my outlook has changed what do you think?

[curt]

So with the current situation with our wildlife populations its made me do some serious thinking...... I think it would be in the interest of our wildlife to eliminate all antlerless cow/doe seasons.... the reason being is quite simple killing one cow or doe kills many more future animals then that. I could be completely off my rocker but the stats show moose for instance can live for up to 10yrs in the wild realistically let's say 7 (i did get info back on a tooth once saying my moose was 9) of that 7yrs say 5 yrs of breeding of that 5 say 2 yrs she may have possible twins that's 7 calves..... so shooting 1 cow you have potentially killed a possible 7 moose plus the offspring of those 7 and so on!?!?!? So i very well may be an idiot but IMO shooting females has really lost its luster to me especially in the current situation of declining populations . I never really sat and thought much about it but it seems really easy to me it doesnt take many males to service plenty of females so we we kill the ones that replenish the herds makes very little sense in todays world...... what do you think am I nuts??

[Drillbit]

Makes sense.

I don't see any ranchers killing cows to increase their herd sizes either......

[Salty]

The province is too big for blanket edicts like that IMO. There has been and will be the need to control some populations using antlerless seasons as one of the tools.

[Wild one]

I seen no point removing females from any declining population counter productive really

If you are trying to keep a population stable and a surplus of females exist than femal harvest is fine

[adriaticum]

I agree with the basic logic, but not all populations are declining.
I certainly agree for moose.

I think we should have a total closure on 1 species for one hunting season and rotate them for species that are on the decline in BC as a whole.

You can't close a species in one area without closing it entirely, it just moves all the hunters into areas where it's open.
Particularly for moose because it's such a high value animal and people will go the ends of the earth to get them.

[Fisher-Dude]

So with the current situation with our wildlife populations its made me do some serious thinking...... I think it would be in the interest of our wildlife to eliminate all antlerless cow/doe seasons.... the reason being is quite simple killing one cow or doe kills many more future animals then that. I could be completely off my rocker but the stats show moose for instance can live for up to 10yrs in the wild realistically let's say 7 (i did get info back on a tooth once saying my moose was 9) of that 7yrs say 5 yrs of breeding of that 5 say 2 yrs she may have possible twins that's 7 calves..... so shooting 1 cow you have potentially killed a possible 7 moose plus the offspring of those 7 and so on!?!?!? So i very well may be an idiot but IMO shooting females has really lost its luster to me especially in the current situation of declining populations . I never really sat and thought much about it but it seems really easy to me it doesnt take many males to service plenty of females so we we kill the ones that replenish the herds makes very little sense in todays world...... what do you think am I nuts??

How about we manage by science instead of emotion?

Science says wildlife herds are strongest when there is harvest across all age and sex classes. It's foolproof, has been studied to death across North America, and it works.

Emotion says let's throw some shit against the wall and see if something sticks.

Harvest of male only components of a population is the absolute worst thing we could possibly do.

Politicians love guys like you - it's cheap to screw with seasons, even though seasons won't affect wildlife numbers. Habitat and predator control will help populations, but those cost money, and politicians hate that.

[wideopenthrottle]

Harvest of male only components of a population is the absolute worst thing we could possibly do.

can you elaborate , I am interested in your perspective on this

[Fisher-Dude]

can you elaborate , I am interested in your perspective on this

See below...double post.

[Fisher-Dude]

can you elaborate , I am interested in your perspective on this

Wildlife management 101.

Harvesting only one component of a population places undue strain on that segment.

Harvesting across age and sex classes provides stability in sex ratios and increases fawn/calf recruitment ratios.





ETA: Study this:


I've posted this before. Study by well-known BC biologist Ian Hatter on whitetail management options.


%Male.......%Female....Buck/doe.....Fawn/doe....Stable Herd.....Sustained
harvest.......harvest.......ratio.............rati o.............size............harvest

0%...........0%...........50/100...........24/100.............10,000.............0
25%..........0%..........19/100...........24/100.............10,000..........333
50%..........0%...........9/100............24/100.............10,000..........322
25%.........13%.........43/100............56/100..............8,160........1,242
50%.........25%.........32/100............97/100..............5,875........1,674


Note the far healthier fawn to doe and buck to doe ratios under the harvest models with does being hunted. Also note the sustainable harvest levels under each scenario.

Do we want the opportunity to harvest 1500 deer a year or take just 300 and have poor fawn and buck to doe ratios? Pretty simple answer.

[Rob Chipman]

FD:

Correct me if I'm wrong. I often hear that we don't need a bunch of males because one male can inseminate a bunch of females. We also assume that a bigger herd will allow for a bigger harvest. Your numbers suggest something quite different, and that a smaller herd with a 1:3 buck doe ratio actually sustains a larger harvest.

Do you know if there are similar studies to this for other species? I did a quick search for the study (your 2009 post was the first result) but do you happen to have a link?

And I'm with you on the science thing. We all owe it to each other to become clearer on that.

[skibum]

How about we manage by science instead of emotion?

It would be neat to have a wildlife biologist "ask the expert" forum to help some guys talk through "this is what I see in the bush, can you explain, or how does my suggestion fit into management plans....."

[835]

This has always been a popular thread. FD usually has numbers to back his comments, like he has. In order to form an opinion either way you have to do one of two things.
1) believe FD's numbers were come to by proper science ( I do )
2) don't believe it.

What I have noticed through the years here on these threads is, guys like Curt ( just using you Curt, cuz this is your thread ) never have any form of Science to it, just emotion like FD said. As well they have the though that on male can impregnate many females..... which is true and makes sense.... but there are never any numbers to prove this correct in all applications....

so, having said all this, it is far more difficult than, stop harvesting cows...... if you stop us from harvesting cows,,,, you are only stopping a small portion of the death of that cow.... there are other animals and people killing those same cows.
so why don't we stop that first.... combine that with Fisher Dudes Science and we have a win....

[Everett]

How about we manage by science instead of emotion?

Science says wildlife herds are strongest when there is harvest across all age and sex classes. It's foolproof, has been studied to death across North America, and it works.

Emotion says let's throw some shit against the wall and see if something sticks.

Harvest of male only components of a population is the absolute worst thing we could possibly do.

Politicians love guys like you - it's cheap to screw with seasons, even though seasons won't affect wildlife numbers. Habitat and predator control will help populations, but those cost money, and politicians hate that.

Bingo we have winner well said Fisher Dude

[Citori54]

Most reports/studies I have seen from biologists in both Canada and the US seem to support Fisher Dude's statistics i.e. it is better to harvest some females from the population provided the population does not drop below a threshold level. My personal opinion is that I would rather continue with a managed doe harvest where it can be supported and either eliminate or shorten the any buck season.

[russm]

A few years ago the areas i hunt there was a huge difference in the doe:buck ratio, if I'm not mistaken there has been antlerless draws added to the area, which to me takes some pressure off the bucks that were there, over the passed 2 seasons i have seen more and more bucks coming out and hanging from meat poles in there, personally I don't have a problem shooting does and would've taken one this season if I didn't get my buck first, finally get a successful draw and i find a buck first, just my luck lol

[adriaticum]

Most reports/studies I have seen from biologists in both Canada and the US seem to support Fisher Dude's statistics i.e. it is better to harvest some females from the population provided the population does not drop below a threshold level. My personal opinion is that I would rather continue with a managed doe harvest where it can be supported and either eliminate or shorten the any buck season.


You just contradicted yourself in one sentence by eliminating any buck season.

[Bugle M In]

But, what happens when levels are so low, that the species becomes at risk?
Say, if Moose are healthy (population wise), than the current model of x amount of bulls and x amount of cows do
make sense, from a scientific point.
BUT,
What is the best model if you need to "repopulate" a species such as Moose in a region/area, when the population could
possibly be "well below" sustainable levels.
Would only make sense to "Curb" cow harvesting.....for a time anyways.... or am I wrong??

Let's face it, it sounds like Elk in the EK are well below sustainable levels right now, so what is the best way to bump up their
numbers as "quick as possible"??

Granted, Wolves and Preds need to be culled regardless of what model we use to harvest Moose or Elk.

Just Curious....IMO

[Stone Sheep Steve]

But, what happens when levels are so low, that the species becomes at risk?
Say, if Moose are healthy (population wise), than the current model of x amount of bulls and x amount of cows do
make sense, from a scientific point.
BUT,
What is the best model if you need to "repopulate" a species such as Moose in a region/area, when the population could
possibly be "well below" sustainable levels.
Would only make sense to "Curb" cow harvesting.....for a time anyways.... or am I wrong??

Let's face it, it sounds like Elk in the EK are well below sustainable levels right now, so what is the best way to bump up their
numbers as "quick as possible"??

Granted, Wolves and Preds need to be culled regardless of what model we use to harvest Moose or Elk.

Just Curious....IMO

They should be able to throttle back the cow harvest via reducing LEH permits. Adding or
cancelling hunts like this is a royal PITA for biologists so moving LEH numbers up and down when new data is available is the preferred method.

SSS

[okas]

Cow moose should never be opened ever:twisted: COs and gov do not have a clue and agree to agree as no guts or balls or what ever i really think they just play with each other in there own world

[gunpower]

Back in the 70's we had a two day doe season only and things worked just great, until somebody implemented the leh system.
Now it's just a money grab !!

[finngun]

In europe..at least scandihuvia moose and deer harvest is based mostly only male--female idea,,no counting points of the rack..and then calf hunting too..that's the way handle animal population there..
seems to me it is working ok there,,maybe lesson to learn.:?:

[Sitkaspruce]

So with the current situation with our wildlife populations its made me do some serious thinking...... I think it would be in the interest of our wildlife to eliminate all antlerless cow/doe seasons.... the reason being is quite simple killing one cow or doe kills many more future animals then that. I could be completely off my rocker but the stats show moose for instance can live for up to 10yrs in the wild realistically let's say 7 (i did get info back on a tooth once saying my moose was 9) of that 7yrs say 5 yrs of breeding of that 5 say 2 yrs she may have possible twins that's 7 calves..... so shooting 1 cow you have potentially killed a possible 7 moose plus the offspring of those 7 and so on!?!?!? So i very well may be an idiot but IMO shooting females has really lost its luster to me especially in the current situation of declining populations . I never really sat and thought much about it but it seems really easy to me it doesnt take many males to service plenty of females so we we kill the ones that replenish the herds makes very little sense in todays world...... what do you think am I nuts??

Curt

Why do you think hunters are the problem?? If numbers are down, why is that hunters are the one to take the brunt of the problem??

Here is an idea, instead of taking your energy and spending it on the internet asking others if you are nuts....take that energy and start writing your MLA and others about improving habitat, implementing a predator control program, hiring more CO's, removing politics from wildlife management, putting ALL licence fees back into wildlife management and starting to regulate unregulated hunting.

And yes, you are nuts (u did ask....) to not hunt females....but each to their own. Will leave more for others who believe in science over emotions.

Cheers

SS

[HarryToolips]

Back in the 70's we had a two day doe season only and things worked just great, until somebody implemented the leh system.
Now it's just a money grab !!
The thing is, it's a totally different ballgame now, as we have much more access into the backcountry compared to then..

[Citori54]

You just contradicted yourself in one sentence by eliminating any buck season.

