Reg changes 2016

[Backwoods]

I went to backcountry for the sheep seminar last weekend and we had a CO speak about possible reg changes that are in the works!! He said that all meat must be taken from the game you harvest such as rib meat and neck meat, which doesn't really affect me as I usually take every de-boned, but this could be more difficult for the backpack hunts (sheep & elk) he also mentioned that we are going to have to take are grizzly bear meat now!!! With the pressure from the anti-hunting groups he said!! What's next wolf meat! Hahah lol!!! So much for the gutless method on elk & moose! What's your thought on the g-bear meat having to be taken? Never can say I've tried g-bear meat

[Brew]

You can still do the gutless method and take rib meat and neck meat. I don't see a problem with a regulation change like that

[Backwoods]

You can still do the gutless method and take rib meat and neck meat. I don't see a problem with a regulation change like that
Have you experienced grizzly meat before? I would definitely try but haven't had the opportunity. I agree that the rib meat and neck meat should be taken, I enjoy neck roasts, I haven't ever seen anyone take the rib meat while doing the gutless method, would be interesting to see, I'll have to search the net to see it done.

[Whonnock Boy]

Grizzly meat is no different than black bear, and a lot of folks love it, but based on my limited experience of the table fare value of coastal bears, there will be a few bears hitting the land fill after it has reached the residence. I don't have a problem with the new regulations.

[Weatherby Fan]

Only thing I'm surprised about is how Long it took to make the change, should have been done years ago.
Im in favour of the change.

[358mag]

Have you experienced grizzly meat before? I would definitely try but haven't had the opportunity. I agree that the rib meat and neck meat should be taken, I enjoy neck roasts, I haven't ever seen anyone take the rib meat while doing the gutless method, would be interesting to see, I'll have to search the net to see it done.
Saved you the search
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIDkLman-FE

[HarryToolips]

Only thing I'm surprised about is how Long it took to make the change, should have been done years ago.
Im in favour of the change.

Yup, me too, I know it will be a pain in the a$$ for some, but now the anti's can't say nada..

[Backwoods]

Saved you the search
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIDkLman-FE
Great video thank you for the post 358mag!! Can't say I've seen it done with the guts still in the animal, I've watched two videos of guys saying it's the gutless method but in two out of two they take the guts out as shown in your post as well. I'll have to try the rib roll this year!! Thanks again

[boxhitch]

Its not about anti-anything , its about utilization.
I doubt it will be a stand alone reg, maybe some changes to regs on wastage or abandonment, lots of meat gets left behind for weak reasons.
vid mentions 'want and waste'

Good spot for a gut hook type blade, swingblade, don't punch that gut bag ~!

[Backwoods]

Yup, me too, I know it will be a pain in the a$$ for some, but now the anti's can't say nada..
Exactly!!!!!!

[russm]

I had some grizzly pepperoni a couple weeks ago, it was really tasty.

[AgSilver]

Saved you the search
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIDkLman-FE

Yeah man, great vid, thanks. I had always thought of just tediously cutting out the ribs one at a time, but this makes way more sense.


Its not about anti-anything , its about utilization.
I doubt it will be a stand alone reg, maybe some changes to regs on wastage or abandonment, lots of meat gets left behind for weak reasons.
vid mentions 'want and waste'

Good spot for a gut hook type blade, swingblade, don't punch that gut bag ~!

I think it was "wanton waste"... http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wanton-waste/

But regardless, the point is that they don't want you to leave anything behind and I absolutely support that regulation.

[Marlowethelazydog]

Good. You shoot it you harvest it.

[kebes]

Yup, me too, I know it will be a pain in the a$$ for some, but now the anti's can't say nada..

Those who are truly anti hunting will continue to find things to complain about. I'm fine with this regulation change outside of necessary removal of grizzly meat. Trying to please the anti-hunting community is a losing battle. Trying to convince the middle grounders is valid but I would prefer education over unnecessary compromises.

[kebes]

Good. You shoot it you harvest it.

Wolves and coyotes as well? The "eat what you kill" mantra has a ton of merit, the one down side is that it doesn't allow for management hunts in some cases. In my opinion ignoring management hunts (predators) is irresponsible.

[bearvalley]

Those who are truly anti hunting will continue to find things to complain about. I'm fine with this regulation change outside of necessary removal of grizzly meat. Trying to please the anti-hunting community is a losing battle. Trying to convince the middle grounders is valid but I would prefer education over unnecessary compromises.


