buck - doe ratio

[diehlm]

I just read a post of another member counting 44 does up inregion 3 while seeing two or three bucks. To me, reports like that show a massiveunbalanced ratio of buck to doe, obviously. But there is more to it. On a firstlook, you could say that it’s not a problem, because the idea behind it is thatone buck can of course breed with lots of does which ensures sustainability.But the catch is, during that breeding time the hunt is on for bigger-strongerbucks (in region 3 four point and up) while the younger-weaker once are nolonger open. So my concern is, by hunting that way do we not support thebreeding of weak animals? We take down the strong once, we let go the weakonce.
I do understand that the rut is the best and often the onlyrealistic time to get your arrow/bullet on a big buck, but shouldn’t there berules to address the issue.
Please don’t get me wrong, I absolutely don’t want to say:stop hunting big bucks during the rut. I just think there should be more inplace to ensure a healthy and strong population, if we want to talk wildlifemanagement through hunting.
One idea could be that a hunter can only obtain a specieslicence that allows him to harvest a four point or up if he can provideevidence that he has harvested a 2 point or below the same year.
What are your thoughts on this?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Using personal experience to determine buck to doe ratios isn't considered a reliable method.

[diehlm]

So you say then that there is nothing wrong with the ratio? I do realize that it is not an official study, but the observations of all hunters across BC should provide statements in the same direction. There are way more does than bucks. But that isn't really the problem that concerns me. The concern is that during the breeding season it is the strong ones we aim for while we let go the weak ones, and doesn't that in the long term support the breeding of a weaker population?

[wos]

Just because a deer has smaller antlers doesn't mean he doesn't have good genetics to pass on. The doe also needs goose genetics to make big bucks.

[diehlm]

Yes, I can accept that. It is true. But the naked fact that a weak buck with bad genetics that do not allow him to build up more than two points has to be left alone while the good and strong one can be hunted during breeding season, that just doesn't sit well. Would it then not be wiser to look for the age of a buck instead of points? I think it is relatively sure to say that a young two point might have strong genetics, while a two point of 4 years or more likely does not?

[Dannybuoy]

Just because a deer has smaller antlers doesn't mean he doesn't have good genetics to pass on. The doe also needs goose genetics to make big bucks.
This must be true as I have seen some
Honking big bucks :-P

[HarryToolips]

Just because a deer has smaller antlers doesn't mean he doesn't have good genetics to pass on. The doe also needs goose genetics to make big bucks.
This exactly....I'm sure the buck to doe ratio is not great in certain areas, but I think there's more bucks out there than we're seeing, there's some that hide well....

[Stillhunting]

Bucks tend to be less visible than does. They usually don't just stand on the side of the road or in the middle of a cutblock, so the majority of hunters don't see an accurate representation of the population. I think hunters give ourselves far too much credit when it comes to our ability to have a significant impact on the composition of deer herds. Sure there are some highly successful big buck hunters out there, but most guys seem stoked to shoot any old 4pt, which leaves lots of old brutes roaming the hills year after year. One day last year I saw 15 bucks, a couple of which were absolute hogs, but only a dozen does. From a herd health point of view, this should be more concerning, than seeing tons of does, but I was in an area where bucks hide out, so it was not unexpected to see so many.

[diehlm]

Accepted. And good to read that there are hunters out there with completely different observations. But the main point is: does it make any sense, that during the rut, the hunting regs allow the harvest of an obviously strong animal while the season is closed for a likely not so strong animal. Just in general. See, I do realize that some two point hump does while the big buck is engaged in a fight. I also realize that younger two points might have great genetics. But in general, shouldn't there be more effort into ensuring that strong genetics are supported?

[butcher]

This must be true as I have seen some
Honking big bucks :-P

Comedy gold right there!!

[HighCountryBC]

As SSS said, that is a very unreliable method of determining buck:doe ratios. There's a reason flights are done in late winter when the majority of deer are concentrated on winter range.

[adriaticum]

So you say then that there is nothing wrong with the ratio? I do realize that it is not an official study, but the observations of all hunters across BC should provide statements in the same direction. There are way more does than bucks. But that isn't really the problem that concerns me. The concern is that during the breeding season it is the strong ones we aim for while we let go the weak ones, and doesn't that in the long term support the breeding of a weaker population?


No that's now what he said. He said because your buddy counted 3 bucks doesn't mean anything.
How many times have you been out and saw only does?
OMG no bucks, what are we going to do....

[diehlm]

Well, I do not whine about no bucks. I know they are there and lots of the wiser ones hide for most of the time. Yet, to say that the ratio would be in balance would be speculation because the general observation suggest otherwise. But we go in the wrong direction, I think, since we absolutely don't need a ratio even close 1:1 .Back to the point of my concern, do we not support the breeding of weaker gens if we hunt four points during the rut and close the season for two points or spikes? Would it not make sense to support the growth of strong populations by adjusting the hunting regulations that way and, just for example, say that a four point can only be harvested if a spike or older two point has been harvested the same year? And yes, I realize that young two points can have strong gens.

[Brian011]

Too many people have the mindset that because they see lots of does they should see bucks with them and expect to see a 4 point with any group of does they see. I've seen so many posts this year about people complaining that they hinted so many days and didn't see a buck. That's hunting. You can't expect to see a buck everywhere you go. There is definitely a lot of pressure everywhere in region 3 and a lot of areas get hammered by hunters. But there is also a lot of areas that people don't get to where bucks hang out and never get seen. A lot of the breeding in the rut gets done at night so when everyone sees does all over and complains that they aren't seeing bucks, it doesn't mean that there isn't bucks around. People jump to conclusions way too fast. Hunting should never be expected to be easy, you can't expect to see bucks every time or shoot something every time.

[HighCountryBC]

Well, I do not whine about no bucks. I know they are there and lots of the wiser ones hide for most of the time. Yet, to say that the ratio would be in balance would be speculation because the general observation suggest otherwise. But we go in the wrong direction, I think, since we absolutely don't need a ratio even close 1:1 .Back to the point of my concern, do we not support the breeding of weaker gens if we hunt four points during the rut and close the season for two points or spikes? Would it not make sense to support the growth of strong populations by adjusting the hunting regulations that way and, just for example, say that a four point can only be harvested if a spike or older two point has been harvested the same year? And yes, I realize that young two points can have strong gens.

Many hunter's have the misconception that in a 4 point season only mature deer get shot. Just simply not true. Look at the facebook hunting groups, 95% of the 4 points posted are young deer.

Those same hunters that shoot young/small 4 points would be just as happy with a 2 or 3 point buck of similar size (many of which will never grow into a 4 point).

Antler point restrictions focus the pressure on the very age class of deer they were intended to promote. The vast majority of bucks killed in a 4 point season are young deer.

[brian]

I would not take first hand accounts from hunters as reliable data. The sample size is simply too small and skewed towards does as they are usually unpressured. A lot of rutting activity takes place at night. Just because you aren't seeing bucks doesn't mean they aren't there. If you are seeing bucks with does then you aren't seeing the bucks they ran off or the bucks that are wandering looking for does to breed. So the buck doe ratios are probably less imbalanced than you think. Even extremely highly skewed buck doe ratios will balance within a season or two.

[Whonnock Boy]

Certainly ratios will vary considering the region, and areas within the region, but I doubt it's a real problem. Only way to know for sure is aerial surveys. With that said, we don't see all the bucks, that's a guarantee.