No I did not.....I did not say eliminate the harvest of bucks, I said shorten or eliminate the any buck season with the thought that the little guys can grow up to be breeding stock. Sorry if I was not clear.

[dougan]

Curt

Why do you think hunters are the problem?? If numbers are down, why is that hunters are the one to take the brunt of the problem??

Here is an idea, instead of taking your energy and spending it on the internet asking others if you are nuts....take that energy and start writing your MLA and others about improving habitat, implementing a predator control program, hiring more CO's, removing politics from wildlife management, putting ALL licence fees back into wildlife management and starting to regulate unregulated hunting.

And yes, you are nuts (u did ask....) to not hunt females....but each to their own. Will leave more for others who believe in science over emotions.

Cheers

SS sooo the areas I hunt whitetail held many deer for many years even with wolfs present the doe season came into place and now they are non existent. How do you explain this ??? Hunters can indeed have an impact on deer numbers. Talk to people who live in these places year round most feel the doe season being in line with the elk season is quite hard on the deer populations. I personally think it's an icbc issue more than a conservation issue in the governments eyes

[whitespringer]

Ok,respectfully....
heard both sides of the argument, not really buying the anti emotion sentiment. There are merits to human logic. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.... It's a Duck. If science proves the numbers, can anyone explain the reason the numbers manifest themselves in favour of taking both sexes? Any thesis to explain the raw data?
Sincerly,
Open Mind

[Fisher-Dude]

No I did not.....I did not say eliminate the harvest of bucks, I said shorten or eliminate the any buck season with the thought that the little guys can grow up to be breeding stock. Sorry if I was not clear.

Zero science in that.

Little guys are breeding stock. All that's needed is a sperm supply. Their genetics don't change with age.

Why concentrate harvest on the "breeding stock" in your scenario? Your idea contradicts itself right from the get go.

Unfortunately, I believe you're looking to manage hunters, not wildlife.

[quadrakid]

If you guys want to manage game by your emotions rather than science than you are no different than the NDP ban the griz hunt folks.

[curt]

never once did i say i was an expert I was throwing it out there to get some more opinion I am enjoying the information it just seems to me using the basic principle of life you need females to sustain any population.
This has always been a popular thread. FD usually has numbers to back his comments, like he has. In order to form an opinion either way you have to do one of two things.
1) believe FD's numbers were come to by proper science ( I do )
2) don't believe it.

What I have noticed through the years here on these threads is, guys like Curt ( just using you Curt, cuz this is your thread ) never have any form of Science to it, just emotion like FD said. As well they have the though that on male can impregnate many females..... which is true and makes sense.... but there are never any numbers to prove this correct in all applications....

so, having said all this, it is far more difficult than, stop harvesting cows...... if you stop us from harvesting cows,,,, you are only stopping a small portion of the death of that cow.... there are other animals and people killing those same cows.
so why don't we stop that first.... combine that with Fisher Dudes Science and we have a win....

[curt]

I dont think we are the only issue with the population issue's not at all but we are likely the only portion of this scenario that we can control the out come of..... like I said just a thought just an opinion trust me I love to hunt and I love to eat off the land but at the expense of my kids having no game left to hunt I'm not so sure.......now all that being said I also know we need to kill the wolves kill as many as we possibly can that would definitely help too
Curt

Why do you think hunters are the problem?? If numbers are down, why is that hunters are the one to take the brunt of the problem??

Here is an idea, instead of taking your energy and spending it on the internet asking others if you are nuts....take that energy and start writing your MLA and others about improving habitat, implementing a predator control program, hiring more CO's, removing politics from wildlife management, putting ALL licence fees back into wildlife management and starting to regulate unregulated hunting.

And yes, you are nuts (u did ask....) to not hunt females....but each to their own. Will leave more for others who believe in science over emotions.

Cheers

SS

[.264winmag]

In europe..at least scandihuvia moose and deer harvest is based mostly only male--female idea,,no counting points of the rack..and then calf hunting too..that's the way handle animal population there..
seems to me it is working ok there,,maybe lesson to learn.:?:

Always getting pics from my relatives of antlerless game. Man they eat good over there in scandahuvia!

[Ronforca]

I understand that where Whitetail does are concerned, the reason for taking them is to lower the Whitetail population. They are taking over the Mulie range and the Mulie are getting scarce. I have hunted the same area for 45 years and where there used to be many,many Mulies they are getting scarce and even with the Whitetail doe season the Whitetail seem to be still plentiful. We only hunt Whitetail now and never have a problem getting our Deer.

[saskbooknut]

To truly understand the status of deer populations you need to look at the whole ecological system.
Fisher-Dude has already provided a good overview of hunter harvest vs. age/class distribution in a deer population. Of course, hunter harvest is only one kind of mortality in a deer population. Severe winters and predation are other factors in mortality.
You need to look broadly to find the critical limiting factors. What is the nutritional status of the population ? Good nutritional status of does through winter allows for twin fawn recruitment. Deer populations rebound very quickly once their critical food, water, cover and winter range needs are met.
What is the condition of browse and forbs that deer feed on. Dense and advanced age second growth, cutting out the light reduces food sources for deer.
Status of winter range. In British Columbia critical winter range often is covered in subdivisions, split by high speed highways or is under water with dams/impoundments.
Politics, rather than scientific management, gets involved in wildlife management where one or more interest groups is loud and politically active. Hunters need to participate in the public debate, and not just beat the topic around on internet forums like this one. The one sure way for hunters to participate has always been through the BC Wildlife Federation and your local Fish and Game club.
Looking for a simple answer, such as harvesting only mature males, is not the way to address the complicated ecological questions that lead to declining game populations.

[hunter1947]

So with the current situation with our wildlife populations its made me do some serious thinking...... I think it would be in the interest of our wildlife to eliminate all antlerless cow/doe seasons.... the reason being is quite simple killing one cow or doe kills many more future animals then that. I could be completely off my rocker but the stats show moose for instance can live for up to 10yrs in the wild realistically let's say 7 (i did get info back on a tooth once saying my moose was 9) of that 7yrs say 5 yrs of breeding of that 5 say 2 yrs she may have possible twins that's 7 calves..... so shooting 1 cow you have potentially killed a possible 7 moose plus the offspring of those 7 and so on!?!?!? So i very well may be an idiot but IMO shooting females has really lost its luster to me especially in the current situation of declining populations . I never really sat and thought much about it but it seems really easy to me it doesnt take many males to service plenty of females so we we kill the ones that replenish the herds makes very little sense in todays world...... what do you think am I nuts??

X2 this is the way I think as well a hunter takes out a female animal you might be taking out 3 animals its a slaughter out there on WT does the excess is easy most regions,,if the access in areas are hard to get to then I would agree with a doe buck GOS,,the female species are more vulnerable on targeting then that of a WT buck out of the rut let's face it everyone wants to fill the freezers with meat and the WT deer does as other female species are targeted hard when there is a GOS..

[Gr8 white hunter]

Agreed, how many cow,doe's get killed and calf,fawns are left to fend for themselves just because people are greedy and want more meat. I

[Fisher-Dude]

X2 this is the way I think as well a hunter takes out a female animal you might be taking out 3 animals its a slaughter out there on WT does the excess is easy most regions,,if the access in areas are hard to get to then I would agree with a doe buck GOS,,the female species are more vulnerable on targeting then that of a WT buck out of the rut let's face it everyone wants to fill the freezers with meat and the WT deer does as other female species are targeted hard when there is a GOS..


How is shooting 3 to 5% of the does a slaughter, Wayne? The harvest facts completely contradict what you're saying.

[Fisher-Dude]

Agreed, how many cow,doe's get killed and calf,fawns are left to fend for themselves just because people are greedy and want more meat. I

Fawns are perfectly fine if the doe is harvested.

This has been studied and studied, and every single time the results show no appreciable change in fawn survival. Whitetail are gregarious animals, and a fawn will not be on his own for very long if the doe is removed.

You want more antlers than meat from your comment, and doe harvest results in more antlers...you're shooting yourself in the foot with your misguided opposition.

[.264winmag]

After watching our regular wt herd on the property it's apparent they take care of each other, and manage the herd size themselves. We've seen fawns lose their mothers', only to be taken in by another doe. Spiker showed up last year with a giant hole in his neck likely from a bullet, the doe's kept up on the cleaning of festering wound and he is now a small 4x4. Another doe with a bummed shoulder showed up last year, the herd tried running her off for months but during doe season we lost a regular so ole gimpy was accepted and she birthed twins this spring. She still has a slight limp but otherwise healthy.
Despite harvest etc. the local herd remains the same size and sex ratio over 6 seasons.
Interesting animals.

[hunter1947]

How is shooting 3 to 5% of the does a slaughter, Wayne? The harvest facts completely contradict what you're saying.


Where did you get this 3 to 5 % figure ??? are you stopping every hunter in every region where there is a GOS on WT does to get this figure?? in the region I hunt it's more like 10 to 15% harvest on does
I stopped lots of time to talk to hunters in the doe season many of them had shot a WT doe and that's only the hunters I saw in the days hunt I spent the whole GOS for WT does in my hunting area got to talk to many hunters over this period..

Bottom line is shooting the female species decrease the numbers in any herds,,all and all the decline of WT deer numbers is a big circle its over hunting them,predator,being one of the biggest problems,winter kill on fawns,habitat,mismanagement on the GOS for does,,it's a good thing that WT deer repopulate more so than any other big game animal or there would low numbers out there in the hills..

Parts of the WK tell it all to me why there are low numbers of WT deer in lots of areas I talked to an older hunter down that way when I was elk hunting he said I can't find a doe or buck to shot this year ??? this was in the Trail area

One of my hunting partner that grew up in the WK said that the WT deer have taken a beating over the past 10 years the numbers are low and feels the same way I do about having GOS on does he said its a big circle on why the numbers of WT deer have decreased and one of the big factors is having a GOS on WT does..

Years ago in most of the EK management had a GOS on mule deer does having this GOS on mule deer does really put the population to low numbers for mule deer again it was a slaughter on does,,all and all taking out big numbers of WT does is not help the population that's the way I see it..

[Ourea]

To truly understand the status of deer populations you need to look at the whole ecological system.
Fisher-Dude has already provided a good overview of hunter harvest vs. age/class distribution in a deer population. Of course, hunter harvest is only one kind of mortality in a deer population. Severe winters and predation are other factors in mortality.
You need to look broadly to find the critical limiting factors. What is the nutritional status of the population ? Good nutritional status of does through winter allows for twin fawn recruitment. Deer populations rebound very quickly once their critical food, water, cover and winter range needs are met.
What is the condition of browse and forbs that deer feed on. Dense and advanced age second growth, cutting out the light reduces food sources for deer.
Status of winter range. In British Columbia critical winter range often is covered in subdivisions, split by high speed highways or is under water with dams/impoundments.
Politics, rather than scientific management, gets involved in wildlife management where one or more interest groups is loud and politically active. Hunters need to participate in the public debate, and not just beat the topic around on internet forums like this one. The one sure way for hunters to participate has always been through the BC Wildlife Federation and your local Fish and Game club.
Looking for a simple answer, such as harvesting only mature males, is not the way to address the complicated ecological questions that lead to declining game populations.

