The future of our wildlife management plans.

[bownut]

ROCK CREEK CLUB MEETING DEC 1st 2016, Go to youtube and check it out. Small Club with big heart, now is the time to act before it's to late people.
I feel that most hunters can relate to what is going down in our backcountry that's why all these organizations are popping up everywhere.
Rock Creek Cub has been fighting to open up the eyes of the rest of the province for a long time, now is the time before it is too late to act.
Woke me up to getting involved.

[Spy]

You talking about this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLgm1dsE22g

[Spy]

You talking about this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLgm1dsE22g
I agree we need to wake up.....

[Wild one]

Some good in the meeting but lots of negitive slander and BS

As hunters we need to work on how we conduct ourselves.

[Wild one]

To also add to the hunters who do not agree with some seasons you have the choice to not take part in those hunts

I do agree and would like to see a more conservative approach to hunting rather than max harvest opurtunity

[Fisher-Dude]

The organizer of the meeting and I have different goals.

Hope everyone caught who he is and his profession.

We can leave it at that.

[Wild one]

One need only consider the organizer of the meeting to see what this is all about.

We can leave it at that.

Not everyone in the room was a GO and I would say there is a good number of RH that would agree with part of the meeting.

ignore who the organizer is and only focuse on what was discussed. This was not a GO VS RH issue can't always view people with labels

[bownut]

If seasons are created right or wrong, there will be a increase in active participation and it is Management that will be accountable for the results.

There's a old saying "Without Agitators, Nothing Comes Out Clean". I am one who feels that it's time for some change and I am getting tired of the constant
reply that every move that management has made so far has been based on proper science.
It is these small concerned groups of people like this group who will get the last word and remind individuals of the past actions.
I for one have limited my hunting practices to traditional archery equipment and pass up on Antlerless deer based on my beliefs on what is available.

If we continue to have the managers feel that hunter harvest doesn't effect game population it's only going to get worst.
It is like the bucket of water, you put big holes or small holes it, the results are the same. Habitat, Access,Predators, and Opportunity are all the factors and it really doesn't
matter which one leads the pack.
Time for everyone to get involved and turn this rapid and consistent decline in our backcountry around.
Agendas built on increasing Resident Hunter Numbers, and Opportunity based on inefficient science will only results in poor management and you cant debate
that one. Yes for every decision there will the hecklers in the stands, but we cannot continue with the path we have taken, it will only fragment us all and make us less
noticed.
Social media is going to expose the the history and true facts of our BC Management Policies at a rapid rate so everyone hang on for the ride. My only hope is that the
Antis don't get a hold of this ,for it is all of our heads in the chopping blocks.

[bownut]

Oh lets get on the G/O Band Wagon again and see where that gets us. Just forget who he is for a moment and with deal with the facts, facts like what the biologist in Washington have said for one.
If they have more money to study a herd than we do then wouldn't it hold some truth to what happening a few miles away, after all the animals have no borders.

[adriaticum]

Wow Conway is sure working the crowds

[bownut]

Ya and if it wasn't her it would be someone in a red outfit, lets not forget Old J.T. is doing the same thing with his town meeting approach as we speak.
What's that costing us?

[bownut]

We all need to stay focus and listen and learn from all involved, it's not about having a public hanging it's all about WILDLIFE. I truly feel that most have good intentions but
we seem to be going around in circles and that we are all moving so fast that are now looking at our own asses. Deep Breath and Focus.

[Hank Hunter]

The organizer of the meeting and I have different goals.

Hope everyone caught who he is and his profession.

We can leave it at that.
X2. I agree

[bownut]

FYI there was another past meeting in Nov of 2013 Rock Creek that is worth watching. Agree or disagree it's all good. Trends or Trends.

[Wild one]

Many RHs want change some of the wants most agree on. Others hunters are divided on but in the end a need for change is seen by all

Need to start finding a middle ground amongst RHs and even GOs. Right now this does not exist and no orginization that represents all

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I got 28 minutes into the video and couldn't stomach any more.