[boxhitch]

Back to the point of my concern, do we not support the breeding of weaker gens if we hunt four points during the rut and close the season for two points or spikes? Simply..no....)
Genetics, good and bad, are spread throughout the herd in all age classes. Virtually all bucks will grow to be 4tiners given the chance, some earlier in life than others, some with more size/mass/tines/etc than others. Genetic diversity is safe, even if there was no 'any buck' openings. Plus, as stated, bucks are only half the equation.
Add the fact that the escapement of large bucks is far higher than the take, in the larger landscape picture.
Rest easy

[steveo]

I would be looking at your doe/fawn ratio in the spring for the area of your concern. If almost every doe has a fawn in June, there is no sperm shortage.

[zippermouth]

Many hunter's have the misconception that in a 4 point season only mature deer get shot. Just simply not true. Look at the facebook hunting groups, 95% of the 4 points posted are young deer.

Those same hunters that shoot young/small 4 points would be just as happy with a 2 or 3 point buck of similar size (many of which will never grow into a 4 point).

Antler point restrictions focus the pressure on the very age class of deer they were intended to promote. The vast majority of bucks killed in a 4 point season are young deer.
You mean all those hawwwwwgs are young deer??? Interesting

[ajr5406]

50% of deer born are male... As long as all those does are getting bred, it shouldn't be a concern?

[VFX_man]

50% of deer born are male... As long as all those does are getting bred, it shouldn't be a concern?

The thing to remember -- 1/2 of those fawns that look like doe's are immature bucks from the spring.

[Whonnock Boy]

Out of all the deer posted here, and on BC Hunting and Fishing facebook page, I would only consider less than a handful true mature bucks. Most are 3, maybe 4 years old.


You mean all those hawwwwwgs are young deer??? Interesting

[HighCountryBC]

Out of all the deer posted here, and on BC Hunting and Fishing facebook page, I would only consider less than a handful true mature bucks. Most are 3, maybe 4 years old.

Inside joke between Zippermouth and myself..

[elknut]

Stone Sheep Steve...Seems to me the game dept isnt doing any monitoring of game and biologists are a extinct society...So us hunters are all thats left to monitor deer numbers ...Having hunted my area in the Cariboo for 36 years I've seen a tremendous downfall in deer numbers and big mature mulies ..There seems to be more deer around our inner communities and less in the bush..I know bucks are very elusive and hard to hunt but the determining factor is the fact that if there is not the amount there then you'll see less..There is still some good bucks but the amount is way down here and all over BC ..The mulies are in a low cycle from what I've encountered here in the Cariboo...Also another observation is that deer make tracks and if there is no tracks or less tracks then something is up...They don't fly!....I'm a timber hunter and not a road hunter and have been successful but the last number of years have seen way less bucks..I could always count on seeing or jumping deer in my hunts but that expectation has diminished greatly..Since the pine bettle infestation and subsequent logging deer numbers have fallen...These are my observations but I might not count cause its my personal observation ...Dennis

[elknut]

Agree 100 percent HighCountryBC...People really don't recognize a big buck..Most are teenage deer not the 7-8 year old brutes that we used to see...Dennis

[boxhitch]

Here in Reg 8 there are semi-regular deer counts, not annual but enough to see any trends, and the bios are up on what is happening.
You're saying Reg 5 bios are asleep at the wheel ? What do they say about the pops. when asked?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Stone Sheep Steve...Seems to me the game dept isnt doing any monitoring of game and biologists are a extinct society...So us hunters are all thats left to monitor deer numbers ...Having hunted my area in the Cariboo for 36 years I've seen a tremendous downfall in deer numbers and big mature mulies ..There seems to be more deer around our inner communities and less in the bush..I know bucks are very elusive and hard to hunt but the determining factor is the fact that if there is not the amount there then you'll see less..There is still some good bucks but the amount is way down here and all over BC ..The mulies are in a low cycle from what I've encountered here in the Cariboo...Also another observation is that deer make tracks and if there is no tracks or less tracks then something is up...They don't fly!....I'm a timber hunter and not a road hunter and have been successful but the last number of years have seen way less bucks..I could always count on seeing or jumping deer in my hunts but that expectation has diminished greatly..Since the pine bettle infestation and subsequent logging deer numbers have fallen...These are my observations but I might not count cause its my personal observation ...Dennis

The biologists are certainly under-funded. No one will argue that point.

Recent flights here revealed the good varying ratios but one thing was consistent is that fawn to doe ratios were very healthy going into winter. Sperm supply isn't an issue.

[elknut]

Well I I know that the dept is not spending money on much research..Moose surveys or lack there off would surely of been on top of the problem ..And now after a major downfall of moose numbers and everyone up in arms the wheel is going to get greased...They possibly do some flyovers but haven't heard much about our deer numbers..ICBC seems to be the determing monitoring factor for numbers ...Vehicle impacts...People always try to assert their prowess to say that they are just hard to find big bucks...Well if they aren't there they aren't there..I have driven the highway for 22 years and it used to be a obstacle course...Red spots everywhere..Hunt the bush and tracks and deer everywhere...Not that anymore...The govt doesn't want to spend money monitoring wildlife ...They want our money but don't give us much in return..When we have our money going into the ministry 100 percent not general revenue we might get some proper management...Habitat has taken a big hit in the Cariboo and so our deer and moose numbers ..I will have to phone and see if I can get a one on one with a bio and really see if they are assuming or actually counting the deer ...And what are their assumptions regarding their facts...Dennis

[HarryToolips]

Stone Sheep Steve...Seems to me the game dept isnt doing any monitoring of game and biologists are a extinct society...So us hunters are all thats left to monitor deer numbers ...Having hunted my area in the Cariboo for 36 years I've seen a tremendous downfall in deer numbers and big mature mulies ..There seems to be more deer around our inner communities and less in the bush..I know bucks are very elusive and hard to hunt but the determining factor is the fact that if there is not the amount there then you'll see less..There is still some good bucks but the amount is way down here and all over BC ..The mulies are in a low cycle from what I've encountered here in the Cariboo...Also another observation is that deer make tracks and if there is no tracks or less tracks then something is up...They don't fly!....I'm a timber hunter and not a road hunter and have been successful but the last number of years have seen way less bucks..I could always count on seeing or jumping deer in my hunts but that expectation has diminished greatly..Since the pine bettle infestation and subsequent logging deer numbers have fallen...These are my observations but I might not count cause its my personal observation ...Dennis
As long as proper deactivation of road access is done, I'm sure that logging should turn into a positive soon enough, as they should have more forage..hope so anyway..

[Wild one]

As long as proper deactivation of road access is done, I'm sure that logging should turn into a positive soon enough, as they should have more forage..hope so anyway..


Forage is good but wintering grounds are vital

[boxhitch]

.
Habitat has taken a big hit in the Cariboo and so our deer and moose numbers You are not the only one to say that, but I don't get it. The pine beetle killed off lots of large timber making way for new growth, well over a decade now..
Deer and moose are primarily browsers eating weeds and small brush, regen is a favourite for good feed. Even the local manager up there said the moose numbers are down because of the pb kill and logging. Doesn't make sense to me.
At some point the loss of thermal protection may cause more winter kill, but winters have been easy for a few years. Predators have a harder time in the open compared to dense woods, sight lines are longer.

???????have to dig into this some more.

[zippermouth]

The biologists are certainly under-funded. No one will argue that point.

Recent flights here revealed the good varying ratios but one thing was consistent is that fawn to doe ratios were very healthy going into winter. Sperm supply isn't an issue.

If the ratios are fine but total population is down 50% from what it was say 10 years ago what would that mean? Or more specifically would anybody even care? From what I've read and come to understand is as long as the ratios are ok the bios are happy. This to me doesn't really mean the population is fine, it just means the ratios are ok to support a hunting season. Not saying this is the case but I wouldt be all that surprised if the numbers are way down. All my observations are from hunting but I do talk to the bios from time to time, and spend more time in the field than some. Im not trying to manage hunters or 4 pt seasons etc etc, just putting it out there I think the mule deer heard is hurting. Especially the deer in the 4+ year old range. This is not my field to make the call though. I do believe personally the logging and road structure in region 8 and the southern half of bc is a major problem, mainly the roads in the winter range. And the dumb $&@& who think it's ok to drive there quads all over the winter range.

