where the balance should be? When does the number of hunters outnumber the animal populations?

[GoatGuy]

High point 1981 = 174,000 hunters

Low point 2004 = 84,000

2014 = 107,000

[Whonnock Boy]

I believe at one time there were as many as 180,000 resident hunters, and a lot of them filled their freezers for the winter. Now we sit roughly at 105,000. Back when there were that many hunters, predators were hunted hard and the they saw the benefits. Now, predator hunting, especially bears, is not as accepted or common place. Add in habitat loss, and we are seeing the effects. Could British Columbia sustain that many hunters again? Without a doubt, but together we need to advocate for predator control, harvest more bears, especially Black imo, and lobby government for greater efforts towards habitat enhancement.



I understand the need to harvest clean meat and provide for our families but how many of us do our fair share of predator control on top of our yearly ungulate harvests? What happens when tens of thousands of bc residents go out and take their yearly moose, elk, deer or sheep etc and fill their freezer but don't spend the time or money to go out and hunt wolves, coyotes or bears and such?
I'm just curious to your opinions of where the balance should be? When does the number of hunters outnumber the animal populations?

[RiverOtter]

We'll cross that bridge if/when we get there, but for now I'm happy with a growing voice to maintain our right to hunt.

I see you're from the LML, where everyone from an overpopulated area is forced to funnel out of the city in search of animals, with closer/easier places getting hammered. BC is a big province, lots of game and tonnes of country to hunt it.

[monasheemountainman]

the more hunters the less of a chance we get screwed up the you know what by bleeding hearts and anti gun people/government....BUT everybody needs to do their part in at the very least being a responsible, respectful conservationist, not a drunk hillbilly throwing beer cans out the window. like you said, get involved with conservation groups, know the rules/regs, and encourage other hunters to do the same.

[sawmill]

I`d shoot bears and wolves but I don`t eat them so...........................
I don`t kill for fun and I don`t kill unless it`s gonna be eaten. Hunting for 40+ years and that`s my way.

[RiverOtter]

I`d shoot bears and wolves but I don`t eat them so...........................
I don`t kill for fun and I don`t kill unless it`s gonna be eaten. Hunting for 40+ years and that`s my way.
Naw, it's way more humane to let preds eat themselves out of food, then simply starve to death........

[MichelD]

I'm going to get shit from my friends here and might even lose some for saying this, but I think we have to re-think the "predators bad/ungulates good" kind of 19th century thinking that I constantly see repeated here.

I grew up in the 1960s and have been hunting since then. My dad was a commercial fisherman and the first time I actually recall seeing him fire his 303 was at a killer whale. He hit it too, I still remember the "Whap!" sound it made. That's what they did in those days. Called them "Blackfish" and the notion was that killer whales were bad because they stole "our" salmon. They used to put bait out for wolves, never mind what else it killed.

I'm not opposed to hunting bears and wolves. I hunt black bears and try to get one every year. But I don't think I'm doing anything heroic or performing some kind of calculated biological control on the predator population. They have a place in the ecosystem and have to eat too. They are not "our" deer or moose.

On the issue of too many hunters, particularly new ones out for nice fresh organic meat, I think once many get out and realize the amount of time and expense involved, they'll re-think it. A buddy of mine had a co-worker interested in hunting so he got his firearms permit, a rifle, a hunting licence and all the rigmarole and they went out for a drive one Saturday up the Coq. in the Merritt area and he was shocked they didn't get a deer and hasn't shown an interest in going out since.

I don't think there are actually many more hunters than in the 1990s, it's just the ones out there are better equipped. A lot of new hunters seem to think that you can't even go unless you've got a diesel Ford 250 4x4 with a camper, a trailer and a quad, plus a $2000 plastic fantastic stainless steel rifle mounted with a scope you can see the man in the moon with. I won't be any more of a crotchety old man and bore you with tales of bare bones gear I started with except to say that was basically a pair of caulk boots and a donated 303 Ross rifle.

[walks with deer]

What if the hillbilly throwing a beer can gets it in the box of his truck every time.?

