Should G Bear Study be of Concern?

[Vladimir Poutine]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/grizzly-hunt-auditor-general-1.3613961

This one could be trouble. I don't choose to hunt G Bears. That being said, with the Auditor General now in the mix, this muddies the situation.

The science on G bear numbers has been the litmus test in BC for whether a hunt can be sustained. So far the science has indicated that the populations can survive a hunt based on the available data. If you read the news item carefully, the groups calling for this audit may have found what is required to do an end run by pinpointing areas that they suggest are higher than the 6% that the Province says is the maximum.

The last paragraph is the most troubling IMO.

"The auditor general's office says it hopes to have the audit completed by the spring of 2017.

In a statement, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations wrote, "The province makes its decisions on the best available science and is confident that the auditor general's report will show that." "

What else occurs in 2017? The cynic in me says that if the Auditor General's report somehow shows that there may be more than the 6% in some areas, the Government would have a golden opportunity to either slap area bear hunt bans or a "temporary" hunt ban for G bear in BC. They could easily deflect criticism from the hunting community by saying "don't blame us, it's the Auditor General that did the report." They would gain a ton of support from the usual voices that say they want all G bear hunting banned.

[Cody1771]

THe Auditor General doesn't have the power to implement controls on provincial resources as far as i am aware, all they can do is strongly "suggest" that the province takes their recommendations. So if the province did slap a grizzly bear ban or reduce LEH numbers you could directly point at the province since they didn't do it with a gun to their head. I could be wrong but im pretty sure that's how the system works. Wildlife is a resource just like oil, lumber, diamonds ect. and it's the provinces responsibility to manage it.

[Vladimir Poutine]

THe Auditor General doesn't have the power to implement controls on provincial resources as far as i am aware, all they can do is strongly "suggest" that the province takes their recommendations. So if the province did slap a grizzly bear ban or reduce LEH numbers you could directly point at the province since they didn't do it with a gun to their head. I could be wrong but im pretty sure that's how the system works. Wildlife is a resource just like oil, lumber, diamonds ect. and it's the provinces responsibility to manage it.

That's true, but if a report somehow concluded that the 6% were being exceeded that would be fodder for others.

[Cody1771]

That's true, but if a report somehow concluded that the 6% were being exceeded that would be fodder for others.

yes very true, it's the ammo the anti's would need. but they already thought they won, but the province is clearly not willing to buy out the current outfitter tags, and they can't give out tags to outfitters without at least giving some to the resident hunters. it comes down to money, as it always has, and the province isn't willing to fork it out. also, i'd be pretty suprised if its over 6% based on what i've seen looking around in areas that aren't supposed to have large populations of grizzlies the current populations are very very healthy, i saw 2 sows both with 3 cubs. and sever others with 2.

[J_T]

From the recently released "Population status of the South Rockies and Flathead Grizzly Bear Populations" - Mowat/Lamb


SUMMARY
South Rockies Grizzly Bear Population
•The grizzly bear population north of Highway 3 in the Elk, Bull and White river valleys of southeastern British Columbia (BC) declined about 40% between 2006 and 2013.
• Hunting was closed in the population unit during 2011 and 2012 and opened during 2013 with fewer licences and lower quotas than were issued during 2006-*‐2010.
• Mortality rates roughly doubled between 2006 and 2013 as the population declined.
• There is a need to reduce mortality of grizzly bears in the South Rockies population unit.
Flathead Grizzly Bear Population
• South of Highway 3, in the Flathead valley, the population declined between 2007 and 2010 and increased from 2010 to 2014.
• This population trend aligned with the more demographic analysis by McLellan (2015) in the southeast portion of this unit, which suggests the decline McLellan (2015) observed was geographically broader than his study area.

[russm86]

yes very true, it's the ammo the anti's would need. but they already thought they won, but the province is clearly not willing to buy out the current outfitter tags, and they can't give out tags to outfitters without at least giving some to the resident hunters. it comes down to money, as it always has, and the province isn't willing to fork it out. also, i'd be pretty suprised if its over 6% based on what i've seen looking around in areas that aren't supposed to have large populations of grizzlies the current populations are very very healthy, i saw 2 sows both with 3 cubs. and sever others with 2.

Yea, I have similar experiences, more grizzlys than I've ever seen and in new areas where they have never historically been known to reside. So what happens when the study finds there are more than expected?

[boxhitch]

That's true, but if a report somehow concluded that the 6% were being exceeded that would be fodder for others.OR if audited without bias , could find the report interpretation to be in error in a positive way , and tags would increase

[303savage]

but the province is clearly not willing to buy out the current outfitter tags
i thought outfitters had to apply for grizzly tags like the rest of us.

[Whonnock Boy]

With grizzly bears being the most carefully managed species in our province, I am confident the findings will prove we are in fact harvesting them well within sustainable numbers. But, knowing the Liberals, come the spring of 17, they will pick and choose whatever facts best suit their agenda at that time.

[RiverOtter]

i thought outfitters had to apply for grizzly tags like the rest of us.
Outfitters are allocated tags.

[J_T]

As I alluded to in post #5, it isn't really about hunter harvests, but I suspect hunter tags will be the quickest method to gain some control.
Of the Grizzly Bear mortality in the South Rockies study area:
38% is hunter kills
25% is "animal control"
28% is highways and railways

In the Flathead study area:
91% hunter kills
9% animal control

Hunting kills are declining, yet mortality is rising.

[Fred1]

With grizzly bears being the most carefully managed species in our province, I am confident the findings will prove we are in fact harvesting them well within sustainable numbers. But, knowing the Liberals, come the spring of 17, they will pick and choose whatever facts best suit their agenda at that time.

This sounds about right.

[j270wsm]

During the spring of 2010 there were 4 Grizzlies shot in 4-23b( myself and a friend both had tags ). The following spring there were no leh tags given out. The info the ministry gave me was there were too many bears killed in 2010. They said due to the high number of incidental kills coupled with harvest numbers they felt it was needed to cancel leh tags to help the population. I've lived here my whole life and can tell you that there is enough bears here to have both a spring and fall hunt and that the population was never in any way at risk. If anything the population has been increasing between 2008 and present.

[two-feet]

I think its good, we need a scientific approach to managing wildlife, if it comes in that the mortality is under 6% this is a great thing for hunters

[Cordillera]

The auditor general will examine whether the government has a proper system in place. They are not likely to examine specific decisions or quotas. If the system works they will confirm that and it will bolster the defence that decisions are based on science and good management.