Bingo.
There's the 30,000 ft view. (Great and accurate summary saskbooknut)

Some only look at wildlife challenges/resolution thru the optics of a "hunter".
Within that view they feel regulation is the key driver to wildlife populations.

Too many people look at the challenges facing wildlife from such a low level view that their chin is in the mud.
Big picture people.....30,000ft view......saskbooknut summarized it accurately.
His summation is the reality and it's backed by science.

Too many are focused on how to best manage the crumbs rather than on the cake.

[Fisher-Dude]

Where did you get this 3 to 5 % figure ??? are you stopping every hunter in every region where there is a GOS on WT does to get this figure?? in the region I hunt it's more like 10 to 15% harvest on does


Harvest is 2,000 per year.

Population is estimated between 38,000 and 62,000.

2,000/38,000 = 5.26% on the high end

2,000/62,000 = 3.25% on the low end

The math is simple. Changing outdated perceptions to embrace wildlife management science is difficult.

[brian]

I think it would be in the interest of our wildlife to eliminate all antlerless cow/doe seasons.... the reason being is quite simple killing one cow or doe kills many more future animals then that.

The first problem is assuming wildlife populations are decreasing province wide. A blanket province wide doe harvest elimination would screw over the areas where deer numbers need to be reduced. If interior whitetail or moose numbers are suffering then deal with those populations on a local level. But don't tell the islanders that they can't hunt does in areas that are absolutely over run by deer. We have management units for a reason.

[hunter1947]

Harvest is 2,000 per year.

Population is estimated between 38,000 and 62,000.

2,000/38,000 = 5.26% on the high end

Pat not very hi population for the entire EK should be over hundred thousand or more

2,000/62,000 = 3.25% on the low end

The math is simple. Changing outdated perceptions to embrace wildlife management science is difficult.

Pat not very high population for the entire EK should be over hundred thousand and more its getting real sad out there for the elk numbers as well,,very ,very sad situation

[HarryToolips]

Where did you get this 3 to 5 % figure ??? are you stopping every hunter in every region where there is a GOS on WT does to get this figure?? in the region I hunt it's more like 10 to 15% harvest on does
I stopped lots of time to talk to hunters in the doe season many of them had shot a WT doe and that's only the hunters I saw in the days hunt I spent the whole GOS for WT does in my hunting area got to talk to many hunters over this period..

Bottom line is shooting the female species decrease the numbers in any herds,,all and all the decline of WT deer numbers is a big circle its over hunting them,predator,being one of the biggest problems,winter kill on fawns,habitat,mismanagement on the GOS for does,,it's a good thing that WT deer repopulate more so than any other big game animal or there would low numbers out there in the hills..

Parts of the WK tell it all to me why there are low numbers of WT deer in lots of areas I talked to an older hunter down that way when I was elk hunting he said I can't find a doe or buck to shot this year ??? this was in the Trail area

One of my hunting partner that grew up in the WK said that the WT deer have taken a beating over the past 10 years the numbers are low and feels the same way I do about having GOS on does he said its a big circle on why the numbers of WT deer have decreased and one of the big factors is having a GOS on WT does..

Years ago in most of the EK management had a GOS on mule deer does having this GOS on mule deer does really put the population to low numbers for mule deer again it was a slaughter on does,,all and all taking out big numbers of WT does is not help the population that's the way I see it..
I believe Texas has something like a 20% annual harvest on the whole WT population....I agree having a GOS back then on muley does is stupid, but WT are completely different..

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Pat not very high population for the entire EK should be over hundred thousand and more its getting real sad out there for the elk numbers as well,,very ,very sad situation

Why should the whitetail population in the East Kootenays be 100,000 or more? Where did this figure come from?

[hunter1947]

If the island can hold up to 200,000 deer at one time why not the EK for WT deer??? ...http://blog.gonanaimo.com/island-deer-population

[hunter1947]

Harvest is 2,000 per year.

Population is estimated between 38,000 and 62,000.

2,000/38,000 = 5.26% on the high end

2,000/62,000 = 3.25% on the low end

The math is simple. Changing outdated perceptions to embrace wildlife management science is difficult.

Harvest is not accurate from the branch not every hunter is asked if they shot a WT deer in regions its not mandatory

[hunter1947]

Why should the whitetail population in the East Kootenays be 100,000 or more? Where did this figure come from?


Vancouver island has less land than that of the EK If the island can hold up to 200,000 deer at one time why not the EK for WT deer??? the island now has as many deer on it as the entire EK right now...http://blog.gonanaimo.com/island-deer-population

Its all on some of my past posts why the EK has not got the numbers of WT deer that it should have..

[tmarschall]

From a conservation view, doe seasons may be appropriate, even in a declining population, if the sex ratio is way out of balance. Looking at one parameter is not sufficient to make a rational conclusion. Many parameters need to be considered.

[Fisher-Dude]

Harvest is not accurate from the branch not every hunter is asked if they shot a WT deer in regions its not mandatory

Our harvest data is among the most accurate in North America.

This according to Valerius Geist, the most respected wildlife biologist in North America.

If you understand sampling and statistics, you understand why this is true.

[hunter1947]

Pat Its hard to believe on game animals how they get an accurate count on any game number..

[wideopenthrottle]

I've said it before, make it mandatory to check a couple of boxes on our online applications for species licence and LEH ...1)successful or not....2)species harvested 3) region...4) date

[Wild one]

Our harvest data is among the most accurate in North America.

This according to Valerius Geist, the most respected wildlife biologist in North America.

If you understand sampling and statistics, you understand why this is true.


Would have never guessed that expecially knowing some states hunters must bring all animals to a check station

guess there are places way worse when it come to harvest data

[hunter1947]

One thing that what has always bothered me is the number harvest count on some species ,,,I never believed on the estimated count what about the big numbers of animals that are held up in the big timber..
Say there are 100 animals in the open areas from the same species there are 200 animals in the timber how can management get an accurate count on numbers over an entire region???

[Wild one]

One thing that what has always bothered me is the number harvest count on some species ,,,I never believed on the estimated count what about the big numbers of animals that are held up in the big timber..
Say there are 100 animals in the open areas from the same species there are 200 animals in the timber how can management get an accurate count on numbers over an entire region???


Bigger issue is there are MUs that almost never see a count

[hunter1947]

management might use info red to count the animals in the timber ???.

[Wild one]

management might use info red to count the animals in the timber ???.

Dont know if it is used in BC but know it has been used in the U.S.

Honestly see less issue on how BC does counts on an area than the lack of counts in some MUs. This is where our managment could really use more man power and funding

[Fisher-Dude]

Dont know if it is used in BC but know it has been used in the U.S.

Honestly see less issue on how BC does counts on an area than the lack of counts in some MUs. This is where our managment could really use more man power and funding

Bingo.

The number that matters most is the number of dollars available to manage wildlife.

[Ltbullken]

The biologists first need to be properly funded and the managers not swayed by pressure from the stakeholders. I say follow what the science says is best to manage a population. In some areas, we want fewer species of animals like 'invasive whitetails' in Reg 3. In some areas, agriculture artificially supports populations that would not normally be there due to the abundance of food due to farming. And then the farmers complain so we need to reduce the wildlife population - i.e. Zone 7-20A. Across the province, we want to see more moose everywhere.

Every serious hunter should read anything and everything by Valerius Geist, who is probably the godfather of wildlife management biology in North America. Very enlightening material!

[mpotzold]

Our harvest data is among the most accurate in North America.

This according to Valerius Geist, the most respected wildlife biologist in North America.

If you understand sampling and statistics, you understand why this is true.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Studies, studies, studies-don’t trust them. Population parameters that the arm chair scientists use in determining the future moose harvest are too vague. Ex. there are between 145,000 & 235,000 moose in BC a gap of 90,000. Also the 2011 pop. estimate study in Omineca has a gap of 20, 000. (between 30 & 50 thousand).
Not very good to base a harvesting strategy.
Interpolation, extrapolation & too much guessing come to mind.

Considering the Omineca model.
The model is no doubt a failure & should be abandoned ASAP. PERIOD.
I have hunted the area since the mid 60's & we always connected until the early 80's when it was introduced. Then it gradually went downhill. Can't get a draw in my fav area.
There were 2x as many hunters when I started hunting the area & never once did I see a cow/calf hanging at a hunter's camp.

BTW I have never hunted cow/calf & probably never will unless it can be proven unequivocally that the cow/calf are above carrying capacity.

The answer-TNG supports project to recover moose:-D


http://media.bclocalnews.com/images/6148tribunechief-joe.jpg

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Vancouver island has less land than that of the EK If the island can hold up to 200,000 deer at one time why not the EK for WT deer??? the island now has as many deer on it as the entire EK right now...http://blog.gonanaimo.com/island-deer-population

Its all on some of my past posts why the EK has not got the numbers of WT deer that it should have..


Different habitat....different species....and a multitude of different factors mixed in.


Mississippi's whitetail population is 1.75 million. The state is about 5x the size of the East Kootenays. They don't have much for other ungulates and easy winters for their deer.
Should compare our deer densities to theirs? Or are there too many variable factors??

[Wild one]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Studies, studies, studies-don’t trust them. Population parameters that the arm chair scientists use in determining the future moose harvest are too vague. Ex. there are between 145,000 & 235,000 moose in BC a gap of 90,000. Also the 2011 pop. estimate study in Omineca has a gap of 20, 000. (between 30 & 50 thousand).
Not very good to base a harvesting strategy.
Interpolation, extrapolation & too much guessing come to mind.

Considering the Omineca model.
The model is no doubt a failure & should be abandoned ASAP. PERIOD.
I have hunted the area since the mid 60's & we always connected until the early 80's when it was introduced. Then it gradually went downhill. Can't get a draw in my fav area.
There were 2x as many hunters when I started hunting the area & never once did I see a cow/calf hanging at a hunter's camp.

BTW I have never hunted cow/calf & probably never will unless it can be proven unequivocally that the cow/calf are above carrying capacity.

The answer-TNG supports project to recover moose:-D


http://media.bclocalnews.com/images/6148tribunechief-joe.jpg

There is no doubt in my mind BCs wildlife managment is failing. This is shown by declining populations that are documented and no doubt many hunters with years under their belt have watch some areas decline. Multiple generations in my family have watched the moose number decline in 7a. My family no longer hunts 7a moose by choice

I do not directly blame bio's because they are lacking data and politically pressured. I am not just talking about how hunting is managed but more so all the other factors effecting game numbers that are not being addressed.

Like I have stated I don't see how female harvest is good for declining populations. I see no issue with female harvest in stable to increasing population where a surplus is available. We can all see how other areas can successfully have female harvest but we also need to consider the health of these populations compared to ours in BC

We have a wild card factor here in BC that can only be estimated at this time. We have a large FN population with treaty rights that maybe having a larger impact than estamated. Without cooperation from FN when it comes to harvest data we really do not know how small or large of an impact FN harvest has in some locations.

I really do not want BCs bio's job as they are working with estimated numbers that hold possibility of being inaccurate.

[Fisher-Dude]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Studies, studies, studies-don’t trust them. Population parameters that the arm chair scientists use in determining the future moose harvest are too vague. Ex. there are between 145,000 & 235,000 moose in BC a gap of 90,000. Also the 2011 pop. estimate study in Omineca has a gap of 20, 000. (between 30 & 50 thousand).
Not very good to base a harvesting strategy.
Interpolation, extrapolation & too much guessing come to mind.