Wolves and coyotes as well? The "eat what you kill" mantra has a ton of merit, the one down side is that it doesn't allow for management hunts in some cases. In my opinion ignoring management hunts (predators) is irresponsible.

X2 on both posts.

[tuner]

Rotting moose carcass flavoured grizzly should make for delightful table fare, or perhaps coyote back straps or sausage. These animals have always been hunted for reasons other than food, what the hell has changed other than to appease those that oppose hunting, as Kebes rightly points out. Once grizzly bear meat start showing up at the dump because even dogs won't touch it, the ensuing outrage from the anti's will make it harder and harder to justify any sort of predator hunting.

[KodiakHntr]

Those who are truly anti hunting will continue to find things to complain about. I'm fine with this regulation change outside of necessary removal of grizzly meat. Trying to please the anti-hunting community is a losing battle. Trying to convince the middle grounders is valid but I would prefer education over unnecessary compromises.


Wolves and coyotes as well? The "eat what you kill" mantra has a ton of merit, the one down side is that it doesn't allow for management hunts in some cases. In my opinion ignoring management hunts (predators) is irresponsible.


Rotting moose carcass flavoured grizzly should make for delightful table fare, or perhaps coyote back straps or sausage. These animals have always been hunted for reasons other than food, what the hell has changed other than to appease those that oppose hunting, as Kebes rightly points out. Once grizzly bear meat start showing up at the dump because even dogs won't touch it, the ensuing outrage from the anti's will make it harder and harder to justify any sort of predator hunting.


Nailed it. I've said it before, but meat is not why I hunt predators.

All this his is going to do, is increase bear numbers, increase fawn and calf mortality, and probably increase allocation numbers to guides.

Its ironic, how many guys are applauding this decision, yet complain about ungulate numbers being down. Meat retention on black bears when it came into effect, had a drastic reduction of bear hunters. What happens to calf and fawn numbers when bear numbers increase?

[Wentrot]

I see nothing wrong with these changes if they happen. Why leave usable meat behind anyhow? As for grizz, Iv tried it and really enjoyed er. People will bitch and moan anytime new rules come along.

[325]

Nailed it. I've said it before, but meat is not why I hunt predators.

All this his is going to do, is increase bear numbers, increase fawn and calf mortality, and probably increase allocation numbers to guides.

Its ironic, how many guys are applauding this decision, yet complain about ungulate numbers being down. Meat retention on black bears when it came into effect, had a drastic reduction of bear hunters. What happens to calf and fawn numbers when bear numbers increase?
I agree. I will likely quite hunting grizzly if I have to take the meat. I also don't really like having to take rib meat either.

[AgSilver]

Um, does anyone know what the reg says? Presumably may contain exemptions for predator hunts.

[AgSilver]

I also don't really like having to take rib meat either.

Any reason why not?

[325]

Any reason why not?

Too little return for time and effort. I like the regulations as they are.

I'm also not a road Hunter. Most of my kills get packed out on my back

[Wentrot]

Too little return for time and effort. I like the regulations as they are.

I'm also not a road Hunter. Most of my kills get packed out on my back

How long does it take you to remove the meat between the ribs? Up, down, back and forth and it's done in a matter of minutes. Also weighs next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[Sitkaspruce]

I agree. I will likely quite hunting grizzly if I have to take the meat. I also don't really like having to take rib meat either.


Too little return for time and effort. I like the regulations as they are.

I'm also not a road Hunter. Most of my kills get packed out on my back

Unless things are going to change, I have never taken the rib meat and I have been checked by a few different CO's (as a guide and as a hunter) and also hunt with a couple retired CO's who have never said anything to me and been happy to help pack the animal out.

This is after the elk last year. Note the meat between the ribs. Been leaving that for 15 years, since I learned the gutless method.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Sitkaspruce/Hunt%20fish%202015/IMGP1159_zpspjmxugor.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Sitkaspruce/media/Hunt%20fish%202015/IMGP1159_zpspjmxugor.jpg.html)

and them helping with the pack out.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Sitkaspruce/Hunt%20fish%202015/dc528c49-a978-4a2d-8fbc-0b0d1db2f68d_zpsue4gsqtj.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Sitkaspruce/media/Hunt%20fish%202015/dc528c49-a978-4a2d-8fbc-0b0d1db2f68d_zpsue4gsqtj.jpg.html)

One time, while packing a moose out, a couple clients challenged me on the "waste" after I did the gutless method....so left them a pillow case and said fill your boots. 2 hours later, they had approx. 7 lb. of "wasted" meat, most were small chunks or strips mixed with fat.