Hopefully the Rock Creek burn will give that area a boost.

[Wild one]

I got 28 minutes into the video and couldn't stomach any more.

Hopefully the Rock Creek burn will give that area a boost.

A good part of that meeting I wish was not on YouTube

I would not call it a break through for hunting in BC

[bownut]

Ya hard to stomach people with passion. Think about how your personal hunting success has played out, is there anything familiar with what has been said?
Seems like there has been many of so called Mule Deer Professionals that have had to resort to low private property hunts to fill their tags lately.
Kind of sounds like the topics in the meeting.

[bownut]

Going to cut out for now, going out shed hunting and if I find some on the way home I am grabbing a Loto Ticket.
Cheers All!

[boxhitch]

.........we seem to be going around in circles and that we are all moving so fast that are now looking at our own asses. ........Something about holding a death grip on the steering wheel hard over against the lock, figuring somehow that will make a straight line if enough throttle is put to it. Science says how to make the track straight,
but
damn it! crank it! and pour the coal, that should do it!

[338win mag]

Some good points there, some not, I do wonder where the forest companies are in all of this, what do they contribute? nothing? really? I really think most of this issue can be resolved on its own once the landscape returns to a somewhat "realistic" version of what it once was.
Lets face it, every tree in this province is going to get cut down (unless protected) and a road is going to get built to get it to the mill.
Hunting opportunities could be curtailed because the forest companies disturb the habitat and enable access to the land? and I and you will suffer the consequences and the forest companies reap the rewards?

For one group of hunters to attempt to limit another group of hunters is abit of "pot meet kettle" to me and a waste of time imo.

The Government of today and yesterday are responsible for the entire situation we have today, they could have easily put forth legislation to quell every single issue brought forth in the video and is taking place in virtually every part of this province.

I didn't/dont see what the big deal is that the gentleman was a retired outfitter, I was wondering how the NDP will make things better? it sounded like hunting opportunities will be limited if they get into power, that will fix the problem.

I'm not sure if all the stories I heard on the video are factually correct and I simply get tired of trying to figure out who is full of bs, so I wont believe any of the personal comments that were presented. They seemed like a good group of hunters though, good for them.

[Darksith]

a little bird has told me that in region 6 RH are about to get screwed. The allocation is going to shift in a major way away from RH and GO...

[Fisher-Dude]

Going to cut out for now, going out shed hunting and if I find some on the way home I am grabbing a Loto Ticket.
Cheers All!

Good for you.

Head out there and stress some weak animals on winter range so they miscarry.

Remember, it's all about you and the size of the bone you find.

[bownut]

Here we go again, shift the topic to attacking the GO's, start another thread.

As far as these Boundary Meetings go, we all know meetings consist of facts along with a hint of B/S, it happens in every meeting that I have ever sat in on.
I think it went quite well considering they were not even following Roberts Rules of Order.
Pick out what touches home with you and filter out the rest. One thing for sure is that this group is passionate and as transparent with what they are doing.
Good on them.

Funny how I hear some members comment if you want something done you have to get off your butt and do something, then critic and belittle what they have to say.
What is really meant is get off your butt and do something as long as you share my beliefs. Thats how you divide groups, even if we all share the same common beliefs.
The animals should be front and center, thats the sum of it. Greed doesn't help the situation.

Ask around and see if hunting is better or worst in your neck of the woods, then compare to what you have seen< thats how it starts.
More Hunters+more effort and less success is what I am hearing in my Region. If thats what your feeling, then you should be worried.

[bownut]

Your a real piece of work Pat, some how you think that I ride around all day like you and harass wildlife. I have picked up sheds from the same animals 5 years in a row, funny they seemed to do ok.
As for stressing animals have you put any thought into how there is a out of control Bike trails funded by the Ministry on the westside in the middle of known Critical Winter Range. Stress at its finest.
If you want to follow me some day let me know I would be more than happy to get you lost. Next time keep your Chicken s.... comments to yourself..