Considering the Omineca model.
The model is no doubt a failure & should be abandoned ASAP. PERIOD.
I have hunted the area since the mid 60's & we always connected until the early 80's when it was introduced. Then it gradually went downhill. Can't get a draw in my fav area.
There were 2x as many hunters when I started hunting the area & never once did I see a cow/calf hanging at a hunter's camp.

BTW I have never hunted cow/calf & probably never will unless it can be proven unequivocally that the cow/calf are above carrying capacity.

The answer-TNG supports project to recover moose:-D


http://media.bclocalnews.com/images/6148tribunechief-joe.jpg


Zero science behind what you're preaching, but if it gives you solace, stick with it.

Won't help moose, however.

Case in point: moose declined in region 5 under bull only LEH by the same percentage as moose in the Omineca under a model that provided 52% of BC's moose harvest for 25 years.

If the Omineca model were the culprit, then region 5 would have shown different results. Moreover, the Omineca model would not have been sustainable for 25 years prior to the decline.

Hunters like to blame hunters. For once, hunters should look beyond regulations to find answers and solutions.

[horshur]

I have watched two local cow moose for a long time. They have a calf every year. Even a twin once! Not one of the calves ever lived long enough to participate in the rut. They were killed by wolves, hit on the highway and caught in a fence. For all the two cows ever accomplished they may as well have been dead.

[Pemby_mess]

We have a wild card factor here in BC that can only be estimated at this time. We have a large FN population with treaty rights that maybe having a larger impact than estamated. Without cooperation from FN when it comes to harvest data we really do not know how small or large of an impact FN harvest has in some locations.

Good post, agree 100%. Just wanted to nit pick one point - BC FN don't have "treaty rights" with exception of the Nisgaa. That's actually part of the problem in that it has left their stakeholder legal status open for negotiation with every land use decision in BC. Accordingly, the supreme court is forced to defer to the less precise common law during title negotiations in the absence of contracts such as those East of the Rockies.

Having said that - I agree they should be just as accountable to science if not more so, in the interest of making sound decisions for all involved. I like the idea of all hunters reporting success of their big game harvest every year prior to receiving next year's licence. The FN could do it, organized by band or something (I know that's probably a long shot) - unless they also have a resident hunting licence in which they report animals taken under that licence like everyone else.

[Fisher-Dude]

I have watched two local cow moose for a long time. They have a calf every year. Even a twin once! Not one of the calves ever lived long enough to participate in the rut. They were killed by wolves, hit on the highway and caught in a fence. For all the two cows ever accomplished they may as well have been dead.

No calf recruitment = shrinking population.

You've summed up the moose issue.

[Pemby_mess]

^^Ôops! just realized I forgot about treaty 8 which I suppose does apply to the area you were talking about Wild One. But it's worth noting that the rest of BC is in somewhat of a vulnerable legal state to this regard.

[Pemby_mess]

No calf recruitment = shrinking population.

You've summed up the moose issue.

Part of the thinking on the cow and calf harvest wrt moose is to starve out wolves - is it not?

[Fisher-Dude]

Part of the thinking on the cow and calf harvest wrt moose is to starve out wolves - is it not?

Only in areas under the caribou recovery strategy, where moose harvest was increased to decreased the predator load.

In the Omineca, the season structure has been in place for decades because it is sustainable and provided ample opportunity.

For those who like science, the decline in moose in proximal region 5 that coincided with 7A's decline was the perfect control/variable test of hunting regulations and their effect on moose populations. 7A with lots of opportunity, 5 with strict LEH bull only, both declined by the same amount.

[Caribou_lou]

Would have never guessed that expecially knowing some states hunters must bring all animals to a check station

guess there are places way worse when it come to harvest data

Yukon hunters must report all Caribou and Moose harvests within 15 days. Why doesn't BC do the same? Seems like it makes too much sense to know close to 100% hunter harvest. Just have a call line to report.

[Wild one]

Yukon hunters must report all Caribou and Moose harvests within 15 days. Why doesn't BC do the same? Seems like it makes too much sense to know close to 100% hunter harvest. Just have a call line to report.

I personally would have no issue calling into to report any big game harvest. Would no doubt increase the accuracy on legal hunting harvest numbers. With today's technology and Internet a combo of online reporting/phone in is not a far stretch in possibility. Even if it was an end of season report.

Before someone says we have hunter surveys already for this well yes I fill them out but 90% of the time I get surveys that don't even have the species I hunted or harvested

[HarryToolips]

Whenever there's a problem, throw $$$$ at it, we've all beat the drum to death about that, so are we legally able to make a petition or something that would FORCE the BC Prov. Government in charge to put all hunting and wildlife $$ back into wildlife and habitat???? They just did it with fishing I've been told, so I'm sure with an election coming up we could make it happen..

[hunter1947]

Whenever there's a problem, throw $$$$ at it, we've all beat the drum to death about that, so are we legally able to make a petition or something that would FORCE the BC Prov. Government in charge to put all hunting and wildlife $$ back into wildlife and habitat???? They just did it with fishing I've been told, so I'm sure with an election coming up we could make it happen..

So true me as well..

[Wild one]

Whenever there's a problem, throw $$$$ at it, we've all beat the drum to death about that, so are we legally able to make a petition or something that would FORCE the BC Prov. Government in charge to put all hunting and wildlife $$ back into wildlife and habitat???? They just did it with fishing I've been told, so I'm sure with an election coming up we could make it happen..


It takes more than $ but it helps. Letting govt know what hunters want through petition can help. Like many on this forum have stated hunters In BC need a stronger voice than we presently have.

Rummor is things may come together on this but I will wait and see.

[adriaticum]

but I will wait and see.

Don't be the one who waits.
Be the one who acts.

[Wild one]

Don't be the one who waits.
Be the one who acts.

Let me settle into my new home first lol

already debating if it is time I start pissing people off first hand lol

[adriaticum]

Let me settle into my new home first lol

already debating if it is time I start pissing people off first hand lol


Good ;)


--------

[saskbooknut]

It might be a good idea to actually know hunting licence revenues vs expenditures on game related management by the Province. Directly tied revenue to activity restricts flexibility, and leads to "that's all you get" no matter what emergency arises.

[Wild one]

Good ;)


--------

If I start getting more grey hair from it I am sending you a bill

Will need to shave my head more often so clippers will wear out faster and some warm hats for the winter lol

And my wife will hate it if I start helping an orginization pick fights again. So I will need to send a weekly bill for a bottle of wine to keep her off my back lol

I will be holding you responsible

[Fisher-Dude]

It might be a good idea to actually know hunting licence revenues vs expenditures on game related management by the Province. Directly tied revenue to activity restricts flexibility, and leads to "that's all you get" no matter what emergency arises.

$14 million revenue.

$2 million expenditure.

Go see your MLA.

[Bugle M In]

$14 million revenue.

$2 million expenditure.

Go see your MLA.

WOW!!!!!
That's Brutal, and to be honest, in this day and age, absolutely disgusting.

[horshur]

In regards to moose I think and this is just my opinion. Harvest stats did not reflect what was actually happening. This has been explained to me that with industrial development primarily through forest industry(roads) harvest number were skewed . We were mining moose. Checks and balances only work if they remain current with what is happening on the ground. I believe they fell short and even with hunters both guides and residents raising flags for the most part it fell on deaf ears.
Inventories taken have to be more concrete then an algorithm. Math can be so wrong with only one small error.

[HarryToolips]

Ok, so how the hell we start a petition?

[adriaticum]

Ok, so how the hell we start a petition?

Harry, I'll start the petition if you have a politician that is a difference maker ?

[Fisher-Dude]

Harry, I'll start the petition if you have a politician that is a difference maker ?

Lol Harry's MLA is none other than Christy.

He would have to approach her first to present the petition to the legislature.

Don't **** up the format, either. https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/40th-parliament/5th-session/petitions

Oh yeah, a petition can't ask for expenditures.

[adriaticum]

Lol Harry's MLA is none other than Christy.

He would have to approach her first to present the petition to the legislature.

Don't **** up the format, either. https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/40th-parliament/5th-session/petitions

Oh yeah, a petition can't ask for expenditures.


Petitions provided by government don't mean squat.
I don't care about the "government format".
I know Christy couldn't give a rats ass about it, but we just need to show intent I think.

[Fisher-Dude]

Petitions provided by government don't mean squat.
I don't care about the "government format".
I know Christy couldn't give a rats ass about it, but we just need to show intent I think.

If it isn't in the right format and according to legislature's rules, they won't even look at it. And they aren't even bound to look at it.

Ones that follow the rules they have to look at, by law.

[adriaticum]

If it isn't in the right format and according to legislature's rules, they won't even look at it. And they aren't even bound to look at it.

Ones that follow the rules they have to look at, by law.


Ok, that's a good point.
But, their petitions must be singed by hand, which is a non-starter for online petition.
We have to figure something out.
I had some success with petitions at Chilliwack gun shows.
But that's just LML.

[mpotzold]

So with the current situation with our wildlife populations its made me do some serious thinking...... I think it would be in the interest of our wildlife to eliminate all antlerless cow/doe seasons.... the reason being is quite simple killing one cow or doe kills many more future animals then that. I could be completely off my rocker but the stats show moose for instance can live for up to 10yrs in the wild realistically let's say 7 (i did get info back on a tooth once saying my moose was 9) of that 7yrs say 5 yrs of breeding of that 5 say 2 yrs she may have possible twins that's 7 calves..... so shooting 1 cow you have potentially killed a possible 7 moose plus the offspring of those 7 and so on!?!?!? So i very well may be an idiot but IMO shooting females has really lost its luster to me especially in the current situation of declining populations . I never really sat and thought much about it but it seems really easy to me it doesnt take many males to service plenty of females so we we kill the ones that replenish the herds makes very little sense in todays world...... what do you think am I nuts??


Here's another viewpoint! You be the judge!:wink:
Cows are the key!
A not impossible scenario- 250 moose added to the population from the original cow!
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=168

[HarryToolips]

If it isn't in the right format and according to legislature's rules, they won't even look at it. And they aren't even bound to look at it.

Ones that follow the rules they have to look at, by law.
Soooo, there's no way we can make an online petition then??? That would be the only way to git er done, IMO...

[Fisher-Dude]

Soooo, there's no way we can make an online petition then??? That would be the only way to git er done, IMO...

You can make one, but they don't have to read it out in the legislature.

[adriaticum]

Soooo, there's no way we can make an online petition then??? That would be the only way to git er done, IMO...


We can Harry, but they are not legally obligated to read that.
Now that doesn't really matter what matters is the intent.
We can make a petition and you can drop it off in her office and tell her what it's about.
Just that alone puts it in her head.
I could take it to my NDP MLA, I've spoken to him before about allocation and received surprising amount of attention.
But he is not the big wig.
Or we could find a few dozen people who have relations with their MLA and we could all together in one day submit copies of this petition to all of them.
That might make an impact.