[boxhitch]

Forage is good but wintering grounds are vitalAre the blocks that large and continuous there are no hidey holes? I know loggers have raped the good timber while cleaning up dead pine, but there should have been a mandate to leave something behind. Didn't happen?

[boxhitch]

.........Or more specifically would anybody even care? From what I've read and come to understand is as long as the ratios are ok the bios are happy. This to me doesn't really mean the population is fine, it just means the ratios are ok .............Nowhere is there a plan to make more wildlife, whether huntable or not. There are no target numbers as such, so knowing the actual counts is pointless. If hunting skews the sex ratios, something is done, but beyond that has nothing in the cards.
Except for moose, now that they are not sustainable in a traditionally way.

[Wild one]

.You are not the only one to say that, but I don't get it. The pine beetle killed off lots of large timber making way for new growth, well over a decade now..
Deer and moose are primarily browsers eating weeds and small brush, regen is a favourite for good feed. Even the local manager up there said the moose numbers are down because of the pb kill and logging. Doesn't make sense to me.
At some point the loss of thermal protection may cause more winter kill, but winters have been easy for a few years. Predators have a harder time in the open compared to dense woods, sight lines are longer.

???????have to dig into this some more.

Predators actually do well in open areas when snow is deep enough to slow deer/moose. Wolves/cats don't sink near as much do to larger paws spreading weight

Snow depth is not near as deep in big timber. Easier for them to move and conserve energy causing them to demand less calories. Being able to conserve calories when quality of feed is low helps a lot near the end of winter

[zippermouth]

Nowhere is there a plan to make more wildlife, whether huntable or not. There are no target numbers as such, so knowing the actual counts is pointless. If hunting skews the sex ratios, something is done, but beyond that has nothing in the cards.
Except for moose, now that they are not sustainable in a traditionally way.
And that right there is the problem.

[Wild one]

Are the blocks that large and continuous there are no hidey holes? I know loggers have raped the good timber while cleaning up dead pine, but there should have been a mandate to leave something behind. Didn't happen?

I run skidder and salvage beetle kill for some blocks. Yes we have a % of trees we are to leave in each block but this is often not possible in beetle kill areas were basically everything is dead.

Random 20yard round patch of trees is not wintering grounds

[elknut]

Just a thought about regen ...There is no feed in regen..Hidey spot yes but otherwise sterile..Logging has taken the spruce the pine and the aspen ..All these provided habitat ...Its like a salmon stream ...Remove the log jams straighten the river and reduce flow and you have a crisis...same for ungulates..That's my story and I'm sticking to it ...Dennis

[Wild one]

And that right there is the problem.

No plan to improve + poor funding

[Omenator]

I concur with the previous posters that just because a buck is young and doesn't have four points does not mean he has weak genetics. It would seem the environment and amount of food available is a major factor in how large the bucks get, just look at the average buck pulled out of southern AB or SK.

[Ourea]

A few points....

Firstly, MD numbers are down provincially with the exception of some key areas in Reg 8....no revelation there.

Second, we, as a user group, have pushed for regulations to support the maximum allowable harvest for all species.
This does not support age.

Couple that with the ever increasing FSR density, with FN amping up and exercising their hunting rights (any age or sex at any time), with a well documented increase in predators, gov refusing to invest $$ into our wildlife resource..... think you get the picture.

Also, we as hunters, are arguably the most unreliable source of accurate information on wildlife......yet "we" think we know better than game biologists. The one's I know are ACUTELY AWARE of the challenges and problems.

The solution comes down to one thing........$$ being put back into the resource.

Tip of the hat to Zeeman and the BCWF for understanding this and starting a plan of action.

[Wild one]

I concur with the previous posters that just because a buck is young and doesn't have four points does not mean he has weak genetics. It would seem the environment and amount of food available is a major factor in how large the bucks get, just look at the average buck pulled out of southern AB or SK.

Way more restrictive seasons and management that has trophy in mind. Those are not young deer coming out of AB and SK

[brian]

You are not the only one to say that, but I don't get it. The pine beetle killed off lots of large timber making way for new growth, well over a decade now..
Deer and moose are primarily browsers eating weeds and small brush, regen is a favourite for good feed.

This makes for good summer range, but deer survivability is based on winter habitat. Big open cuts bury forage under snow and make getting at it more difficult for the ungulates. This is not good winter range. Good winter range will intercept snow and have security thermal and browse in close relation to each other. These large open cuts will push more deer into the smaller remaining patches of winter range. This both increases competition for limited food resources and allows predators to have an easier time to pick off the higher density of consolidated animals. Also deer will tend to only use areas of the cuts that they feel secure in. Studies show that this tends to be within 100 meters of the edge of the cut and more often within 50 meters. The center of larger cuts will be wasted if the deer feel pressured unless there are security breaks. So the huge cuts do little to support deer numbers unless the deer can have higher survivability rates in winter.

[wos]

Let's also throw over grazing on winter range on the pile.
Prime bucks go into winter under nourished and exhausted from the rut. They need easy accessible brouse to make it through the winter.

[zippermouth]

Let's also throw over grazing on winter range on the pile.
Prime bucks go into winter under nourished and exhausted from the rut. They need easy accessible brouse to make it through the winter.
Not to mention I saw cattle on the range today. Thought they were supposed to be off the range oct 31??

[358mag]

Not to mention I saw cattle on the range today. Thought they were supposed to be off the range oct 31??
Same problem down here too . Ran into the local rancher he was out chasing cattle . Had a good chin wag with him , he was saying that the cattle are heading back up to there summer range due to all this wet-warm weather , as there's lots of new green grass-forges growing due to no frost . He did mention that if I see any cattle please call him asap , he wants then off the range too .

[Hunterguy]

This year's hunt I have never hunted as hard for an any buck will do. Pounding the bush, have hunted this area for 28 years and we are all thankful for past years. With pine beetle, logging, cattle, and more access nothing lasts forever. Guided the Charlottes for fish and have seen and endured the disappointment of anglers, releasing 10 fish a day to get a tyee are over and with that comes younger fish being bonked as hunters are now frustrated and take the spikes and 2 points, Region 3 I would close the any buck will do, keep the 4 point season and not to mention moose in my area the wolves are fat, again nothing lasts forever!

[Wild one]

This year's hunt I have never hunted as hard for an any buck will do. Pounding the bush, have hunted this area for 28 years and we are all thankful for past years. With pine beetle, logging, cattle, and more access nothing lasts forever. Guided the Charlottes for fish and have seen and endured the disappointment of anglers, releasing 10 fish a day to get a tyee are over and with that comes younger fish being bonked as hunters are now frustrated and take the spikes and 2 points, Region 3 I would close the any buck will do, keep the 4 point season and not to mention moose in my area the wolves are fat, again nothing lasts forever!

4pt season is bad for genetics and cause mostly young deer with good genetics to be shot. Antler restriction won't do much to solve a lake of big bucks

areas out side of BC that are know to produce big mule deer have shorter seasons, LEH restrictions, and 1 mule deer prov limits. Point restrictions are old ineffective trophy management

If you want big bucks it comes at a cost of bag limit and opertunity. My self I would be happy with a 1 mule deer BC limit and loose some time in the field for higher buck numbers and quality. The problem is getting support for it as many will not take a lose for long term improvement in BC

[wos]

I have always been impressed with the average quality of bucks in bc. I manage to screw up an opportunity on a cranker every three or for years. Sometimes I get lucky and connect

[Whonnock Boy]

It has been proven many times that harvests through all age classes and sexes is best for all ungulate populations. Big bucks are out there. One just has to find them.