[bownut]

Too bad some people on this site are suffering from A.D.D. and prefer to attack a positive thread. Be careful what you wish for is all I can say.

[338win mag]

I dont want my season shortened, nor do I want my hunting opportunities curtailed because of what I consider someone elses bungling, once the opportunities are gone they wont be coming back anytime soon. Game is down right now but it can and will come back, I have to work alot harder to find game, I can live with that

[bownut]

Your correct on hunting harder that is the fact.
The modern hunter has every tool and right under the laws to be successful and I can only hope that the young hunters will have a chance to experience the full potential that this country has to offer.
It's going to be a long hard road and proper decision making is a must.

[338win mag]

You are correct bownut.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Here we go again, shift the topic to attacking the GO's, start another thread.

As far as these Boundary Meetings go, we all know meetings consist of facts along with a hint of B/S, it happens in every meeting that I have ever sat in on.
I think it went quite well considering they were not even following Roberts Rules of Order.
Pick out what touches home with you and filter out the rest. One thing for sure is that this group is passionate and as transparent with what they are doing.
Good on them.

Funny how I hear some members comment if you want something done you have to get off your butt and do something, then critic and belittle what they have to say.
What is really meant is get off your butt and do something as long as you share my beliefs. Thats how you divide groups, even if we all share the same common beliefs.
The animals should be front and center, thats the sum of it. Greed doesn't help the situation.

Ask around and see if hunting is better or worst in your neck of the woods, then compare to what you have seen< thats how it starts.
More Hunters+more effort and less success is what I am hearing in my Region. If thats what your feeling, then you should be worried.

the biggest issue in BC is lack of funding. Thats something everyone can agree on. That's where people need to spend their energy.
We have an election coming soon so engage your current MLAs
and everyone running to replace them.

SSS

[bownut]

We all know there is a lack of funding in our system all we have do do is look is turn on our TV, I hope I'm wrong but I feel that Wildlife we continue to put on the back burner.
Energy, now thats where the moneys at, lets face it, it's all about jobs.

That was something that also came up in those Meetings that made you sick to your stomach.
Remember filter out The BS and listen to the things that you feel will help solve the problems.
They also spoke of writing letters to our MLA Reps. Hmmm maybe they are on the right track?

[Bugle M In]

Your a real piece of work Pat, some how you think that I ride around all day like you and harass wildlife. I have picked up sheds from the same animals 5 years in a row, funny they seemed to do ok.
As for stressing animals have you put any thought into how there is a out of control Bike trails funded by the Ministry on the westside in the middle of known Critical Winter Range. Stress at its finest.
If you want to follow me some day let me know I would be more than happy to get you lost. Next time keep your Chicken s.... comments to yourself..

I think everyone has some legit points.
Yes, as Bownut states, I have also seen this sort of issues in other areas on winter ranges.
Not sure if you are talking mountain bikers, but I am talking about the dirt bike clubs.
Very hard on the wildlife in the winter etc.

[Bugle M In]

I dont want my season shortened, nor do I want my hunting opportunities curtailed because of what I consider someone elses bungling, once the opportunities are gone they wont be coming back anytime soon. Game is down right now but it can and will come back, I have to work alot harder to find game, I can live with that

Again, I agree with this comment.

[Bugle M In]

Some good points there, some not, I do wonder where the forest companies are in all of this, what do they contribute? nothing? really? I really think most of this issue can be resolved on its own once the landscape returns to a somewhat "realistic" version of what it once was.
Lets face it, every tree in this province is going to get cut down (unless protected) and a road is going to get built to get it to the mill.
Hunting opportunities could be curtailed because the forest companies disturb the habitat and enable access to the land? and I and you will suffer the consequences and the forest companies reap the rewards?

For one group of hunters to attempt to limit another group of hunters is abit of "pot meet kettle" to me and a waste of time imo.