[tinbird]

Until all hunters will abide by one universal set of rules, the cycles will continue with declining game populations. You can't have a group being able to do whatever, whenever, another group being given special privileges and still another group required to follow a different set of rules. Between predation, reducing range and encroachment and free for all, things aren't looking that great for big game in BC. In 15 years things will likely be fairly grim for all I'm afraid.
Back in NS in the 60/70s whitetail bucks were, for the most part, scarcer than unicorns and it wasn't until regulations were introduced, closing antlered hunting for a few seasons to allow the buck numbers to increase. Like that would ever even be considered here in BC regardless of how much it may be needed and would likely do more for increasing buck numbers instead of current 4 point or better, because too many refuse to give up bragging rights imho.

[wideopenthrottle]

it still comes down to habitat....if they have food shelter and security from preditors they will do well...winter is especially tough on herbivore populations and any incremental improvement there can result in much higher winter survival...healther fawn/calf...better recruitment of young

[horshur]

it still comes down to habitat....if they have food shelter and security from preditors they will do well...winter is especially tough on herbivore populations and any incremental improvement there can result in much higher winter survival...healther fawn/calf...better recruitment of young

if you read history. When the so called "habitat" was intact and there was security there simply was less animals. Kinda like were bitching about right now. What we see as the norm was not at all we are biased.

[HarryToolips]

Adriatic I'm sending you a pm....

[Ourea]

Meet with any regional game biologist and ask him what the challenges are for wildlife in his area.
He will easily answer the question.

Ask him what is the primary limiting factor in dealing with said challenges.
You will get one answer.......
$$$, as in budget.

Regulation is not a solution to the wildlife crisis we currently face.
A sustainable funding model is.

Habitat enhancement.
Road deactivation.
FN education on sustainable hunting practices.
Pred management.
Regulation is way down the list.

Comes back to funding.
Where/how?
Dollars from industry (anyone that makes it's living from BC resources and crown land)

[trapperRick]

Lets see if I understand some of the trains of thought here, shooting the females of a populations results in more animals? Sorry have to disagree.

It's like the CO that tried to convince me that the moose calf season was ok because most of the calves don't make the winter,,,well like I said to him everyone you shot sure won't. When everyone says the moose population is down by some 50%, I say STOP shooting the cow's and calves and I am sure the same goes for other animals as well like deer/elk/bison etc. the numbers will come back up and no one will convince me otherwise even if you quote science!!

[trapperRick]

There are many others factor's that are having a huge effect on numbers as well spraying chemicals to kill weeds/access roads/quads/habitat loss just to name a few.

[Spy]

Lets see if I understand some of the trains of thought here, shooting the females of a populations results in more animals? Sorry have to disagree.

It's like the CO that tried to convince me that the moose calf season was ok because most of the calves don't make the winter,,,well like I said to him everyone you shot sure won't. When everyone says the moose population is down by some 50%, I say STOP shooting the cow's and calves and I am sure the same goes for other animals as well like deer/elk/bison etc. the numbers will come back up and no one will convince me otherwise even if you quote science!!
I agree 110% with you, especially when moose numbers are so low. The older experienced cows know how too look after their young, they have learnt all the tricks, that come with age.

[Fisher-Dude]

Lets see if I understand some of the trains of thought here, shooting the females of a populations results in more animals? Sorry have to disagree.

It's like the CO that tried to convince me that the moose calf season was ok because most of the calves don't make the winter,,,well like I said to him everyone you shot sure won't. When everyone says the moose population is down by some 50%, I say STOP shooting the cow's and calves and I am sure the same goes for other animals as well like deer/elk/bison etc. the numbers will come back up and no one will convince me otherwise even if you quote science!!

Do you only trap male animals on your trapline?

[speycaster]

I see a lot on this thread about culling predators, but what about one of the prime predators with the long reach (humans ). Maybe their predation should also be curtailed. Shorter seasons ( maybe like Ontario two week season ) . More bow season , less firearm, more black powder, eliminate inline black powder, make all forest roads that are not mainline haul roads non motorized.

[Wild one]

Do you only trap male animals on your trapline?

Bet he does trap females in limited numbers with many species. I also bet he knows the furbear harvest on his line sex and numbers beyond wildlife managment knows with big game harvest. Add in a smart trapper pulls his traps for a species if he finds his female harvest is high even if it's mid season. Many also adjust thier harvest if sign is lacking showing lower numbers that season.

Big difference with a trap line where you can strictly control harvest since you are the only trapper on the line. Lots of tricks to it

Trapline managment is a lot easier do to more control overall

[saskbooknut]

With the prevailing emotional points of view exceeding the scientific analysis of game management, it is clear that the first thing that is needed is a public education campaign for the hunting population of B.C.

[Ourea]

with the prevailing emotional points of view exceeding the scientific analysis of game management, it is clear that the first thing that is needed is a public education campaign for the hunting population of b.c.

understatement!!!

[Rob Chipman]

^^^^ it is clear that the first thing that is needed is a public education campaign for the hunting population of B.C.


That's probably something we could accomplish. There seems to be a fair bit of knowledge available here.

[Rob Chipman]

FWIW (and I'm not making any connection here, but this has something to do with habitat) time lapse on Google Earth Engine gives you an interesting view on how the landscape has changed.

https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/

zoom out (it starts in Florida) and then zoom in on your favourite areas in BC and see how it changes over time.

[HarryToolips]

Lets see if I understand some of the trains of thought here, shooting the females of a populations results in more animals? Sorry have to disagree.

It's like the CO that tried to convince me that the moose calf season was ok because most of the calves don't make the winter,,,well like I said to him everyone you shot sure won't. When everyone says the moose population is down by some 50%, I say STOP shooting the cow's and calves and I am sure the same goes for other animals as well like deer/elk/bison etc. the numbers will come back up and no one will convince me otherwise even if you quote science!!
Oh I agree with mule deer, elk moose, and Caribou, but where in BC is there a GOS for female ungulates other than whitetail??? Whitetails are a completely different animal folks, they adapt to pressure, out compete, and multiply like no other.....

[TravisC]

How about we manage by science instead of emotion?

Science says wildlife herds are strongest when there is harvest across all age and sex classes. It's foolproof, has been studied to death across North America, and it works.

Emotion says let's throw some shit against the wall and see if something sticks.

Harvest of male only components of a population is the absolute worst thing we could possibly do.

Politicians love guys like you - it's cheap to screw with seasons, even though seasons won't affect wildlife numbers. Habitat and predator control will help populations, but those cost money, and politicians hate that.



Couldn't agree with you more except,
The problems with any or all situations at controlling herd #'s is actually knowing the #'s. or having somewhere to start. Even the biologists just use a guestimate as to what harvest numbers have been met.
How many people tagged out with 3 deer last year or even just 1 and when the hunter survey came out it asked if you hunted wolf. wtf ?? Why doesn't the survey have every huntable BC big game species to better understand the #'s . You can use science and estimate pred kills a year but how do we know how many animals have been poached or even legally harvested if not recorded. When will there ever be accountability for natives? that would help biologists, but as it stands we will never know how many animals are taken by aboriginals. So with those 3 factors alone the #'s are a crap shoot.

[Salty]

With the prevailing emotional points of view exceeding the scientific analysis of game management, it is clear that the first thing that is needed is a public education campaign for the hunting population of B.C.

Most accurate post of the thread!

[adriaticum]

With the prevailing emotional points of view exceeding the scientific analysis of game management, it is clear that the first thing that is needed is a public education campaign for the hunting population of B.C.


Are you saying BCWF is failing to educate BC hunting community about the issues at hand?

[TravisC]

Petitions provided by government don't mean squat.
I don't care about the "government format".
I know Christy couldn't give a rats ass about it, but we just need to show intent I think.

Kristy's boy toy is a guide or works for a guiding outfit. How do you think with all the rallies, petitions and hunter up roar did the higher allocations still get passed giving more to guiding? She don't give a rats ass about what happens to low life open season hunters like us that don't or cant afford 10,000$ for a guided hunt. Close seasons on us, she'd be fine with it, but do you think the guiding outfits will be closesd also? Highly doubt that.

[Salty]

Are you saying BCWF is failing to educate BC hunting community about the issues at hand?

They're not a school but they do hold and publish a ton of information all people have to do is read it. But you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[Fisher-Dude]

Are you saying BCWF is failing to educate BC hunting community about the issues at hand?

Is that the BCWF's job?

In the US, the education system covers a lot of these topics. Hell, some states give kids a day off school for opening day of deer season.

What's the matter with BC's school system? Too littered with safe spaces and BCTF influence?

[adriaticum]

Is that the BCWF's job?




YES

It's already doing it, just needs to do more of it.





In the US, the education system covers a lot of these topics. Hell, some states give kids a day off school for opening day of deer season.

What's the matter with BC's school system? Too littered with safe spaces and BCTF influence?



Agreed.

Now I need a safe space to finish what I'm working on.

[mpotzold]

More on the Omineca model
From 2000 to 2009 approximately 12000 cow/calf were killed by resident hunters. That translates to about 9000 female moose.
Some report that there has been at least a 50% decline since 2005 in the Omineca area.
It doesn't take a scientist to see the negative correlation between the 2 scenarios.

Been moose hunting the area since the 60's when it was GOS & one could hunt from Aug. till Dec. We were very successful. There were 2x the hunters.
From Vanderhoof to north of Uslika Lake cows & calves were a common sight in swampy areas & on the road. Not any more!

No doubt predation by both bears & to a lesser extent wolves are a factor behind the declining numbers.
And lets not forget the 24/7 by the FN.

Re:region 5 west of Fraser moose decline. From our ( & many others we talked to ) observation the bears(mostly black) are mostly to blame. There are just way too many. Some reports say that they can kill more than 50% of young calves. A couple of years ago could have killed 14 black bears in 3 days. Wolves & FN are no doubt a factor but the numbers are unknown.

[IronNoggin]

Wasn't going to weigh in on this one... But...


Wildlife management 101.

Harvesting only one component of a population places undue strain on that segment.

Harvesting across age and sex classes provides stability in sex ratios and increases fawn/calf recruitment ratios.

In the case of a stable or increasing population, this does make sense, and as such is the accepted practice throughout much of North America.


More on the Omineca model
From 2000 to 2009 approximately 12000 cow/calf were killed by resident hunters. That translates to about 9000 female moose.
Some report that there has been at least a 50% decline since 2005 in the Omineca area.
It doesn't take a scientist to see the negative correlation between the 2 scenarios.

However in the case of a depressed and / or declining population harvesting females and/or young is not recommended. The females are the "broodstock" required to augment population numbers. Reducing their numbers directly (negatively) effects their potential to increase overall population levels.

Regardless of what He Who Insists He Is Always Right may suggest, proper management techniques do not condone the removal of females under such conditions.

And before you ask FD, yes, I am educated well beyond "101". :wink:

Cheers,
Nog

[Spy]

Wasn't going to weigh in on this one... But...



In the case of a stable or increasing population, this does make sense, and as such is the accepted practice throughout much of North America.



However in the case of a depressed and / or declining population harvesting females and/or young is not recommended. The females are the "broodstock" required to augment population numbers. Reducing their numbers directly (negatively) effects their potential to increase overall population levels.

Regardless of what He Who Insists He Is Always Right may suggest, proper management techniques do not condone the removal of females under such conditions.

And before you ask FD, yes, I am educated well beyond "101". :wink:

Cheers,
Nog
I read this yesterday you are correct. Ron Thompson explains it perfectly, in his book wildlife management. I will scan the pages if anyone is interested.