4pt season is bad for genetics and cause mostly young deer with good genetics to be shot. Antler restriction won't do much to solve a lake of big bucks

areas out side of BC that are know to produce big mule deer have shorter seasons, LEH restrictions, and 1 mule deer prov limits. Point restrictions are old ineffective trophy management

If you want big bucks it comes at a cost of bag limit and opertunity. My self I would be happy with a 1 mule deer BC limit and loose some time in the field for higher buck numbers and quality. The problem is getting support for it as many will not take a lose for long term improvement in BC

[Wild one]

I have always been impressed with the average quality of bucks in bc. I manage to screw up an opportunity on a cranker every three or for years. Sometimes I get lucky and connect

BC has some big bucks but not even close to its potential

Spend a few years in Alberta your mind will change about BC having a good average quality bucks. Brother is out on his first Alberta WT hunt on crown land with a friend of mine. 3 days and he now understands why I laugh at BCs deer hunting

[Wild one]

It has been proven many times that harvests through all age classes and sexes is best for all ungulate populations. Big bucks are out there. One just has to find them.

Agree 100%

They are out there but BC management plan for max harvest does not promote a high % of mature bucks or bucks in general

[j270wsm]

http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss279/j270wsm/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsw1peorig.jpeg (http://s583.photobucket.com/user/j270wsm/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsw1peorig.jpeg.html)


http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss279/j270wsm/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsgsicba0d.jpeg (http://s583.photobucket.com/user/j270wsm/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsgsicba0d.jpeg.html)

here is a pic of a buck that's been in town for a few years and obviously is not a young buck. His antlers are a little smaller this year compared to 2yrs ago. He is a prime example of deer with small antlers( less than 4pts )having good genetics.

[Wild one]

http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss279/j270wsm/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsw1peorig.jpeg (http://s583.photobucket.com/user/j270wsm/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsw1peorig.jpeg.html)


http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss279/j270wsm/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsgsicba0d.jpeg (http://s583.photobucket.com/user/j270wsm/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsgsicba0d.jpeg.html)

here is a pic of a buck that's been in town for a few years and obviously is not a young buck. His antlers are a little smaller this year compared to 2yrs ago. He is a prime example of deer with small antlers( less than 4pts )having good genetics.

How do you know he has good genetics

[zippermouth]

http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss279/j270wsm/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsw1peorig.jpeg (http://s583.photobucket.com/user/j270wsm/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsw1peorig.jpeg.html)


http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss279/j270wsm/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsgsicba0d.jpeg (http://s583.photobucket.com/user/j270wsm/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsgsicba0d.jpeg.html)

here is a pic of a buck that's been in town for a few years and obviously is not a young buck. His antlers are a little smaller this year compared to 2yrs ago. He is a prime example of deer with small antlers( less than 4pts )having good genetics.
Uhhh I think your definition of good genetics is a little off. That deer is a prime example why an any buck season is a good thing.

[j270wsm]

Why does he not have good genetics? Because he doesn't have a typical 4pt frame? I agree that bucks like this one are the reason I want an any buck season.

[Wild one]

Why does he not have good genetics? Because he doesn't have a typical 4pt frame? I agree that bucks like this one are the reason I want an any buck season.

High chance he has poor antler growth in his genetics could be great genetics health body size but not antler growth

[j270wsm]

That was my point of posting pics of this buck. Just because he might not have the best antler growth, doesn't mean he isnt a healthy buck which could produce fawns that have better antler growth.

[Wild one]

That was my point of posting pics of this buck. Just because he might not have the best antler growth he is a healthy buck which could produce fawns that could have better antler growth.

More likely he will pass on the genetics for poor antler growth to at least a portion of his offspring. The genetics of the doe he breeds plays a roll and might provide better genetics for antler growth.

There is a reason high fence ranches cull bucks like this

[Looking_4_Jerky]

I think a lot of hunters lose sight of the fact that, while we look for 4 points to meet antler restrictions (and some people to find wall mounts), the number of tines on an animal is not an indicator of genetic fitness. That fitness is tied to how it's equipped to survive against the pressures an animal will face; Ie. an old buck with a small, spindly 3 pt rack, but a physical or behavioral trait that enables it to evade wolves in an area with with many of them is genetically fit. It's spindly rack does not imply genetic "weakness".

There have been many discussions about whether we are selecting against 4 pt genes by having the 4 pt hunt. One would expect that by now we would begin to see the manifestation of selecting against 4 pts. So now that there is a scarcity of large, mature legal bucks, is it that the non-4 pt genes are more prevalent than they have been, or is it that those big racked 4 pts have exhibited poor genetic fitness for survival in a world of high quality optics, side x sides, cut blocks, wolves, pit lamps, expensive camo, hunting spots spread by Internet, global warming, etc, etc.?

[coach]

Great post, L4_jerky!

[longwalk]

This year's hunt I have never hunted as hard for an any buck will do. Pounding the bush, have hunted this area for 28 years and we are all thankful for past years. With pine beetle, logging, cattle, and more access nothing lasts forever. Guided the Charlottes for fish and have seen and endured the disappointment of anglers, releasing 10 fish a day to get a tyee are over and with that comes younger fish being bonked as hunters are now frustrated and take the spikes and 2 points, Region 3 I would close the any buck will do, keep the 4 point season and not to mention moose in my area the wolves are fat, again nothing lasts forever!

Great idea if we want to turn hunting into golf. We should be aiming at maximum participation for a whole host of reasons. Strength in numbers being one of them. Those that want trophy deer will always be able to find them. Those that want to put any buck in the freezer should be allowed just that. Point restriction is a knee jerk reaction. Many people don't have the resources (mainly time) to chase big bucks, but would happily put a spike or two point in the freezer. We close the any buck season in region 3 where do the hunters go. Do they stay home and commit their time and money to something else?

How many threads have we seen on here regarding new hunters not having any success? Make it tougher to be successful through more restrictions and we will see hunter numbers drop off and this is the last thing hunting and wildlife needs. Personally I don't pass up something on the first day that I would shoot on the last day. If we want to make hunting more exclusive by restricting time in the field or restricting what can be harvested all in the name of bigger antlers we have lost the game, no pun intended.

[Wild one]

Personally I will not promote point restrictions as it does not help produce big bucks and believe hunters should have the option to target all age class of bucks

Restriction that would increase overall deer/buck numbers I would promote. I would mostly like to see a 1 mule deer prov bag limit as this would be a small impact to hunters overall. This still gives hunters the ability to target any buck or trophy if they choose. I have seen what this has done with WT hunters in Alberta who can only take 1 buck. You still have the hunter who knocks down first legal deer but I did notice a higher amount of hunters that would pass on smaller bucks knowing they could only take 1 buck

ideally I think a BC bag limit of 1 WT buck/1 mule deer buck/1 Doe GOS WT or LEH mule doe would do well with little lose to BC hunters. Long term I could see this beneficial increaseing buck to doe ratio and shifting some pressure off of mule deer and on to WT that adapt better to hunting pressure

Now getting BC hunter to give up anything for improvement long term is like pulling teeth so I have little hope in enough support to ever see this happen. Instead we will keep things the same and hope for habitat enhancement/predator control programs that might happen if funding/support can be found.

As long as BC is managed for max harvest hunters will not see an increase in buck numbers or quality intern meaning most will need to invest time searching just to see a buck.

yes restrictions can frustrate new hunters but I would say spending long periods of time hunting just to see a buck does the same.