On the grizz meat, I have had both good (interior berry bear) and bad (coastal fish bear). Will be interesting to see how this plays out....

Cheers

SS

[325]

How long does it take you to remove the meat between the ribs? Up, down, back and forth and it's done in a matter of minutes. Also weighs next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Yep. Weighs next to nothing. My point exactly. Not worth the hassle. I will, of course, take the rib meat if it becomes law.

[325]

Unless things are going to change, I have never taken the rib meat and I have been checked by a few different CO's (as a guide and as a hunter) and also hunt with a couple retired CO's who have never said anything to me and been happy to help pack the animal out.

This is after the elk last year. Note the meat between the ribs. Been leaving that for 15 years, since I learned the gutless method.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Sitkaspruce/Hunt%20fish%202015/IMGP1159_zpspjmxugor.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Sitkaspruce/media/Hunt%20fish%202015/IMGP1159_zpspjmxugor.jpg.html)

and them helping with the pack out.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Sitkaspruce/Hunt%20fish%202015/dc528c49-a978-4a2d-8fbc-0b0d1db2f68d_zpsue4gsqtj.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Sitkaspruce/media/Hunt%20fish%202015/dc528c49-a978-4a2d-8fbc-0b0d1db2f68d_zpsue4gsqtj.jpg.html)

One time, while packing a moose out, a couple clients challenged me on the "waste" after I did the gutless method....so left them a pillow case and said fill your boots. 2 hours later, they had approx. 7 lb. of "wasted" meat, most were small chunks or strips mixed with fat.

On the grizz meat, I have had both good (interior berry bear) and bad (coastal fish bear). Will be interesting to see how this plays out....

Cheers

SS

You and I do things the same way.

[boxhitch]

Too little return for time and effort. I like the regulations as they are.

I'm also not a road Hunter. Most of my kills get packed out on my backAgreed. But the neck, brisket, plank, and flank are all good pieces to cut off the outside of the carcass. Whittling ribs is pointless
But that Rib-Roll video shows a good way to take things all off together, one large flap or skirt to roll up as a roast. Probably 50% fat and grisliness but some red morsels too.

[caddisguy]

I took what I could of the rib meat from our bear this year. It is really minuscule when you are boning it out. Generally you have a bullet hole through the ribs, and spending a half hour trying to cut out what is between the ribs, you get maybe 1/3 of a pound off a dear/bear. Good luck getting it all too. You simply cannot detach all meat from bone, period. You can only cut as close as possible. Fairly easy to take neck meat, so no problem there.

Head meat is another thing. I noticed when I was skinning out our bear head for a the skull this year that there was a good 2-3 pounds on the head. It actually looked more appetizing than the neck meat. I would have kept it if the head wasn't sitting at room temperature in a garbage bag overnight.

Now what about all the connective tissue and cartilage attaching the meat to the bones? I don't care how good someone is about boning out an animal... there is always going to be 2-5lbs of meat on the bones... more on a moose or whatever... would take several more hours to pick it clean and get under 1 pound. And what about that left over 1lb then? Illegal? Gotta keep pickin? Can't imagine doing that sort of thing, especially while the rest of the meat might be at risk from the heat of the day.

There is always going to be some meat wasted, whether it is bloodshot or stuck to the bone. Can't really make that illegal without outlawing gutless/boneless method and doing so would make it impossible for lengthy pack trips.

Such laws sound ok as long as they don't go to far with it. If they get too picky about bones having to be 100% clean, it's pretty much impossible to enforce anyway. After 2-3 days the bugs/birds/rodents have that kind of stuff taken care of. Chuck it into the brush and be done with it. It's not like they can re-construct meat to find out what you didn't take if you get stopped on the way home. Nobody is going to try to enforce that kind of thing.