[adriaticum]

Wasn't going to weigh in on this one... But...



In the case of a stable or increasing population, this does make sense, and as such is the accepted practice throughout much of North America.



However in the case of a depressed and / or declining population harvesting females and/or young is not recommended. The females are the "broodstock" required to augment population numbers. Reducing their numbers directly (negatively) effects their potential to increase overall population levels.

Regardless of what He Who Insists He Is Always Right may suggest, proper management techniques do not condone the removal of females under such conditions.

And before you ask FD, yes, I am educated well beyond "101". :wink:

Cheers,
Nog



I hope nobody hears me, but I may actually agree with you.

:shock: :shock:

[saskbooknut]

Better references for BC game management than Ron Thompson would include the Wildlife Management Institute monographs -
Whitetailed Deer, Ecology and Management
Mule and Blacktailed Deer of North America
Elk of North America
No lightweight reading here but they are the core species-specific texts.

[Spy]

Better references for BC game management than Ron Thompson would include the Wildlife Management Institute monographs -
Whitetailed Deer, Ecology and Management
Mule and Blacktailed Deer of North America
Elk of North America
No lightweight reading here but they are the core species-specific texts.
Absolutely I agree, it was just crazy that I read that yesterday and than Nog posted it today.

[horshur]

Wasn't going to weigh in on this one... But...



In the case of a stable or increasing population, this does make sense, and as such is the accepted practice throughout much of North America.



However in the case of a depressed and / or declining population harvesting females and/or young is not recommended. The females are the "broodstock" required to augment population numbers. Reducing their numbers directly (negatively) effects their potential to increase overall population levels.

Regardless of what He Who Insists He Is Always Right may suggest, proper management techniques do not condone the removal of females under such conditions.

And before you ask FD, yes, I am educated well beyond "101". :wink:

Cheers,
Nog


Moose #'s have collapsed under different management regimes nearly equally. What is the smoking gun?

[J_T]

Wasn't going to weigh in on this one... But...



In the case of a stable or increasing population, this does make sense, and as such is the accepted practice throughout much of North America.



However in the case of a depressed and / or declining population harvesting females and/or young is not recommended. The females are the "broodstock" required to augment population numbers. Reducing their numbers directly (negatively) effects their potential to increase overall population levels.

Regardless of what He Who Insists He Is Always Right may suggest, proper management techniques do not condone the removal of females under such conditions.

And before you ask FD, yes, I am educated well beyond "101". :wink:

Cheers,
NogI too have been following but holding off. Thank you for the above. Going back to the Whitetail thread that escalated, all hunters in the EK were saying is that they are seeing less deer. Things always escalate when one person works to discredit everyone else rather than listen to what is being said. There are logical thought processes/formulas that do support a statement that harvesting females is a regulatory 'choice' that does have an impact.

[adriaticum]

Fisher-dude's science doesn't account for one important social factor.
It may be that harvesting across all ages reduces stress on breeding age bucks.
That is true if the number of hunters remains the same.
But when you have a 4 point season chances are you will see a lot less hunters in the bush.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Moose #'s have collapsed under different management regimes nearly equally. What is the smoking gun?

Agreed but Not just moose in BC. Much of western North America has and is going through declining numbers and recruitment with mulitiple big game species. Science says that each area much be studied and the problems must be indentified but blaming regulations is one thing that we can eliminate.
People need to back up and take a look around us.

The great Yellowstone experiment had to be done but it was like conducting a prescribed burn in the middle of August.

SSS

[Timbow]

Moose #'s have collapsed under different management regimes nearly equally. What is the smoking gun?

I think it's more than one smoking gun for moose populations. It's easy to point the finger to factors we can see. The Landscape Change Hypothesis research paper listed starvation and unknown factors combined with what we see in unregulated hunting, predators and vehicle collisions.

http://www.bvrodandgun.ca/index_266_1076948904.pdf

[IronNoggin]

Moose #'s have collapsed under different management regimes nearly equally. What is the smoking gun?

Likely quite different according to region I'd hazard a guess.

In some I do believe the cow / calf harvest directly contributed.

In most, habitat is a concern.

In others depredation (see mpotzold's post above) whether by wolves, bears etc is a heavily contributing factor.

And in many, uncontrolled FN harvests play a significant role.

I believe that in the majority of situations here in BC, there is no singular "smoking gun", rather a combination of factors working together to depress moose populations. And in cases of such increasingly depressed populations, it goes against the very grain of proper scientific wildlife management to intentionally reduce the number of breeding females.

Cheers,
Nog

[Fisher-Dude]

Likely quite different according to region I'd hazard a guess.



So you're telling us that the wolves don't dare cross into 7A from 5, and that hunting is to blame wherever it suits your personal hypothesis.

It's fortunate that our wildlife biologists think differently from the majority of posters on this thread.

[saskbooknut]

Until wildlife populations are closely examined to find the critical controlling factors, all speculation here is just that.
Though I am a BC guy from childhood and hunted in BC until I was 39, I live in Saskabush now, with its own wildlife management issues.
I have not given up my interest in the issues of Vancouver Island and Kootenay wildlife that I loved so much.
I am surprised that there has not been insider info from BC MOE or an articulate BCWF wildlife rep analysing the observed decline in Elk, Moose and Deer referred to in this thread.

[IronNoggin]

So you're telling us that the wolves don't dare cross into 7A from 5, and that hunting is to blame wherever it suits your personal hypothesis.

Perhaps I should have made that a little easier to understand. Geographic region (as opposed to wildlife management units / regions) would be a little more fitting.
And yes, there can be / are significant differences in wolf / bear populations between areas that are widely separated from each other. Predator populations are anything but homogeneous, and as a consequence neither are their influences on prey species.

Hunting can be and is at times a contributing factor to targeted species declines. Coupled with other limiting factors, it can be a substantial contributor to the targeted population's decline. In matter of moose here (and in several other jurisdictions I am aware of) the case can very much be made that in certain areas this situation is occurring. Not simply my "personal hypothesis", but one I happen to share with a good handful of practicing field biologists I count among my Friends.


It's fortunate that our wildlife biologists think differently from the majority of posters on this thread.

Remind me just when and where you received YOUR wildlife management degree from again?? :roll:

Cheers,
Nog

[mpotzold]

More on region 5

Kudos to Dan Simmons, founder of the “Cow Moose Project”.
“We need to set an example that cow moose should be protected”
Even 4 cow/calf moose tags in Region 5 are too many.
http://www.wltribune.com/opinion/297721701.html

Way to go Dan-Even Chief Joe Alphonse supports the COW MOOSE PROJECT with an approving smile -see post#60



Williams Lake Sportsmen’s Association president Moe Monita (left) and Chilcotin Guns owner Al Bush (right) support the efforts of Dan Simmons (centre), who has initiated a cow moose sign project in an effort to bring attention to the challenges currently facing the moose population in Region 5.—



http://media.bclocalnews.com/images/8084tribunemoose-sign-Recovered.jpg



Another viewpoint from Doug Hamm, a long time hunter of WL
http://www.wltribune.com/news/228030171.html

[Bugle M In]

Here's another dramatic change since the 80's.
I hunt the Cache Creek/Loon Lake/Bonaparte/Kamloops Lake Area for Muley's come November.
Take a look at you favorite place, and see how things have changed also.
I am not trying to give logging/loggers a bad rap, but, it is quite dramatic to see how the landscape has changed.
And don't forget, each new cut block, has a road into it!
https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/

Also, I won't take credit for the link, as it was posted by another member on a different thread....
But, man!, it sure is something to behold.

[HarryToolips]

^^^^no doubt, a little funding toward some spur road deactivation would be awesome...

[Fisher-Dude]

Guide Dan Simmons can't sell antlerless moose hunts to foreign trophy hunters.

Antlerless moose hunts are 98% for BC resident hunters.

Not sure why some people cheer on a campaign to further restrict resident moose hunts by a guide, but each to their own I guess.

[Steeleco]

Don't make me the HBC Grinch right before Xmas. Play nice

[Timbow]

Guide Dan Simmons can't sell antlerless moose hunts to foreign trophy hunters.

Antlerless moose hunts are 98% for BC resident hunters.

Not sure why some people cheer on a campaign to further restrict resident moose hunts by a guide, but each to their own I guess.

There is no cow (or calf for that matter) season in region 5. There is only 4 antlerless leh authoritarians in the entire region. What user group do you think it is aimed at?

I'm not against the harvest of antlered animals. At what point do you stop what you can control?

IMO, I would give up a certain percentage of bull moose leh in R5 for a spike/fork season when the population can support it. When is that time?

[IronNoggin]

... It's fortunate that our wildlife biologists think differently from the majority of posters on this thread.

KeRist! Why does it always have to be confrontational with you?? :shock:

I did note that the model you presented (for whitetail) way back on the first page of this thread is accepted as the proper management technique to apply to that species - when the population is stable and / or increasing. And I firmly agree with your thoughts (and the majority of professional wildlife managers in NA) in this regard.

This said, there is NO singular model that applies across ALL circumstances.

Where we apparently differ relates to depressed and / or declining populations of various ungulate species. In the particular case of moose in BC (many areas), the original model you cited is simply no longer applicable. At the point we find ourselves in that regard (and again, we are not alone facing this issue), management's usual desire is to increase the population to levels beyond where they stand at present, and to do so in a somewhat timely manner. Pretty much textbook material under such circumstances to reduce the annual mortality rate among cows (first & foremost) and calves (secondary but important) as much as can be affected by management decision & subsequent regulation manipulation.

Recognizing that the latter can only influence what it can, it should come as no surprise that limiting / culminating legal, accountable hunting removals of breeding cows (and to an extent calves) until such time as the population can or does rebuild is accepted common practice among NA management teams. Also recognize that while they (the legal, accountable hunters) may not be the "bottleneck" or causal factor to the related population declines, it is one of the few factors management can influence. Finally recognize that continued harvesting of breeding females is extremely counterproductive towards management ends, and btw to legal, accountable hunter desires.

In a perfect world (sic) the population in question would rebound within a realistic time-frame as expected.
In the real world, compounding factors may spell that population never rebounds.
That is a task above any biologists pay grade except to identify what those factors might be.
It is up to political whim to directly address them...

Regardless, failing to control the few factors you can is incomprehensible in terms of Proper, Scientific Management...

In Fact FD, many of BC's wildlife biologists understand both management models, as well as when & where to apply them.

Unfortunately some do not.
Unfortunately many have their hands tied by political masters.
And unfortunately some, as a consequence, have been lead into the trap of contributing to certain population declines.

Cheers,
Nog

[adriaticum]

Wise words Noggin, even thought I disagree with you on everything lol

[hunter1947]

Been following this thread for a few days without saying much the past week my thoughts are for the numbers to rebound in a region for WT that once had high numbers..

For numbers to rebound these are three things I would say work,,,#1Control predators first #2 then close the WT season down no joiner GOS in regions that are declining
big time #3 No GOS for WT deer does......GOS for WT close the season down earlier GOS Sept 10-----Oct 20..Will the management control predators in problem regions
I doubt it..

Just watch the rebound big time in a few years you like it or not,,,,,,,,,thoughts...:smile:...