[boxhitch]

You won't get support for your plan because it is so far out of step with common thinking

Management now boils down to the fact there are enough bucks to service the available does. More bucks won't help anything as far as reproduction.

Shortening a season will only cram the same number of hunters into that time period, create more crowding, and likely won't change kill numbers. Not exactly quality

History shows most hunters want to put meat in the freezer so an effort to build ops and level them across regions has been implemented, hunter numbers have grown in the last ten years
It has been proven that wildlife cannot be stock-piled,

reg 3,8,5 and 6 all have a liberal any-buck openings , with the 4 pt being early and late, to coincide with rut activity when they get stupid, protecting the large part of the herd which are sub-4pt.
and comparing BC to the prairies isn't really apples and apples. Sask has had a series of severe winters knocking all deer pops back, so the closed up MD but still have a WT season as long as any in BC.

[Ourea]

As I have been reading thru the latest posts it seems most focus on regulations as a solution.
Will a change on a piece of paper solve the problem of a decreasing mule deer population?
Will it satisfy the desire of all hunters to have more actual MD encounters and therefore chances/opportunity at cutting a tag?
Answer - NO!

When I put on my business hat I look at what are solutions that will truly fix the problem long term.
Regulation changes are not even close to being at the top of that list.

Problem - imploding mule deer numbers.
Why are numbers imploding?
- Habitat, access, unregulated harvest and increasing predators
Trying to use regulation on an ever shrinking MD population as a solution will have little, if any, impact on resolving the big problem which is a shrinking population.

What is the solution from the 30,000 ft view then?

Answer - make more mule deer.
How does that happen?

Habitat is at the top of the list......need to increase/improve it.
Road deactivation.
FN education and improved relationships.
Pred management.

Those are the drivers that are shrinking MD numbers.
Regulation will not fix this and bios are not to blame.

So "how" do we address the drivers that are hurting mule deer numbers?
Answer - $$$$$$
Solution - create a sustainable long term funding model that puts money back into wildlife.
Next question - where would money come from?
Gov? ........no chance, too unreliable.
We are just one of hundreds of user groups with their hand out for a cause.
Not sustainable.

Who then?
- Lobby industry and business, those that generate income from BC's natural resources, doing it with the support of Gov.
In addition, propose a wildlife tax on goods and services that are outdoor related.

Next step in the ladder.......
We need a face, a voice, an entity.
Who?

BCWF

Arguing over how to best manage an every shrinking pie will fix sweet F-all.

[Wild one]

I do not expect support as it has been shown time and time again BC is closed minded to change. BC will continue to do the same thing over and over with no change in results. You will continue to hear hunters complain year after year about the % of bucks and quality.

Understand BC's management is for max harvest well trying to leave just enough bucks to breed. What I am proposing is more likely to increase overall buck numbers and quality more than overall population. Odds are it would only creat a very slight increase in overall mule deer numbers

As seasons stand any buck season brings out the majority of hunters with 4pt not being utilized as much. The post I mad above yours would only change BC's prov bag limit not seasons. This would not change time in the field or the 3 deer bag limit. It would only restrict hunters to 1 mule deer buck and 1 WT buck leaving 3rd deer to a doe mule LEH or WT general season. Still gives opurtunity but will lean more pressure on WT and less pressure on mule deer bucks. I would place bets you would see a drop in hunting pressure in areas but not dramatic

yes prairie prov's are different especially in management plan. I can state as a fact Alberta has a higher buck to doe ratio in mind and a goal of a higher mature bucks than BC. Yes BC is different than Alberta but there is portions of the prov that are the same habitat as parts of BC. The different management goals do play a part. I have hunted under both BC and Alberta's management plans and both prov's I hunt 90% crown. It makes a difference and it is clear as day when you hunt the same style of habitat in both prov's.

Like I said I don't expect support as I know the common mind set here. Lots of hunters complaining about lack of bucks but many will not be open to change.

Nothing ever changes when you keep doing the same thing over and over again

[Wild one]

As I have been reading thru the latest posts it seems most focus on regulations as a solution.
Will a change on a piece of paper solve the problem of a decreasing mule deer population?
Will it satisfy the desire of all hunters to have more actual MD encounters and therefore chances/opportunity at cutting a tag?
Answer - NO!

When I put on my business hat I look at what are solutions that will truly fix the problem long term.
Regulation changes are not even close to being at the top of that list.

Problem - imploding mule deer numbers.
Why are numbers imploding?
- Habitat, access, unregulated harvest and increasing predators
Trying to use regulation on an ever shrinking MD population as a solution will have little, if any, impact on resolving the big problem which is a shrinking population.

What is the solution from the 30,000 ft view then?

Answer - make more mule deer.
How does that happen?

Habitat is at the top of the list......need to increase/improve it.
Road deactivation.
FN education and improved relationships.
Pred management.

Those are the drivers that are shrinking MD numbers.
Regulation will not fix this and bios are not to blame.

So "how" do we address the drivers that are hurting mule deer numbers?
Answer - $$$$$$
Solution - create a sustainable long term funding model that puts money back into wildlife.
Next question - where would money come from?
Gov? ........no chance, too unreliable.
We are just one of hundreds of user groups with their hand out for a cause.
Not sustainable.

Who then?
- Lobby industry and business, those that generate income from BC's natural resources, doing it with the support of Gov.
In addition, propose a wildlife tax on goods and services that are outdoor related.

Next step in the ladder.......
We need a face, a voice, an entity.
Who?

BCWF

Arguing over how to best manage an every shrinking pie will fix sweet F-all.

agree regulation change will not have a large impact on overall mule deer numbers. Only one that would really is cancel mule deer doe harvest. I am not implying that changing buck managment will do any real increase in deer numbers

Agree with much of what you have stated when it comes to increaseing overall deer population

As for BCWF they do some good and about all BC hunters have. Unfortunately they also need to work on representing all hunters better than they do at this time. They do a great job representing those who meat hunt with a rifle but there is many other kinds of hunter in BC.

There is no lack of hunters who feel BCFW does not represent them in BC. Most memberships are from range fees or the few perks

[Ourea]

Wild one, I absolutely get and understand ur point....100%
There are few that want and target mature critters more than me.
That want can be enhanced thru regulation that supports age in populations.
Sure everyone gets that.

Big picture....
Issue being is that the overall population is decreasing.
Regulation will not resolve this challenge.

[GoatGuy]

agree regulation change will not have a large impact on overall mule deer numbers. Only one that would really is cancel mule deer doe harvest. I am not implying that changing buck managment will do any real increase in deer numbers

Agree with much of what you have stated when it comes to increaseing overall deer population

As for BCWF they do some good and about all BC hunters have. Unfortunately they also need to work on representing all hunters better than they do at this time. They do a great job representing those who meat hunt with a rifle but there is many other kinds of hunter in BC.

There is no lack of hunters who feel BCFW does not represent them in BC. Most memberships are from range fees or the few perks

Does Alberta have a mule doe harvest?

[skibum]

Habitat is at the top of the list......need to increase/improve it.
Road deactivation.
FN education and improved relationships.
Pred management.


100% agree with this list - particularly think Habitat is the biggest problem, but it is one of the most difficult solutions to implement.

Blaming bag limits is easy to do -- but regulated hunting is not even on my list of problems

[Wild one]

Wild one, I absolutely get and understand ur point....100%
There are few that want and target mature critters more than me.
That want can be enhanced thru regulation that supports age in populations.
Sure everyone gets that.

Big picture....
Issue being is that the overall population is decreasing.
Regulation will not resolve this challenge.