[Moose63]

High point 1981 = 174,000 hunters

Low point 2004 = 84,000

2014 = 107,000

Of that, I wonder what percentage actually head into the bush or what percentage actually bag something.

Guy I know won an elk draw and didn't use it.

[.264winmag]

I like hunting and the people involved. More the merrier, I'll just continue getting away from the crowds. If there's less hunters now than in 81' that's not an ideal trend IMO...

[Squamch]

What if the hillbilly throwing a beer can gets it in the box of his truck every time.?


Then he needs to mentor the up and coming generation of hillbillies. Or not, and I'll continue to pick up $5 of empties every time I go out.

[RiverOtter]

Michel, I don't think any here would endorse the extermination of predators, but there is a need to keep them in check.

To look at it another way, all the moose, elk and deer shot annually is potential food for wild predators. When predators run out of food they starve to death. If you're going to remove mass from one side of the balance beam(ungulates) it only makes sense to remove from the other side as well(predators).

[HarryToolips]

We'll cross that bridge if/when we get there, but for now I'm happy with a growing voice to maintain our right to hunt.

I see you're from the LML, where everyone from an overpopulated area is forced to funnel out of the city in search of animals, with closer/easier places getting hammered. BC is a big province, lots of game and tonnes of country to hunt it.

Exactly...many areas of BC hold lots of game..the majority of our harvest is male only anyway, and sure, some areas may be suffering a bit from low buck:doe or bull:cow ratios, but a lot of our male only or majority harvest doesn't hurt the overall populations, at least to my understanding...last year for example I believe was the best year I've ever seen for new little mule deer bucks, and good fawn recruitment, as well as good calf moose recruitment..

[VLD43]

“Are there too manyhunters” is an interesting question. Depends on what you consider thedefinition of a “Hunter” to be. I wouldsay that the renewed interest in hunting is good for the sport in general. Myconcern is not the number of “hunters”, so much as the quality of thoseparticipating in the sport. Having completed the “CORE Program” does not makeyou a hunter. People who are new to the sport need some sort of mentoring byolder experienced hunters. It is just as important in my mind, for anyoneinvolved in this sport, to be actively engaged in conservation, habitat andgeneral wildlife issues, as it is too have a general knowledge of the sport.The future of our sport requires us to act responsibly and ethically whileengaged in this activity we cherish. Unfortunately complacency plays to large apart in both hunting and fishing these days. My thought is that we arepresently at a cross roads of sorts. Increased hunting pressure, loss ofhabitat, loss of access, allotment quotas and anti-hunter sentiment are but afew of the issues that threaten our sport. I believe that it is time, for allhunters in this province, to contribute annually to a payed “Hunting Lobby”that looks out for the interest of Resident Hunters. If we neglect to deal withthe political side of our sport, our rights or privileges will eventually beeroded away. We can’t assume others will step up, to protect your sport andthen hope for a good result. We all need to be engaged. Just my thoughts

[ROY-alty33]

Politically speaking...........never too many hunters
Practically speaking..........one more than me (and I guess my son this year)

[panhead]

If my memory serves me right ... back during the early eighties recession, things got REALLY tight and the Premier Du Jour (Bill Bennett Jr.) just opened up hunting to residents ... a free for all. Anybody else remember this? Still don't see any more hunters where I go today than a few years ago. Guess it depends on how long your drive i$ ... Location ...Location ... Location ...

[GoatGuy]

If my memory serves me right ... back during the early eighties recession, things got REALLY tight and the Premier Du Jour (Bill Bennett Jr.) just opened up hunting to residents ... a free for all. Anybody else remember this? Still don't see any more hunters where I go today than a few years ago. Guess it depends on how long your drive i$ ... Location ...Location ... Location ...
100% incorrect

[MichelD]

If my memory serves me right ... back during the early eighties recession, things got REALLY tight and the Premier Du Jour (Bill Bennett Jr.) just opened up hunting to residents ... a free for all. Anybody else remember this? Still don't see any more hunters where I go today than a few years ago. Guess it depends on how long your drive i$ ... Location ...Location ... Location ...