There was a bit in the paper about making it mandatory to take grizzly meat, but I think this thread is mostly hearsay and speculative anyway. It will be all good :)

[Gateholio]

No meat more meat is left behind when doing gutless method than any other method, unless you want to leave it. cut out the rib meat pack it out to camp, throw it in a pot with onions, garlic, tomatoes, mollasses and seasonings and let it sit over the fire all day simmering. mmmm

Only really worth it on bigger animals like moose though.

[KodiakHntr]

I see nothing wrong with these changes if they happen. Why leave usable meat behind anyhow? As for grizz, Iv tried it and really enjoyed er. People will bitch and moan anytime new rules come along.

When it comes to an elk, I am in the same boat as Sitka and 325. That's the pieces I pack out.

On a grizz I see it as a waste to pack all that meat out, to snap a pic of it in a driveway, and then go dump it in a landfill. That is meat that could have fed other bears for a few days instead of them eating Cubs or Calves.
Undoubtedly that is where a bunch of grizz meat is going to end up.

And it virtually guarantees that a lot of back country hunts will be undersubscribed going forward. Which means there must not be any resident interest, so we can give more hunts to the outfitters.

I know a lot of grizz hunters who will walk into a valley for 15 km on rotten spring snow to find a big boar (myself and the guys I hunt with included), shoot him, peel him, and walk out in the pitch black with 100lbs of hide and skull and nap along the way as required. I don't know anybody who will pack 75 lbs of meat out 15km, post hole back in and out 4 more times, to go back and get a stinking skull that may or may not have been claimed by another bear, and pick up his rotten, hair slipping hide that is now worthless.
And before all the road hunters who kill an elk every 5 years chime in with the "you kill it you eat it it's no different than an elk" bullshit, I'm personally perfectly willing to kill a big bull elk in the same spot. But September doesn't have ball deep rotten spring snow. It doesn't have spring avalanches. And neither does it have ANY question about the quality of the table fare on your back when you are packing out.

[caddisguy]

I see nothing wrong with these changes if they happen. Why leave usable meat behind anyhow? As for grizz, Iv tried it and really enjoyed er. People will bitch and moan anytime new rules come along.

Depends really... there is always "usable meat" left behind. Nobody can pick every last scrap from the bones. Just did up a bear skull and it took me 2 weeks of soaking and scraping to get the meat off. You can't really do that with the spine/legs/ribs in the bush... connective tissue and cartilage is natures superglue... the rest of your meat would go bad while you tried and failed. You're always going to have at least 5lbs stuck to a deer/bear when you're done with it.... never took a moose but guessing it would be 10-20lbs (maybe 30lbs?) stuck on the bones. It all comes down to what the letter of the law says. If they were to say you had to get all the meat, the only form of legal hunting would be road hunting and it would just mean the butcher throws it out instead of other critters eating it.

Again all this is hearsay and speculative. I haven't heard any new laws/bills being proposed and if said laws are proposed (ie; you must take every scrap of usable meat) they won't be passed or enforced... too ridiculous and impossible to enforce. CO isn't going to stop me on the way home, inspect a few dozen slabs of meat, guestimate some is missing, get me to drive him back 100kms and hike him into the spot, go retrieve the bones I chucked 20M into the brush, etc. It's not going to happen.

[HarryToolips]

Those who are truly anti hunting will continue to find things to complain about. I'm fine with this regulation change outside of necessary removal of grizzly meat. Trying to please the anti-hunting community is a losing battle. Trying to convince the middle grounders is valid but I would prefer education over unnecessary compromises.
True............

[Seeadler]

I think a court challenge could be launched on a religious freedom basic, basically any baptized Christian can't be forced to eat predator meat.

[AgSilver]

I think a court challenge could be launched on a religious freedom basic, basically any baptized Christian can't be forced to eat predator meat.

Technically, no one would be forcing the consumption as much as the collection.

I have a feeling that predators will be excluded, though, if they actually institute this.

[Seeadler]

Technically, no one would be forcing the consumption as much as the collection.

I have a feeling that predators will be excluded, though, if they actually institute this.

So pack it out to throw it in the dump is the result.

[AgSilver]

Here's the Alaskan rules (which I understand to be a model for other places):

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.meatcare

Note that they have a specific exclusion for Grizzly, wolves, and wolverines. Also, a 50 minute field dressing video. Cool.

[rocksteady]

How much meat gets wasted at the butchers?????

[kebes]

basically any baptized Christian can't be forced to eat predator meat.