I am not ignoring big picture at all and there is a large list of issues that need to be addressed when it comes to habitat, unregulated harvest, and predators. These issues should not be ignored but many will be long fought tough battles. Lack of enforcement, grazing issues, how we harvest natural resources, and education/cooperation of Fn are top of the list issues

Yes what I have mentioned is only managing how hunters harvest from the population we have. But this is all we have to work with at this time. An increase in buck to doe ratio to me is not just about creating big bucks but also about creating a higher population of bucks in general. This in my opinion can benefit hunters overall not just those looking for big deer. Only thinking about improving the quality of hunt with the population available

I am far from a trophy hunter yes at times I hunt looking for only big deer but at times I am happy to take a little spike. Mostly I have seen the results of higher buck to doe ratio hunting and I can say you here less hunters complaining under these conditions

[Ourea]

The "fix" has been identified.
When the call comes (and it is coming) to support it, hopefully everyone answers the bell.

A bigger cake is always easier to carve up

[Wild one]

Does Alberta have a mule doe harvest?

Yes regulated under LEH and archery only. Alberta also has many areas with higher overall mule deer numbers. Also areas with no doe harvest. If you are not trying to increase deer numbers no need to cut out doe harvest.

Go out and experience some of Albertas deer hunting. Most on this forum who have know it's good. Might even be willing to set you up with a host. There nice guys but if you go talk to them with a closed mind it won't go far

[GoatGuy]

Nothing ever changes when you keep doing the same thing over and over again

This is very true.

Over the last 40 years hunters have changed the regulations, and suggest regulations to 'fix the problem'.

Over time hunters have harvested fewer deer, changed the buck seasons from any buck to 4 pts, and reduced or eliminated doe seasons.

Over time there have been fewer and fewer hunters.

And over time there are fewer deer and far fewer 'mature bucks'.

And over time the fawn:doe ratios have declined in many areas...........................


So if there's more restrictive regulations, next to no doe harvest, or in the case of Region 4 NO DOE HARVEST, fewer hunters, and fewer mature bucks, how exactly could one think using the same 'thought process' which is close to 40 years old, that changing the doe season and the buck season is going to change things for mule deer?

How is it that people who hunted in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, who have seen these declines, are still promoting the same ideas that didn't work in those decades?


This is exactly why wildlife populations are pointed in the direction they are. After 40 years of abject failure people are still talking about the same ideas, the ideas which haven't done a thing for wildlife, conservation or hunters.

Time to wake up folks. The archaic ideas of yesteryear that never worked before, aren't going to work today.

Making more mule deer is easy. Create habitat that favours mule deer's evolution. Create early seral conditions, ensure a healthy browse community, snow interception in areas where it's required for winter survival, and manage, manage, manage. All that takes MONEY - YOU NEED MONEY TO MAKE MORE MULE DEER. CHANGING REGULATIONS WON'T MAKE MORE MULE DEER.

This isn't hard - what is hard is changing people's minds who decided 40 years ago that changing the regulations would save mule deer, and who are still perpetuating those ideas today, despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent on mule deer research over the past 100 years which unequivocally says CHANGING THE HUNTING REGULATIONS WILL NOT CHANGE YOUR MULE DEER PROBLEMS.

[Ourea]

Yes regulated under LEH and archery only. Alberta also has many areas with higher overall mule deer numbers. Also areas with no doe harvest. If you are not trying to increase deer numbers no need to cut out doe harvest.

Go out and experience some of Albertas deer hunting. Most on this forum who have know it's good. Might even be willing to set you up with a host. There nice guys but if you go talk to them with a closed mind it won't go far

Alberta is a highly regulated hunting province.
Most wait yrs to pull a rifle MD buck tag......even longer for elk and pronghorn.

We are GOS with liberal time periods.
There are few comparisons in regards to opportunity between BC and AB

Again, I get ur point but......

[Wild one]

This is very true.

Over the last 40 years hunters have changed the regulations, and suggest regulations to 'fix the problem'.

Over time hunters have harvested fewer deer, changed the buck seasons from any buck to 4 pts, and reduced or eliminated doe seasons.

Over time there have been fewer and fewer hunters.

And over time there are fewer deer and far fewer 'mature bucks'.

And over time the fawn:doe ratios have declined in many areas...........................


So if there's more restrictive regulations, next to no doe harvest, or in the case of Region 4 NO DOE HARVEST, fewer hunters, and fewer mature bucks, how exactly could one think using the same 'thought process' which is close to 40 years old, that changing the doe season and the buck season is going to change things for mule deer?

How is it that people who hunted in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, who have seen these declines, are still promoting the same ideas that didn't work in those decades?


This is exactly why wildlife populations are pointed in the direction they are. After 40 years of abject failure people are still talking about the same ideas, the ideas which haven't done a thing for wildlife, conservation or hunters.

Time to wake up folks. The archaic ideas of yesteryear that never worked before, aren't going to work today.

Making more mule deer is easy. Create habitat that favours mule deer's evolution. Create early seral conditions, ensure a healthy browse community, snow interception in areas where it's required for winter survival, and manage, manage, manage. All that takes MONEY - YOU NEED MONEY TO MAKE MORE MULE DEER. CHANGING REGULATIONS WON'T MAKE MORE MULE DEER.

This isn't hard - what is hard is changing people's minds who decided 40 years ago that changing the regulations would save mule deer, and who are still perpetuating those ideas today, despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent on mule deer research over the past 100 years which unequivocally says CHANGING THE HUNTING REGULATIONS WILL NOT CHANGE YOUR MULE DEER PROBLEMS.

Read post 72 I understand big picture till population is improved only stating option for working with what is presently available

agree with long term goals and $ is needed. It's not so much changing hunters minds that is the big issue changing grazing and logging practice is more of the problem. Big fight on your hands here and years of fighting

[Wild one]

Alberta is a highly regulated hunting province.
Most wait yrs to pull a rifle MD buck tag......even longer for elk and pronghorn.

We are GOS with liberal time periods.
There are few comparisons in regards to opportunity between BC and AB

Again, I get ur point but......

Different managment no doubt LEH wait times for prime areas can be long. Not all LEH areas are like this though. There is GOS areas as well for both species and liberal archery seasons. Restrictive yes but there is lots of opurtunity for those who choose to use it or travel to it.

I would not say BC should or needs to adapt everything done in Alberta. It is a prime example of a different managment system and believe parts of it would be good here

[GoatGuy]

Yes regulated under LEH and archery only. Alberta also has many areas with higher overall mule deer numbers. Also areas with no doe harvest. If you are not trying to increase deer numbers no need to cut out doe harvest.

Go out and experience some of Albertas deer hunting. Most on this forum who have know it's good. Might even be willing to set you up with a host. There nice guys but if you go talk to them with a closed mind it won't go far

Have hunted out there and know the managers. Have quite a few buddies who live there and have hosted me. Know the history on hunting regulations for mule deer, proximate causes and changes.

Talking about Alberta's system of management versus BC's is absolutely insane. That is the point.

In one breath you are talking about how great the management is out in Alberta because there are 'mature bucks', but you fail to mention they harvest across all age classes and sexes.

You fail to mention that their deer populations are far more productive (throwing more fawns:doe) because across large portions they don't have an intact predator system and across a pile of the jurisdiction the habitat is endless and tailored to mule deer.

You fail to mention the reason why they went to draw - mule deer in the prairies are extremely susceptible to harvest because they are visible.

In the next breath you talk about the need to eliminate all antlerless hunting in BC, despite the fact Alberta harvests MORE THAN 50% of the mule deer in does and fawns. They shoot close to 7500-8000 does/fawns every year in Alberta. BC would be lucky to harvest more than 15% of it's harvest in does/fawns, maybe 2,700 across the entire province.

The point of this is to get a grip.

People should be talking about mule deer ecology and what the species needs to be PRODUCTIVE.