What does that mean?

I've been buying BC hunting licences since 1968 and i don't recall anything being radically different in the 1980s than at any other time before or since. There were a few more antlerless mule deer seasons in various places across the province at that time than today, but that was in place before the time period mentioned and changed periodically according to game populations I suppose.

[ajr5406]

I wonder how many of the 105,000 "hunters" get skunked each year?

[emerson]

More is better for political power.

[emerson]

I wonder how many of the 105,000 "hunters" get skunked each year?
As long as they buy a license it doesn't matter.

[ajr5406]

As long as they buy a license it doesn't matter.


Agreed, but harvest numbers would be interesting - if we have more hunters buying licences etc - more money for conservation (good), but if fewer are harvesting animals each year, that may have an impact on the future of new hunters (many might decide its not worth the time and effort if the chances of shooting a deer are too small to justify)?

[Cyrus]

its currently a fad...just like wearing camo...hopefully it dies down because there are hunters everywhere now,

[panhead]

100% incorrect

Nah ... I remember watching it on the telly ... maybe it was just for people on "welfare" ... but there was something ...

[kebes]

I`d shoot bears and wolves and set traps for mice or slap mosquitos but I don`t eat them so...........................
I don`t kill for fun and I don`t kill unless it`s gonna be eaten. Hunting for 40+ years and that`s my way.

Make sure to follow the logic through :D

[IslandBC]

There's a lot of camo and jacked up trucks out there.. Not sure about the hunters though :D I think it's the new trend to try hunting . Only 1 out of 10 gets bit by the bug though.

[Fella]

I rarely run into other hunters where I go. I'm sure there are places that have a lot of pressure but I never notice.

[BCBear]

I rarely run into other hunters where I go. I'm sure there are places that have a lot of pressure but I never notice.

but when you do it's a good thing!

[two-feet]

More hunters = good

[scoutlt1]

I've hunted for a long time, and I always find that the more and farther I get off the road, the less "hunters" I see.

Seems pretty much the same now than it did years ago. I road hunt, I see tons of hunters. I walk a half hour off the road I see a few. I walk for 3 hours I maybe see one. I hike overnight or longer, I rarely see another soul. I'm a huge fan of wearing out my boots.
No statistics available for that I know, but that hasn't changed for me in years.

I am all for more responsible and ethical hunters coming into the fold. It can only be a good thing I'd say.

[Jagermeister]

It was far more congested in past times. Backwood access was limited by the lesser amount of FSRs than we have today.
Look on the positive side. With more hunters in the area you chose to hunt, the less slogging you will have to do. Let them become your drivers. Just hunker down and wait for the driven game to come past you.

[Bugle M In]

Wouldn't the late 60's, early 70's have been the peak of hunter numbers??
You know, back before having to take the CORE program, and you didn't need an FAC/PAL.
You could go down, buy some tags, find some old 303's kicking around for dirt cheap, and a box of ammo....
Everyone back than gave Hunting a go.....at least once......sort of like a group golf vacation these days.
Agree though, getting a friend involved into the hunting world, doesn't mean they will continue on hunting.
I think some try it, even after putting in all the time for "tests", only than to find out, it isn't that easy, or not what they
thought it would be.
I took along a friend of mine for 3 hunting trips, one full week, plus 2 long weekend hunts, to let him see first hand, what
hunting really is, to see if he found more to it (than just out for a kill/meat), before he made the decision to put in effort for the
CORE and spending money on hunting gear.
He now is a full time hunting partner, and enjoys the "many elements" that encompass hunting.
The one thing that has changed, is all the easy access that has happened everywhere.
Something I don't think was for the best, and something that will never return.

[hunter1947]

I see more hunters in the bush then i saw back in the early 2000 lots of hunters out there now at least in the areas I hunt...