That's a false assertion :)

[KodiakHntr]

I won't be surprised at all, to see an additional line added to this -if not for next spring but definitely by the one after- that says something along the lines of "meat must be removed to the hunters primary residence" for all game animals........

[boxhitch]

Here's the Alaskan rules (which I understand to be a model for other places):
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.meatcare
Note that they have a specific exclusion for Grizzly, wolves, and wolverines. Also, a 50 minute field dressing video. Cool.Yukon has some of the most strict rules about utilization and stiff fines for wastage or spoilage or other loss, but also smart enough to allow an exception for bears

[BearSupreme]

Yup, me too, I know it will be a pain in the a$$ for some, but now the anti's can't say nada..

haha really? Im pretty sure the anti's will never be happy until hunting is banned and every vehicle is covered in balloons so no animals die directly from humans ever again

[Mikey Rafiki]

I get about 10 meals out of a set of Elk ribs. 8 hours in the slow cooker then finish on the bbq. It is my FAVOURITE meal out of any game animal I harvest.

And yes that means packing it out for miles, bone in if I can. If you are unable to pack out your Elk ribs please PM me when the animal goes down and I will come scoop those up.

[tomcat]

Just a reminder, In actual fact nothing goes to waste in the bush even if a little palatable meat is left. Birds and other animals will consume it and at times it may be critical to their survival.

[Xenomorph]

I get about 10 meals out of a set of Elk ribs. 8 hours in the slow cooker then finish on the bbq. It is my FAVOURITE meal out of any game animal I harvest.

And yes that means packing it out for miles, bone in if I can. If you are unable to pack out your Elk ribs please PM me when the animal goes down and I will come scoop those up.

I love ribs, and slow/long cooked soups with a bunch of bones in there... YUM!

[Ltbullken]

When it comes to an elk, I am in the same boat as Sitka and 325. That's the pieces I pack out.

On a grizz I see it as a waste to pack all that meat out, to snap a pic of it in a driveway, and then go dump it in a landfill. That is meat that could have fed other bears for a few days instead of them eating Cubs or Calves.
Undoubtedly that is where a bunch of grizz meat is going to end up.

And it virtually guarantees that a lot of back country hunts will be undersubscribed going forward. Which means there must not be any resident interest, so we can give more hunts to the outfitters.



I bet the outfitters won't like this reg anymore than resident hunters. More labour required, more storage & transport issues, etc. The GO could probably download the cost to the client (which might affect business in the end) but either way I bet it is a headache they don't want either. Personally, I'll try griz meat. I bet coastal bears aren't all that tasty but interior griz probably eat like any other black bear - berries, greenery, the occasional carrion, & critters when they can haul one down.

[KodiakHntr]

I bet the outfitters won't like this reg anymore than resident hunters. More labour required, more storage & transport issues, etc. The GO could probably download the cost to the client (which might affect business in the end) but either way I bet it is a headache they don't want either.

If I had to guess, I would say that is exactly the reasoning behind this....

[Xenomorph]

If I had to guess, I would say that is exactly the reasoning behind this....

That statement there smells like high probability assumption to me.

[KodiakHntr]

I bet if you sniffed around some of the allocation threads, you might change your mind.....

[skibum]

Only thing I'm surprised about is how Long it took to make the change, should have been done years ago.
Im in favour of the change.

same here

need to get to 10 characters

[skibum]

Don't see the big deal, if the meat stinks, grind and cook it up for the dog -

[adriaticum]

Well antis dictating hunting policy.
What's new?

[AgSilver]

Well antis dictating hunting policy.
What's new?

Is it really "anti" to want hunters to make a reasonable effort (let's not get crazy and talk about fully whitening bones, etc) to take all of the usable meat? We're allowed to kill the animals for food, shouldn't we then not waste the food?

[adriaticum]

Is it really "anti" to want hunters to make a reasonable effort (let's not get crazy and talk about fully whitening bones, etc) to take all of the usable meat? We're allowed to kill the animals for food, shouldn't we then not waste the food?

I'd rather that conclusion and policy change came from the hunting community representatives than anti hunting groups.

[Xenomorph]

I'd rather that conclusion and policy change came from the hunting community representatives than anti hunting groups.

But are we involved into the discussion process? I am a member of the BCWF, but I'll say it's unfortunate I didn't have a chance to come to the AGM, nor do I know how well we're doing in the "protecting our interests" dialogue.