Talking about what they do in Alberta, in the prairies for management, and comparing it to what we do in BC, where there are mountains, predators, fire suppression, and winter ranges that are being covered in duplexes is insane.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

Not sure I agree with the notion that regulated hunting does not improve achieving wildlife management objectives. I agree totally that you can fruitlessly manage the hell out of a shrinking resource, so those of you saying habitat, preds, unregulated hunting need to be dealt with are on the money, but hunting regulations have to support all those other efforts. It is a common theme in most BC hunter discussions that there is a scarcity of big mature bucks. That is because, for a variety of reasons, deer are rarely growing old anymore. So let's whack a bunch of wolves and do some winter range habitat enhancement; no question that populations are going to respond positively. But depending on how regulated hunting is managed, you may or may not be recruiting deer into the age classes that would equate to an increase in mature bucks.

I guess that's just the long way of saying that they work hand in hand.

Another consideration is the social aspect of wildlife management. Hunters seem to judge the optimal end-state in one of two ways: Veteran hunters typically define the optimal state as a cross between the best hunting they have ever experienced and what they had heard from the veteran hunters before them (the good old days). New hunters with little experience typically define the optimal state as one where they can harvest animals, maybe even big ones, with little to modest effort, with some expectations also fueled by what they were told by the veterans before them (the good old days). In either case, neither may be realistic given what the current management constraints are. Especially for those of us that equate "good hunting" as the best periods we've experienced in certain areas, it is usually that a certain sequence of events culminated to produce that finite period, but the norm in the absence of that "perfect storm" may be one with significantly less opportunity.

It can't be awesome, all the time, everywhere, for everybody.

[Wild one]

Biggest thing BC hunters seem to miss is we are regulated with restrictions here in BC just like anywhere else. We will always have hunting restrictions as populations will never allow unregulated sustainable harvest. We can lobby to pick our poison but there will always be restrictions.

As for dwelling on how things were 20-30 years ago BC is not the same place. Human population has grown having an impact beyond what can be reversed. More trains/cars hitting animals, industry has pushed farther into the bush, and cities/towns have grown eating up habitat that will never recover. As for hunter numbers they are increaseing once again. BC is forever changed and it is only going to continue to change.

all for working on big issues but we are never going to shut down all the issues. The general population is growing and changing BC everyday. We as hunters are only a small portion of the population and odds are we will only be able to achieve small changes. This is still good and every bit helps but I do not see a huge jump in wildlife numbers happening before I die

[Ourea]

The key driver to enhancing wildlife is increasing habitat productivity and protection.

Pointing fingers will fix nothing
Trying to regulate more will not fix the big issue.
The I'm right you're wrong argument....fruitless.
Look at Alberta......irrelevant.

$$$ directed at wildlife is the only meaningful long term solution.
A funding model in support is the only long term solution.

We need to stop evaluating the challenges that face wildlife from the 10 ft and opinionated level and look at it from the 30,000ft view.

[GoatGuy]

Not sure I agree with the notion that regulated hunting does not improve achieving wildlife management objectives. I agree totally that you can fruitlessly manage the hell out of a shrinking resource, so those of you saying habitat, preds, unregulated hunting need to be dealt with are on the money, but hunting regulations have to support all those other efforts. It is a common theme in most BC hunter discussions that there is a scarcity of big mature bucks. That is because, for a variety of reasons, deer are rarely growing old anymore. So let's whack a bunch of wolves and do some winter range habitat enhancement; no question that populations are going to respond positively. But depending on how regulated hunting is managed, you may or may not be recruiting deer into the age classes that would equate to an increase in mature bucks.

I guess that's just the long way of saying that they work hand in hand.

Another consideration is the social aspect of wildlife management. Hunters seem to judge the optimal end-state in one of two ways: Veteran hunters typically define the optimal state as a cross between the best hunting they have ever experienced and what they had heard from the veteran hunters before them (the good old days). New hunters with little experience typically define the optimal state as one where they can harvest animals, maybe even big ones, with little to modest effort, with some expectations also fueled by what they were told by the veterans before them (the good old days). In either case, neither may be realistic given what the current management constraints are. Especially for those of us that equate "good hunting" as the best periods we've experienced in certain areas, it is usually that a certain sequence of events culminated to produce that finite period, but the norm in the absence of that "perfect storm" may be one with significantly less opportunity.

It can't be awesome, all the time, everywhere, for everybody.

The whole post is social.

Hunters need to recognize the difference between science-based facts and social beliefs and desires.

Science: To ensure you do not impact rut synchronization and fawn recruitment make sure your post hunt buck:doe ratio is >10:100. BC manages to a minimum of 20:100 and we have numerous MUs that are 30-40 bucks:100 does post hunt. There are numerous jurisdictions that manage below this.

Social: We want to see more big deer. There are two ways to do this.

1) Increase the productivity of the deer population. With great habitat, and a managed population (where you shoot does) you can have fawn:doe ratios of 40-60:100 or higher by the spring. With shit habitat, like we have, you have 20-30 fawns:100 does, a population which is barely bouncing along. Imagine doubling the number of yearling bucks, then following them through their lifecycle in a steady state of demand (hunter harvest). All that means is more bucks making it to 3.5 years+. With shit habitat you also have much higher predation rates on bucks (and does), which means very few make to be 3.5 years+ even in un-hunted populations.

2) The other way to do this is to significantly reduce the buck harvest. Because is you have shitty habitat and you aren't producing very many fawns, you have very few bucks to start with @ 18 mnths and you will have very few who make it to 3.5+ years of age. The best way to do this is through access management, lottery draw, and eliminating 4 pts seasons. 4 pts seasons are probably the worst tool if people want age in their buck population.

The other thing I will touch on the social side is there seem to be a pile of people who talk about the lack of mature deer but consistently and constantly shoot 120-160 class 4 pts bucks - those people are hypocrites and there is a long lineup for that designation.


So those are the choices.

Make a more productive deer population, which benefits everyone and everything (including species at risk/listed/endangered etc) or continue to regulate the decline and watch more species become yellow and red listed.

[GoatGuy]

Biggest thing BC hunters seem to miss is we are regulated with restrictions here in BC just like anywhere else. We will always have hunting restrictions as populations will never allow unregulated sustainable harvest. We can lobby to pick our poison but there will always be restrictions.

As for dwelling on how things were 20-30 years ago BC is not the same place. Human population has grown having an impact beyond what can be reversed. More trains/cars hitting animals, industry has pushed farther into the bush, and cities/towns have grown eating up habitat that will never recover. As for hunter numbers they are increaseing once again. BC is forever changed and it is only going to continue to change.

all for working on big issues but we are never going to shut down all the issues. The general population is growing and changing BC everyday. We as hunters are only a small portion of the population and odds are we will only be able to achieve small changes. This is still good and every bit helps but I do not see a huge jump in wildlife numbers happening before I die


I don't subscribe to the defeatist attitude. I firmly believe making more deer is doable and relatively easy.

All it takes is $ and some of the hunters to get off the 'hunting regulation' bandwagon and onto the 'making more deer' bandwagon.

This is not hard.

[Wild one]

Have hunted out there and know the managers. Have quite a few buddies who live there and have hosted me. Know the history on hunting regulations for mule deer, proximate causes and changes.

Talking about Alberta's system of management versus BC's is absolutely insane. That is the point.

In one breath you are talking about how great the management is out in Alberta because there are 'mature bucks', but you fail to mention they harvest across all age classes and sexes.

You fail to mention that their deer populations are far more productive (throwing more fawns:doe) because across large portions they don't have an intact predator system and across a pile of the jurisdiction the habitat is endless and tailored to mule deer.

You fail to mention the reason why they went to draw - mule deer in the prairies are extremely susceptible to harvest because they are visible.