****************PS the reason I would bet my life on my thoughts is I know it would work but I know it will never happen******************

[HarryToolips]

^^^^yes you would definitely see more WT deer in a few years, but would the other ungulates in R4 start to suffer?? And you would also be making more food for predators again..

[hunter1947]

I doubt that others would suffer reason being like I said have to control predators first if not won't work ,,,,,, still all prey animals would be there
predators still would prey on all prey animals large or small within all but the predator numbers would be under control this is the most important ..

[adriaticum]

I doubt that others would suffer reason being like I said have to control predators first still all prey animals would be there
predators still would prey on all prey animals large or small within all..



Wayne, put your tent up in the winter and make a call. The armies will arrive.

[Bugle M In]

KeRist! Why does it always have to be confrontational with you?? :shock:

I did note that the model you presented (for whitetail) way back on the first page of this thread is accepted as the proper management technique to apply to that species - when the population is stable and / or increasing. And I firmly agree with your thoughts (and the majority of professional wildlife managers in NA) in this regard.

This said, there is NO singular model that applies across ALL circumstances.

Where we apparently differ relates to depressed and / or declining populations of various ungulate species. In the particular case of moose in BC (many areas), the original model you cited is simply no longer applicable. At the point we find ourselves in that regard (and again, we are not alone facing this issue), management's usual desire is to increase the population to levels beyond where they stand at present, and to do so in a somewhat timely manner. Pretty much textbook material under such circumstances to reduce the annual mortality rate among cows (first & foremost) and calves (secondary but important) as much as can be affected by management decision & subsequent regulation manipulation.

Recognizing that the latter can only influence what it can, it should come as no surprise that limiting / culminating legal, accountable hunting removals of breeding cows (and to an extent calves) until such time as the population can or does rebuild is accepted common practice among NA management teams. Also recognize that while they (the legal, accountable hunters) may not be the "bottleneck" or causal factor to the related population declines, it is one of the few factors management can influence. Finally recognize that continued harvesting of breeding females is extremely counterproductive towards management ends, and btw to legal, accountable hunter desires.

In a perfect world (sic) the population in question would rebound within a realistic time-frame as expected.
In the real world, compounding factors may spell that population never rebounds.
That is a task above any biologists pay grade except to identify what those factors might be.
It is up to political whim to directly address them...

Regardless, failing to control the few factors you can is incomprehensible in terms of Proper, Scientific Management...

In Fact FD, many of BC's wildlife biologists understand both management models, as well as when & where to apply them.

Unfortunately some do not.
Unfortunately many have their hands tied by political masters.
And unfortunately some, as a consequence, have been lead into the trap of contributing to certain population declines.

Cheers,
Nog

OK....here goes....
I am in agreement with IronNoggin, and his last post.
Sorry FD....
FD, I respect your input and the wealth of info you provide this website/forum.
In the past, you have taken time to pm me on certain questions I had, and I thank you for that and it is much appreciated.
But, I need to say something on a few issues that are arising.
I'm not a moderator, just I guy who cares and does involve himself in many of the "debatable threads" on this site.
Lately, I have been getting pm's from several members on this site, and expressing to me their frustration of other members
being somewhat "condescending" to them.
They also express to me that they have little desire to participate in this forum any longer.
I hate to bring up other members names, but will, just in hopes that things can get a bit more "civilized".
FD and GG, I truly respect the info the both of you present on this site....on an ongoing basis as well.
You both care a lot, and you both want to contribute in a manner that hopefully one day helps in making
changes to wildlife and habitat here in BC....
But, when people who also have opinions, and also care, and granted, lesser informed, such as myself at times, are told
they have their "heads up there asses" or to phrases such as that......
You will lose the "respect" from those members on here.
Hate to say this, but each member here is needed, and is important to the future of BC Hunting and Wildlife.
If I can say this....
Just relay the facts as you know it to us, but maybe....just leave out the last line that at times is not "factual" but rather a
"dig" on another poster.
Anyways, I hope the both of you don't bash me to hard, and can take my point of view to heart.
As I have said, I respect you both, and the work and time you both take.....100%.
Yes, people need to have a tougher skin at times on a public forum, I agree.....but.....
What good does all the wealth of information you both have do....if people start to tune you out??
Than we are just wasting time.
OKay....fire away, but I am heading out the door right now for my last attempt of the year on a "big old Muley" in reg 3!
but I should start to find some new areas in Reg 5 I suspect??.
BMI

[adriaticum]

Good post bugle.


Sometimes, you have to know the person to be able to put their language into context and properly interpret it.
90 percent of communication is non verbal.

[Fisher-Dude]

I doubt that others would suffer reason being like I said have to control predators first if not won't work ,,,,,, still all prey animals would be there
predators still would prey on all prey animals large or small within all but the predator numbers would be under control this is the most important ..

Right here, Wayne. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/wsi/reports/5093_WSI_5093_RPT.PDF

Mule deer adversely affected by high whitetail populations which supplementally feed cougar populations.

Read all about it. Mule deer will suffer with more whitetails.

[hunter1947]

Right here, Wayne. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/wsi/reports/5093_WSI_5093_RPT.PDF

Mule deer adversely affected by high whitetail populations which supplementally feed cougar populations.

Read all about it. Mule deer will suffer with more whitetails.

Like I said If the cougar wolves were controlled like I said on my previous posts then the predators would not be a big factor on prey animals but we all know this will not happen ,,I know this because the region I hanted 48 years ago and still do I never saw heard or seen any wolves in the area for many years,,,what's this tell you ,,it's only the past 15 years that I have noticed a big problem with wolfs within the area I hunt all and everything is a big bad circle with all,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that's my opinion and I am not going to change what my thoughts are..

[Fisher-Dude]

Like I said If the cougar wolves were controlled like I said on my previous posts then the predators would not be a big factor on prey animals but we all know this will not happen ,,I know this because the region I hanted 48 years ago and still do I never saw heard or seen any wolves in the area for many years,,,what's this tell you ,,it's only the past 15 years that I have noticed a big problem with wolfs within the area I hunt all and everything is a big bad circle with all,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that's my opinion and I am not going to change what my thoughts are..


I guess you chose not to read it.

Too bad. :(

[HighCountryBC]

that's my opinion and I am not going to change what my thoughts are..

Sorry, Wayne but that is exactly what the problem is. Whitetail have been studied more than any ungulate in North America. The science doesn't lie.

[hunter1947]

Then tell me regarding this link..http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/ws...I_5093_RPT.PDF (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/wsi/reports/5093_WSI_5093_RPT.PDF) why is it not working there is a big decline on all game animals as I post
acoring to this link we should be overwhelmed with animals..

[hunter1947]

I guess you chose not to read it.

Too bad. :(

Pat yes it is to bad and that's my choice isn't it if I looked at the link or not,,,,,many of times I am not a believer in there science if the science works then why are where we are with populations of animals it all boils down to my past posts on this thread so many problems within all..

[saskbooknut]

Reason that Science often doesn't or can't deliver improvements in available game animals -
1. Adequate information is not gathered - it actually takes a lot of work to identify critical factors in populations
2. Not enough biologists on staff to gather adequate information, analyse and prepare management plans
3. Even when data is on hand and management plans are formulated, the decisions on controversial management strategies are taken at a political level of government
4. Too many vested interests interfering with habitat management, or population management, or hunter management - i.e. ranchers, loggers or guide outfitters with monetary interest influencing game management decisions
5. Critical habitat is under subdivisions, high speed highways or under water

The failures are rarely failures of science, but failure by inaction, inadequate funding or competing interests. I am sure many more reasons can be added to the list by other participants in this thread.

[Trapper]

Maybe when we go to online for our hunting license in the future you will have to fill a harvest report out before you can get your license .then maybe we can get a more accurate data. But what I can tell you the whitetail numbers have dropped , i'am no expert but I can tell from what I see driving up and down the logging roads 12 hours a day 5 days a week, doing it for 40 years. (driving logging truck) use to see 20 deer a day now your lucky to see 5 deer in a week .even when we get snow you just don't see any sign. and you can ask any of the locals and they will tell you the same thing. Guys like me and hunter1947 two guys that spend a lot of time in the bush, although were not scientists we can report to you what we do see . maybe just maybe you should listen to what some of us have to say.

[Husky7mm]

I believe hunting affects the game populations way more than anyone cares to admit and I believe there are way less animals than they estimated. The correction for un sighted un counted animals is somewhat flawed.

[adriaticum]

Good post Saskbooknut.
Also science is localized often applicable to a region.
Science is also frequently too focused and does not see and cover the big picture.
Science should always rely on boots on the ground.
And it's also slow to change and adapt to new conditions and new information.
So science is great but its not absolute.
Lets not make it into a religion.

[blacklab]

Bugle, your post #143 says it like it is on this sight.
Thank you!

[saskbooknut]

Scientific analysis of game populations would hardly be complete without "boots on the ground".
There is a problem however with anecdotal evidence leading to proposed "solutions".

[HarryToolips]

Maybe when we go to online for our hunting license in the future you will have to fill a harvest report out before you can get your license .then maybe we can get a more accurate data. But what I can tell you the whitetail numbers have dropped , i'am no expert but I can tell from what I see driving up and down the logging roads 12 hours a day 5 days a week, doing it for 40 years. (driving logging truck) use to see 20 deer a day now your lucky to see 5 deer in a week .even when we get snow you just don't see any sign. and you can ask any of the locals and they will tell you the same thing. Guys like me and hunter1947 two guys that spend a lot of time in the bush, although were not scientists we can report to you what we do see . maybe just maybe you should listen to what some of us have to say.
Ya that's what they say around here too....then when ya go in the bush there's the sign again, and t cams don't lie, they're still there..

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

I am yet another here on HBC that was not going to post up in this thread and subsequently changed up my idea... Here's my take and opinion on the matter -

What Hunters do or do not do is entirely irrelevant, as are the regs. #1 problem is destruction of habitat/habitat changes and alterations brought about by human activities and infrastructure (agriculture, city/towns, highways et al). #2 is everything else - Predation, starvation and other environmental factors including diseases. #3 - Deaths of Game Species caused by crashes on the train tracks and Highways. Plus the entirely uncontrolled and unreported killings by those above the law types, Indians with Status cards and such.

The bottom line is that the seasons and regs do nothing in my estimation but generate revenue and perpetuate the nanny state (they clearly get off on trying to control us and banning stuff and things. It is a weird fetish gov't types are possessed of). The gov't wants that money for their coffers, not for animals/habitat so they'll keep just keep on keeping it instead of putting that cash where we figure it needs to be. Regs and licenses are just a cash cow.

Hunter harvest is irrelevant in the big picture/overall species level (clearly it makes a difference to the individual that dies by Hunter). I've heard various figures, highest being 10% of all mortality is caused by Hunting. Meaning that 90% of Wildlife individuals that die in any given year have deaths caused by non Hunting factors (struck by some kind of vehicle: fang/tooth/claw, disease or some such).

All banning any hunting does is screw up our Hunts and enjoyment of time afield. Reduction of opportunity is always bad, just totally negative with no benefits. In my estimation BC seasons/regulations are far too restrictive as is.

[adriaticum]

What Hunters do or do not do is entirely irrelevant, as are the regs.

Hunter harvest is irrelevant in the big picture/overall species level (clearly it makes a difference to the individual that dies by Hunter)




- Tell that to the bison, the beaver and the elk that used to be the most distributed ungulate in north america.

Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership would disagree with you.
And there would be no need for the North American model of conservation, if you were right.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

- Tell that to the bison, the beaver and the elk that used to be the most distributed ungulate in north america.

Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership would disagree with you.
And there would be no need for the North American model of conservation, if you were right.

They are just as welcome to read my opinion right here on HBC! :mrgreen:

Market Hunting and Hunting are different. The former being a commercial activity. Bison died to make way for the changes to the land and that just might be the exception to the rule! Beaver are all over the place still. The fur trade of centuries past died to the whims of fashion in Europe, not over hunting of Beaver.

As for that other stuff?

I am as big a fan of ol' Teddy and support naming things after the guy, great US president. Other than that? Those things are useless.

Again folks - These are just one man's opinion.

[whitespringer]

"So science is great but its not absolute.
Lets not make it into a religion".[/QUOTE]


Ahh, therein lies the truth, science is a religion. It requires absolute faith to trust in unproven theories. ��

[adriaticum]

They are just as welcome to read my opinion right here on HBC! :mrgreen:

Market Hunting and Hunting are different. The former being a commercial activity. Bison died to make way for the changes to the land and that just might be the exception to the rule! Beaver are all over the place still. The fur trade of centuries past died to the whims of fashion in Europe, not over hunting of Beaver.

As for that other stuff?

I am as big a fan of ol' Teddy and support naming things after the guy, great US president. Other than that? Those things are useless.

Again folks - These are just one man's opinion.




lol, ok, you take dung and wrap it nicely it's hard to continue.
16 million people in 1800 laid a beating on the bison.
We now have 20 times the population.
It doesn't matter what the reason for hunting is.
The bottom line is we can't just go industrial on a resource and expect it to last in perpetuity.
We have to plan.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

Science is definitely faith based, all things are. If you do not believe the fundamental premise and principles then subsequent things are not going to make sense. In that sense (and that it can be a belief system) science is indeed a religion. That said "religion" is not the term I tend to use to describe science. I'd go with belief system.

Adriaticum - Thanks buddy, likewise! No need to continue, I assure you. It'll just go round and round with us. ;) Please do note that I am not suggesting industrialising Hunting and do differentiate between commercial activities (such as the former trade of Market Hunting, for example) and recreational Hunting/Subsistence and so on. I felt I made this clear earlier.

As far as doing something? Why not! If youse guys need some support I'm here for you. Just please let's not limit our opportunities further. In the general way of things once an opportunity to Hunt is gone, it's gone for good. Way too long, in the least.

[Fisher-Dude]

Maybe when we go to online for our hunting license in the future you will have to fill a harvest report out before you can get your license .then maybe we can get a more accurate data. But what I can tell you the whitetail numbers have dropped , i'am no expert but I can tell from what I see driving up and down the logging roads 12 hours a day 5 days a week, doing it for 40 years. (driving logging truck) use to see 20 deer a day now your lucky to see 5 deer in a week .even when we get snow you just don't see any sign. and you can ask any of the locals and they will tell you the same thing. Guys like me and hunter1947 two guys that spend a lot of time in the bush, although were not scientists we can report to you what we do see . maybe just maybe you should listen to what some of us have to say.

Explain to us why you think seeing 20 deer a day is a sign of healthy deer herds.

[blacklab]

Explain to us why you think seeing 20 deer a day is a sign of healthy deer herds.

So when people like you kill your does and fawns there will be some left.

[Fisher-Dude]

So when people like you kill your does and fawns there will be some left.

You are a special fellow.

Good luck out there.

[Husky7mm]

So when people like you kill your does and fawns there will be some left.

Bahahaha, funny cause it's true!

[Trapper]

Explain to us why you think seeing 20 deer a day is a sign of healthy deer herds.


explain to ME why seeing 5 deer in a week is a sign of a healthy deer herd

[hunter1947]

explain to ME why seeing 5 deer in a week is a sign of a healthy deer herd


X2 where are they ??

[HarryToolips]

^^^^when I was in your neck of ththe woods last September, I saw plenty of wt does, the bucks were already wisened up to the traffic and staying off the roads already...my neck of the woods, numbers of both species are down slightly from my counts, but I would think it's from a couple not so mild winters and snowpack, as well as urban encroachment on critical winter range..

[J_T]

^^^ I'm getting tired of threads like this. The facts are, there is no single group in the EK, including Government the BCWF, anyone that says wildlife numbers here are stable or doing fine. In fact, there are multiple demands for Government Action. There are meetings on this constantly, meetings with MLAs, with Government staff at all levels. There are groups coming together expressing their concerns on an ongoing basis. Those who live here know.

[Greenthumbed]

^^^ I'm getting tired of threads like this. The facts are, there is no single group in the EK, including Government the BCWF, anyone that says wildlife numbers here are stable or doing fine. In fact, there are multiple demands for Government Action. There are meetings on this constantly, meetings with MLAs, with Government staff at all levels. There are groups coming together expressing their concerns on an ongoing basis. Those who live here know.
Agreed!
I've lived in Golden for nearly twenty years now. I have observed the ungulate populations decline over that time dramatically. Our Rod and Gun club had its annual banquet last week and only one elk, one mule deer and about a half dozen whitetail enteries for the antler scoring. That's with well over a hundred folks at the banquet.

[Jelvis]

-- It's never been easy to shoot a record sized animule. There are fawns, calves, and yearlings also. Plus all the way up thru the antler formation, typ and non-typ.
- if your going on big antlers for comparison to other years there is a cycle the animals are in over hundreds of years. Sometimes the feed that year or the water wasn't right when antlers were growing.
Sometimes people think record animules are going to be standing by a road when there driving around, not going to happen now a daze.
-- To get a big animal you have to still hunt, get out of truck, and walk back on a ridge, very slowly and quietly into back country, then gut and pack it out. All day process of hard labor. You need to be in good physical condition, strong heart and lungs. If your breathing heavy now and over weight I wood not try this type of hunting, stick to road hunting and have a helper.
Jel -- go for LEH in the area your in --

[Greenthumbed]

I was only referring to the lack of entries. I do know that record bucks are special and are not hiding behind every tree. I know that they take effort and luck to find. I also know that antler size is not everything. I was talking about the lack of animals on the landscape. I've seen it with my own eyes and I've talked with others that feel the same way.

[Fisher-Dude]

^^^ I'm getting tired of threads like this. The facts are, there is no single group in the EK, including Government the BCWF, anyone that says wildlife numbers here are stable or doing fine. In fact, there are multiple demands for Government Action. There are meetings on this constantly, meetings with MLAs, with Government staff at all levels. There are groups coming together expressing their concerns on an ongoing basis. Those who live here know.

And the funny thing is, when we look back at the OP, and see his calling for an end to antlerless seasons to "fix" things, and then realize we haven't killed a mule deer doe in region 4 since 1996, we begin to realize that the whole point (if there even is one) of this thread is useless.

Hunting regulations aren't the problem. Chasing the wrong solutions to ungulate population issues is the problem.

[J_T]

And the funny thing is, when we look back at the OP, and see his calling for an end to antlerless seasons to "fix" things, and then realize we haven't killed a mule deer doe in region 4 since 1996, we begin to realize that the whole point (if there even is one) of this thread is useless.

Hunting regulations aren't the problem. Chasing the wrong solutions to ungulate population issues is the problem. I don't think the state of our wildlife is funny at all. I assume you agree. I wasn't suggesting regulations are the issue. Stated a simple fact. Numbers are down and we need to do something about it. Didn't suggest that was regulatory change.

[Wild one]

I won’t judge anything by contest entries as many big animals are kept private

When it comes to overall management results with game populations show it’s not working

There are those who push max opurtunity and those who want a conservative approach. Most likely the best answer is somewhere in the middle to keep a combination of opurtunity and conservation in mind.

There is a variety of issues game populations are facing that both parties can agree on. The issue lies with how to manage present populations. Here is where hunters and hunting organizations are not in agreement

Personal opinion our management does not have the funding to keep close enough inventory numbers to run the high opurtunity system BC presently uses for hunting. This has been BCs style of management for a long time and B.C. has a long history of declining game numbers. Personally see it well overdue for more conservative management to preserve game numbers well addressing big issues like funding, predators, and habitat

BC hunters need to ask them self what is more important harvest opportunity or game numbers?

Personally I would take less days hunting under strong game populations over long seasons under poor game numbers

[Fisher-Dude]

BC doesn't have high opportunity, especially when compared with past opportunity or well-funded jurisdictions.

You could take fewer days hunting, but it won't make one iota of difference to game populations. If you want to take up crocheting, fill your boots, but despite the fact that you will have yourself a new pair of mittens, you won't be helping habitat loss or exploding predator populations.

[Wild one]

BC doesn't have high opportunity, especially when compared with past opportunity or well-funded jurisdictions.

You could take fewer days hunting, but it won't make one iota of difference to game populations. If you want to take up crocheting, fill your boots, but despite the fact that you will have yourself a new pair of mittens, you won't be helping habitat loss or exploding predator populations.

Re read my post not ignoring big issues

Yes hunter opurtunity comes first before wildlife with you it’s very clear. Also continue to ignore that many are on the same page with big issues but because they don’t support max opurtunity you ignore the fact the big picture is clear all

You have made the choice on your path so continue on part I agree on part I never will so your not worth debating with

[kootenaihunter]

BC doesn't have high opportunity, especially when compared with past opportunity or well-funded jurisdictions.

I wonder if everyone is speaking the same language here. I believe hunter opportunity means the length of season, or opportunity to hunt, not necessarily the potential opportunity to take an animal due to large abundance.

BC has some of the most liberal GOSs and unit management opportunities in the west.

[Fisher-Dude]

Re read my post not ignoring big issues

Yes hunter opurtunity comes first before wildlife with you it’s very clear. Also continue to ignore that many are on the same page with big issues but because they don’t support max opurtunity you ignore the fact the big picture is clear all

You have made the choice on your path so continue on part I agree on part I never will so your not worth debating with

Feel free to use the ignore button then.

Or simply stop replying to every post I make on this subject.

You have the power in your hands.

[Jelvis]

Classing different animules into a big group togedder won't work we tried that b4. Every region also has drastic differences with habitat and it's own species.
-- A six point bull elk up in Cranbrook area -- up the Bull River
-- a mule deer doe in Merrit
-- Blacktail deer near Chilly Wack
-- Goats up zee mountanes
- Sheep - Dall, Cali's, thin, thick, Moby Dick
bear, blacks n grizz whaaaaaaaaaa?
and so on - moose, goose n deer have an ice-cold beer. Every region is made that way because of natural barriers and climate change.
Jel -- each animal and region has it's own unique problems. There iz no answer, it's up to each person who hunts to be honest and stick to the regs.

[Petros65]

!00% correct !


How about we manage by science instead of emotion?

Science says wildlife herds are strongest when there is harvest across all age and sex classes. It's foolproof, has been studied to death across North America, and it works.

Emotion says let's throw some shit against the wall and see if something sticks.

Harvest of male only components of a population is the absolute worst thing we could possibly do.

Politicians love guys like you - it's cheap to screw with seasons, even though seasons won't affect wildlife numbers. Habitat and predator control will help populations, but those cost money, and politicians hate that.