Do we have a coherent lobby voice? I've seen some attempts of getting that here which inadvertently ended up polarizing different opinions, groups. If all we do is that, polarize without a common voice and compromise we've done half the job already for them: whether one wants to pick on the government, the GO, or the anti-hunting groups.

I hate politics, truly, deeply, viscerally ...which is why I need to get involved into this, make sure my interest is at least acknowledged, weighed and considered. But we need to be more involved into this, and not by just being on this board.
.

[KodiakHntr]

Is it really "anti" to want hunters to make a reasonable effort (let's not get crazy and talk about fully whitening bones, etc) to take all of the usable meat? We're allowed to kill the animals for food, shouldn't we then not waste the food?

We are allowed to kill animals for a variety of reasons. Food isn't the only reason that people hunt. Lets not forget that.

Question for you Ag, do you fish?

[AgSilver]

We are allowed to kill animals for a variety of reasons. Food isn't the only reason that people hunt. Lets not forget that.

Question for you Ag, do you fish?

You're right, but we're talking about regs for game meat animals. I believe (hope?) that any regs changes will impact the appropriate animals appropriately.

Yes, I fish. I'm not good at it, but I enjoy it. Both for food and for sport (i.e. catch and release fly fishing), although I prefer to fish for food. I have read various studies on fishing and suffering that may be caused by fish hooks and the best, most reliable info that I could find suggested that a fish's brain does not allow for pain reception in the same way as ours and so, in theory, we aren't causing pain to the fish. Based on my own research (which, I admit may be flawed), I made a conscious decision to pursue the activity....if that's where you're going with that question. If not, ignore my rambling.

[RiverOtter]

I'm thinking he already knew you fished and was prompting you to look at the bigger picture.

Case in point, I've trapped for several years, yet I've never tasted marten, coyote or otter, among several other fur bearers. Does anyone here consider that a waste of meat? I'd rather doubt it, but who knows.

It's not a surprise that few people eat grizzly meat and given the topography they generally inhabit and time of year they're usually harvested, it's not a stretch to believe this new regulation serves but one purpose....Further reduce hunter participation. Closing the GOS for no logical reason(Definitely not a conservation based one) was just the start.

[KodiakHntr]

Hey Otter, I don't go throw rocks in your fishing hole! (Grin)

So Ag, are you saying that you fish, for a reason other than food? Have you ever caught a sucker or pike minnow? What did you do with them?

[RiverOtter]

Man, you make me laugh. :lol:

For the record, it was a lead sinker with a single barbless, but I can take a hint I'll move downstream........:mrgreen:

[KodiakHntr]

Well, I guess I could move over a little, there be room enough for everyone.

Ag, I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just hoping to expand your thoughts on the subject is all. And maybe anyone else who is lurking.

[358mag]

Why leave usable meat behind anyhow?
Can any one please define the legal definition of useable meat ?

[Singleshotneeded]

Grizzly meat is no different than black bear, and a lot of folks love it, but based on my limited experience of the table fare value of coastal bears, there will be a few bears hitting the land fill after it has reached the residence. I don't have a problem with the new regulations.

Yeah, coastal bears that eat fish taste like fish, dump bears taste like garbage, and those are the worst...some interior bears that eat a ton of sweet berries taste like fruit, but they're passable made into sausage with some spice and heat to it. Maybe the dog will eat the meat from the first two? :-)

[boxhitch]

Can any one please define the legal definition of useable meat ?I think the term is 'edible portions'. Stories go that c/os have their guidelines as to size of morsel or total volume of red meat, but nothing in regs of other jurisdictions. Have heard terms such as bit size, fist size, hand(s) full , coffee can, etc.

But I don't think any part of a G Bear is edible , so how will that stand up in court ? Who is to say what is edible ? Too subjective.

[boxhitch]

I bet the outfitters won't like this reg anymore than resident hunters. More labour required, more storage & transport issues, etc. The GO could probably download the cost to the client (which might affect business in the end) but either way I bet it is a headache they don't want either. .Actually was on the table by GOABC as a tactic to maintain the G Bear hunt. They want the revenue, hunters want the opportunity , crew gets the work, no big deal.
How they deal with the meat after may be intriguing. Down load to the local FN maybe, circle is complete

Also interesting that most (many? some?) FN's won't hunt or eat bear meat , its a spiritual thing, too close to man kind

[Ohwildwon]

What if the G Bear has a really big pee pee?