Just did a search ..http://www.goabc.org/pdfs/pres/ian-hatter-12-09-pres.pdf


News (http://vancouversun.com/category/News)






Ethical killing: The new urban hunters (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/ethical+killing+urban+hunters+looking+sustainable+ ethical+ways/8237288/story.html)http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/numbers+Hunting/8237298/cms/binary/8237292.jpg?size=sw300x100 (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/ethical+killing+urban+hunters+looking+sustainable+ ethical+ways/8237288/story.html)


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

[GoatGuy]

Nah ... I remember watching it on the telly ... maybe it was just for people on "welfare" ... but there was something ...
In the early 80s license fees were doubled, core was privatized and GOS started going to draw. Hunters started disappearing at a rapid rate.

[Barracuda]

more hunters the better as it gives a bigger voice and makes it more mainstream. People that hunt will also realize that it isn't only for meat it is recreation it is fur it is connecting with your roots . the worst thing for hunting is to use the only kill it if you eat it mantra fed to everyone in the 70s and eighties. hunting is not a cost effective means of feeding oneself for most urban people it is a recreational pursuit and should be accepted as one.

I also think that the reason more people might think that hunters are more common now is access to area by means of ATVs and 4x4s something that the vast majority of people simply didn't have 40 years ago . The average person hunted on foot then so crossing paths was far less common

[panhead]

In the early 80s license fees were doubled, core was privatized and GOS started going to draw. Hunters started disappearing at a rapid rate.

Agreed ... but I am speaking of a one time political move ... anyone back then on welfare couldn't afford to go hunting anyways...

[MichelD]

Agreed ... but I am speaking of a one time political move ... anyone back then on welfare couldn't afford to go hunting anyways...

I think you are alluding to the the old subistence permit. It was not a one-time political move. It had been in place for years as far as I can remember and was eliminated around the time you mention, mid 1980s.

You had to prove absolute dire poverty, and not even qualify for welfare and meet numerous other criteria before you were even considered for a permit. I was in those circumstances after earning about $2000 in 1985 and looked into it. It was easier for me even then to buy a hunting licence and follow the rules the same as everybody else.

[panhead]

I think you are alluding to the the old subistence permit. It was not a one-time political move. It had been in place for years as far as I can remember and was eliminated around the time you mention, mid 1980s.

You had to prove absolute dire poverty, and not even qualify for welfare and meet numerous other criteria before you were even considered for a permit. I was in those circumstances after earning about $2000 in 1985 and looked into it. It was easier for me even then to buy a hunting licence and follow the rules the same as everybody else.


Thanx ... that makes sense. Old Bill was probably answering questions about it on the telly. In the hot seat after the one day general strike. Still remember meeting a bud of mine at Empire Stadium and he was wearing a sandwich board sign that read "Bill Bennett senior should have been sterilized" Wish I'd hadda camera ...

[adriaticum]

It's a Conservation catch 22.

The more people are introduced to outdoors the less opportunity there is. You lose opportunities through diminished game numbers.
The fewer people are introduced to outdoors the less opportunity there is. You lose opportunity through losing political voice and restrictions that come as a result.

In today's day and age we can't simply grow numbers of hunters and let animals reproduce at nature's pace.
We will run out of opportunities.
We have to help them by increasing their odds of reproduction and survival.

Hunting has to be enshrined in the constitution. But wait, we don't have a constitution.
Because we live in a society where majority rules we have to make sure that the hunter's voice is loud and clear.
But if you think about it, if a basic human right of a man to feed himself can be achieved through hunting, imagine if everyone was doing it.

[caddisguy]

I'm with those pointing out that numbers are not anywhere near an all-time high and having more would be good.

I think because there are more roads, more ground is covered more quickly. If there are more roads, you will run into more hunters whether road hunting or not.

I find a lot of the back road networks around Kamloops, 100 Mile, Merritt, etc are so massive you can hike into the timber 500 meters and just find yourself on another road or in the tree line on top of a cut block with guys glassing you from the bottom *wave* ... checking out maps and satellite images with the intent of making sure you won't run into another road helps.

One of the cool things about Region 2 is that for the amount of area, there are very few roads which most hunting activity is condensed into. You could probably just walk 1km off any given road and do that every day for years without running into anyone. Can be a bit thick and steep, tough hunting but I love being alone out there in GOS!