In the next breath you talk about the need to eliminate all antlerless hunting in BC, despite the fact Alberta harvests MORE THAN 50% of the mule deer in does and fawns. They shoot close to 7500-8000 (tel:7500-8000) does/fawns every year in Alberta. BC would be lucky to harvest more than 15% of it's harvest in does/fawns, maybe 2,700 across the entire province.

The point of this is to get a grip.

People should be talking about mule deer ecology and what the species needs to be PRODUCTIVE.

Talking about what they do in Alberta, in the prairies for management, and comparing it to what we do in BC, where there are mountains, predators, fire suppression, and winter ranges that are being covered in duplexes is insane.

you are selectively reading my posts and because of this compleatly lost where I stand lol

read them again instead of just picking parts that bother you. You are caught up on a small portion of what I have posted.

Not once did I say BC should compleatly adapt Albertas system and you assume I am against doe harvest. You are also assuming I believe changing hunting regs will make big changes in deer population. If you took the time to read you would see I promote harvest across all age class.

Also clearly stated population growth will only be addressed by dealing with the bigger issues like habitat, predators, unregulated harvest ....

Yes I promote a mild change in hopes of improving buck to doe ratio go search through the thread for it. Only thing close to Alberta managment is a 1 mule deer prov buck limit. Not even close to adapting there managment plan

As for doe harvest no issue in areas with healthy population. Now tell me how doe harvest helps a declining population?

Big pic issues we are on same page only have a different view on how to utilize the population we have NOW

Now rather than jumping in guns blazing slow down and read. Rather than be blinded by one issue causing you to miss the points we both support

Yes we all know you are involved in wildlife managment and no doubt know a fair number of people. You no doubt have passion as well. Relax breath and realize that if you keep digging a different opinions on small things vs the big issues that one agrees on you only stand the chance of loosing support on big issues.

[horshur]

I run skidder and salvage beetle kill for some blocks. Yes we have a % of trees we are to leave in each block but this is often not possible in beetle kill areas were basically everything is dead.

Random 20yard round patch of trees is not wintering grounds

do you think the pine leading areas(lodgepole) are ever good wintering areas?

[Wild one]

do you think the pine leading areas(lodgepole) are ever good wintering areas?

Not near as good as the spruce which is often taken well salvaging beetle kill

[horshur]

Not near as good as the spruce which is often taken well salvaging beetle kill

spruce? really?

[boxhitch]

GG, howz about a simple bandaid like having forestry rules change to expand riparian zones to 2x or 3x the current g-string size.
Maybe a larger leave strip along all roads too?

[boxhitch]

Not near as good as the spruce which is often taken well salvaging beetle killI thought fir was the prime feed tree of choice
?

[GoatGuy]

you are selectively reading my posts and because of this compleatly lost where I stand lol

read them again instead of just picking parts that bother you. You are caught up on a small portion of what I have posted.

Not once did I say BC should compleatly adapt Albertas system and you assume I am against doe harvest. You are also assuming I believe changing hunting regs will make big changes in deer population. If you took the time to read you would see I promote harvest across all age class.

Also clearly stated population growth will only be addressed by dealing with the bigger issues like habitat, predators, unregulated harvest ....

Yes I promote a mild change in hopes of improving buck to doe ratio go search through the thread for it. Only thing close to Alberta managment is a 1 mule deer prov buck limit. Not even close to adapting there managment plan

As for doe harvest no issue in areas with healthy population. Now tell me how doe harvest helps a declining population?

Big pic issues we are on same page only have a different view on how to utilize the population we have NOW

Now rather than jumping in guns blazing slow down and read. Rather than be blinded by one issue causing you to miss the points we both support

Yes we all know you are involved in wildlife managment and no doubt know a fair number of people. You no doubt have passion as well. Relax breath and realize that if you keep digging a different opinions on small things vs the big issues that one agrees on you only stand the chance of loosing support on big issues.


It makes no sense, that is the challenge. If people want to continually make changes to the hunting regulations this whole thing is going to continue to move backwards.

[Wild one]

spruce? really?

Only for the way the it effects the snow depth. Found well trapping deer were often in the south facing mixed timber.

it all depends on the area in my opinion as the species of trees vary in each area. Have not done majore research on this can only go by where I found them most often in the winter. As many know wintering can take place in multiple different habitats from river bottoms, farm land, south facing timber .. It seems to break down to snow depth/feed is all I can tell for sure.

deep snow poor cover is bad from what I can tell. No doubt GG can give a better answer on this

[Wild one]

It makes no sense, that is the challenge. If people want to continually make changes to the hunting regulations this whole thing is going to continue to move backwards.

Not into changing regs in hopes of population growth. It is only trying to change ratio I am thinking of this is merely to try to increase buck numbers and possibly having more bucks reach maturity. This would only change the quality of the hunt at best. There is different reasons for changing seasons than just producing more deer.

like I said I am in agreement on big goals. I think it could be achieved at least 1 piece at a time and see some worth while improvement. I would like to see better enforcement just as much as habitat. Reported a spot lighter yesterday and my buddy reported another shooting deer without permission on private land 2 days before. It is an increasing problem

No time to trap but will still be out calling preds in my area

[Ourea]

like I said I am in agreement on big goals. I think it could be achieved at least 1 piece at a time and see some worth while improvement. I would like to see better enforcement just as much as habitat. Reported a spot lighter yesterday and my buddy reported another shooting deer without permission on private land 2 days before. It is an increasing problem

Almost all of what you are wishing to see improve comes back to $$$ to pay for it.

[Wild one]

Almost all of what you are wishing to see improve comes back to $$$ to pay for it.

Agree time and $$ gets things done

this is why I believe funds generated from hunting and fines from those poaching needs to go to wildlife only

[adriaticum]

this is why I believe funds generated from hunting and fines from those poaching needs to go to wildlife only

This is what we need to fight for. BCWF should receive all the money from hunting and related taxes/sales and it should be responsible for managing that money.
They are doing it with Fresh Water Fisheries.

But I don't agree that everything is about money.

They are ripping out spruce, pine, aspen forests and re-plating pine only because it grows fast.

[Ourea]

Agree time and $$ gets things done

this is why I believe funds generated from hunting and fines from those poaching needs to go to wildlife only

Think bigger.

Just over 2 million goes back to wildlife out of the 14.5 million generated from license sales.
We having nothing to leverage to gain access to more funding.

Only way one can leverage access to that license revenue is to pledge and match dollar for dollar.

If 15 million was pledged for wildlife from the private sector I wouldn't put a penny of it in unless gov matched.
Politically we, as a user group, are too small to have a significant voting impact on gov. No leverage there.

Brings us back to the $$$.
Again.....big picture.

[adriaticum]

Ourea you need to think smaller.
Focus.
You identify a major issue and you're complicating things by involving private sector, matching.


I WANT MONEY THAT IS PAID FOR WILDLIFE TO GO TO WILDLIFE.

IF I GIVE YOU A DOLLAR FOR A PENCIL I WANT A PENCIL.


Can we do that!

It's not complicated

[Ourea]

Ourea you need to think smaller.
Focus.
You identify a major issue and you're complicating things by involving private sector, matching.


I WANT MONEY THAT IS PAID FOR WILDLIFE TO GO TO WILDLIFE.

IF I GIVE YOU A DOLLAR FOR A PENCIL I WANT A PENCIL.


Can we do that!

It's not complicated

Agree to disagree.
Simply being another noble cause knocking on the door of Gov asking for $$ seldom produces results.
Keep repeating a tactic that has failed for decades.....asking Gov for $$ when they are struggling to pay the bills?
No shot chief.

Big picture adriaticum....big picture.