Guess ill just put it in a sausage casing and give it to my girlfriend...:wink:

[boxhitch]

Is it really "anti" to want hunters to make a reasonable effort (let's not get crazy and talk about fully whitening bones, etc) to take all of the usable meat? We're allowed to kill the animals for food, shouldn't we then not waste the food?Most cases , that is reasonable , but imo not for G Bears. Should be a choice , not mandated.

Keep in mind, the rules about usage in place now have been there for decades, and the definitions created long ago. Utilization hasn't changed over all, hunters have been responsible, They haven't caused concern til the G Bear usage issue came about. It is differnt than other species because for the most part they are hunted as a trophy hunt, true like it or not.

[boxhitch]

What if the G Bear has a really big pee pee?

Guess ill just put it in a sausage casing and give it to my girlfriend...:wink:Pics or it didn't happen ;0

[AgSilver]

I'm thinking he already knew you fished and was prompting you to look at the bigger picture.

Case in point, I've trapped for several years, yet I've never tasted marten, coyote or otter, among several other fur bearers. Does anyone here consider that a waste of meat? I'd rather doubt it, but who knows.

It's not a surprise that few people eat grizzly meat and given the topography they generally inhabit and time of year they're usually harvested, it's not a stretch to believe this new regulation serves but one purpose....Further reduce hunter participation. Closing the GOS for no logical reason(Definitely not a conservation based one) was just the start.

I think we're talking about the same thing from different angles. I am assuming that they aren't going to force meat collection from animals not considered generally for their meat (i.e. grizzlies) and suggested that the regs may end up being similar to Alaska. Some animals are killed for one reason and others for other reasons.

My assumption is that an animal that isn't killed for meat won't require full meat collection. That would be...odd.


Hey Otter, I don't go throw rocks in your fishing hole! (Grin)

So Ag, are you saying that you fish, for a reason other than food? Have you ever caught a sucker or pike minnow? What did you do with them?

See what I posted above. I'm pretty sure that we agree. Except maybe that, on the animals hunted for meat, I think that having to take all of the meat isn't a bad idea.


Well, I guess I could move over a little, there be room enough for everyone.

Ag, I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just hoping to expand your thoughts on the subject is all. And maybe anyone else who is lurking.

I'm not offended - I'll gladly discuss almost anything rationally. And I'm open to new ideas. Although I'm not sure I'll ever be big on trophy hunting. But if it's allowed, it's allowed...whether I like it or not.

[KodiakHntr]

I think we're talking about the same thing from different angles. I am assuming that they aren't going to force meat collection from animals not considered generally for their meat (i.e. grizzlies) and suggested that the regs may end up being similar to Alaska. Some animals are killed for one reason and others for other reasons.

This is exactly the scenario though. We will have meat retention forced on us for Grizzlies. We will be the only jurisdiction in the world that requires meat retention from grizzly bears come spring of '17.
This has been sold to us as "then anti hunters have no reason to complain about grizzly hunting". I would hazard a guess, that anti hunters will see this as a victory (because it IS for them) and will use the momentum from that to push their agenda. And it makes me sad that people will lose their opportunity to hunt Grizzlies down the road, because we've been used as pawns. We lost the hunt a few years back, due to an NDP government and urban politicians. And then we got it back, due to arguments from government biologists, who said it was sustainable. Now we are voluntarily giving the anti hunting public ammunition to use against our way of life, and that doesn't sit well with me.


I have zero issue with meat retention for ungulates. Other than perhaps the requirements to take meat from between the ribs (I'm not a huge fan of the tallow located there). I do however, have issue with removing protein and nutrients from the ecosystem, where it would be fully utilized, and dumping it in a land fill.

I would bet bet that not a single grizzly hunter here on this board, has set out with a LEH and $85 tag, and said to his partner, "I'm just looking for a 3 year old meat grizzly. One that's tender and tasty."

That is not why we hunt Grizzlies, and trying to pretend otherwise to fool the general public does us all a great disservice. And it minimizes our position, bears have been hunted for their hides since there were men and bears.

It is a VERY short step from meat retention on a 600lb boar, to meat retention on a 120lb wolf, and a tiny little shuffle, to adding the words "and consumed at the hunters primary residence".....

[KodiakHntr]

Although I'm not sure I'll ever be big on trophy hunting. But if it's allowed, it's allowed...whether I like it or not.

Nobody is telling you that you have to like it. The problem occurs, is when you decide that because you don't like it, then I shouldn't like it either. And that even though I DO like it, you don't like it and you talked to your buddies and now they don't like it, so all of you decided that it really offends your sensibilities and now I'm not allowed to like it anymore.

I'm a big believer in the theory that if I don't like something then I don't need to do it. But if you want to try it because you like it, fill your boots.

[AgSilver]

I wonder if they will put Grizz meat on required retention. I guess all we can do is wait and see...or you can campaign against it and explain why. I'm sure the government will listen...they do that, right?

[325]

I've been hunting for 30 years. Other than grizzly and other predators, I eat what I kill, including some fine "trophies". I will say, however, that my observation over the years has been that "trophy" hunters tend to be far more conservation-minded and donate far more money and time to wildlife than "meat" hunters. Others may disagree, but that's been my impression.

[Xenomorph]

I've been hunting for 30 years. Other than grizzly and other predators, I eat what I kill, including some fine "trophies". I will say, however, that my observation over the years has been that "trophy" hunters tend to be far more conservation-minded and donate far more money and time to wildlife than "meat" hunters. Others may disagree, but that's been my impression.

Funny thing, you say that and I remember a post of Jim Shockey. His client had just gotten a monster blackie on VI and his donation to widlife fund was around 50k net. That's probably way more than 90% of us will ever put into the tags we'll use for a lifetime.

I swear, if schools would show education programs and videos about where food comes from, 90% of them would lose their support.

[Backwoods]

I've been hunting for 30 years. Other than grizzly and other predators, I eat what I kill, including some fine "trophies". I will say, however, that my observation over the years has been that "trophy" hunters tend to be far more conservation-minded and donate far more money and time to wildlife than "meat" hunters. Others may disagree, but that's been my impression.
Absolutely agree!!!

[tuner]

I wonder if they will put Grizz meat on required retention. I guess all we can do is wait and see...or you can campaign against it and explain why. I'm sure the government will listen...they do that, right?
You're right, I guess "white privilege" is not all it's cracked up to be. Imagine that.

[wideopenthrottle]

small comment on the gutless vs traditional....

I do not use gutless as it is simply a fancy word for field butchering...
I will always try my best to get any and all animals out of the bush with guts out only (halfing or quartering if really needed but often a fair bit of chainsaw work to get the quad in)....I make the least number of knife cuts into the meat as I can while still out in the field as I have found all meat exposed in the bush gets recut and thrown in the dog food pail...I too love ribs especially done sweet and sour style....when I skin, I use a mostly knifeless method of twisting your fist (at least 75% of hide removed this way) to again reduce knife cuts in the meat..it also allows for leaving the really thin flank meat and for keeping the hide free of cuts if you are keeping it.
All these aspects of the meat care help me decide if I am too far away (by my standards) to shoot or not...the one time I went goat hunting, my buddy did do the gutless method and we also deboned the quarters as well....I also hate to debone the legs in the field cuz a few years ago my buddy convinced me to try freezing them and slicing them into steaks....no silver skin to cut out and they turn out very tender and juicy...

[AgSilver]

You're right, I guess "white privilege" is not all it's cracked up to be. Imagine that.

Odd and irrelevant callback. Not sure where you're going with that, but sure...I'm sure it makes sense to you.

[adriaticum]

But are we involved into the discussion process? I am a member of the BCWF, but I'll say it's unfortunate I didn't have a chance to come to the AGM, nor do I know how well we're doing in the "protecting our interests" dialogue.

Do we have a coherent lobby voice? I've seen some attempts of getting that here which inadvertently ended up polarizing different opinions, groups. If all we do is that, polarize without a common voice and compromise we've done half the job already for them: whether one wants to pick on the government, the GO, or the anti-hunting groups.

I hate politics, truly, deeply, viscerally ...which is why I need to get involved into this, make sure my interest is at least acknowledged, weighed and considered. But we need to be more involved into this, and not by just being on this board.
.


Those are all good questions xeno that you should try and answer.
I am hoping that with all the changes at the BCWF will result in better wildlife management and representation.
They guys who are involved now are definitely good sheit.