The Government of today and yesterday are responsible for the entire situation we have today, they could have easily put forth legislation to quell every single issue brought forth in the video and is taking place in virtually every part of this province.

I didn't/dont see what the big deal is that the gentleman was a retired outfitter, I was wondering how the NDP will make things better? it sounded like hunting opportunities will be limited if they get into power, that will fix the problem.

I'm not sure if all the stories I heard on the video are factually correct and I simply get tired of trying to figure out who is full of bs, so I wont believe any of the personal comments that were presented. They seemed like a good group of hunters though, good for them.

And here, yup, Government is a big part of the issue, AND, the statements on Forestry and Roads etc.

[Bugle M In]

Ya hard to stomach people with passion. Think about how your personal hunting success has played out, is there anything familiar with what has been said?
Seems like there has been many of so called Mule Deer Professionals that have had to resort to low private property hunts to fill their tags lately.
Kind of sounds like the topics in the meeting.

Sounds similar to the EK, and most of the successful guys are the ones in the lowlands (Private), not just
Rock Creek, but, this seems to be the trend for success.

[Bugle M In]

the biggest issue in BC is lack of funding. Thats something everyone can agree on. That's where people need to spend their energy.
We have an election coming soon so engage your current MLAs
and everyone running to replace them.

SSS

Ok, agree again.....SO......
Let's start here!.
It starts with MONEY!
What is happening with "OUR" monies that are used to pay for our Tags and Licenses.
Is the Government going to put ALL that money back into Wildlife/Habitat Projects and Studies??

Lets start with some "baby steps", money being the 1st thing we need to tie down o make everything else work.
I think "we all can agree on that"!!??
Than we take the next step.......and so on and so forth.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Ok, agree again.....SO......
Let's start here!.
It starts with MONEY!
What is happening with "OUR" monies that are used to pay for our Tags and Licenses.
Is the Government going to put ALL that money back into Wildlife/Habitat Projects and Studies??

Lets start with some "baby steps", money being the 1st thing we need to tie down o make everything else work.
I think "we all can agree on that"!!??
Than we take the next step.......and so on and so forth.

It's already in motion by people/group who see(s) the big picture.

[bownut]

I sure hope your right and when we get there the animals will still be alive.

[Wild one]

We all know there is a lack of funding in our system all we have do do is look is turn on our TV, I hope I'm wrong but I feel that Wildlife we continue to put on the back burner.
Energy, now thats where the moneys at, lets face it, it's all about jobs.

That was something that also came up in those Meetings that made you sick to your stomach.
Remember filter out The BS and listen to the things that you feel will help solve the problems.
They also spoke of writing letters to our MLA Reps. Hmmm maybe they are on the right track?


Filtering out the BS yes there was some important points brought up

[Whonnock Boy]

A small pie feeds a few people.

http://www.ipiebali.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/i-Pie-Small.jpg





A large pie feeds everyone.

http://www.tensionnot.com/pictures/images/Halloween/Large-Pumpkin-Pie.jpg


This makes big pies.....

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/canadian-one-hundred-dollar-bills-7747093.jpg

[bownut]

And thats what it's all about. One direction, working together.

[bearvalley]

An adequate funding supply will not solve the wildlife problems we are facing at present unless it is managed properly to see that the money is spent responsibly on wildlife issues.
This is where the "roundtable" approach of co management needs to come into play.
The current wildlife management team of "voter fearing polititians" and "bureuacratical decision makers" isn't working...the entire wildlife portfolio is in need of a make over.

So how do we fix it...

-Create a Wildlife mangement roundtable, made up of all affected user groups.
Resident hunters, guide outfitters, FN's, trappers, wildlife/back country tourism, agriculture, forestry, mining, the
COS, and yes...the anti hunting segment.

-Direct all money generated by wildlife back to wildlife.
This includes all license money, royalties and funding raised through the sale of special permits.
Outside funding will also come into play if the contributors are seeing it will go to a useful purpose.

-Legislate a tax similar to the Pittman Robertson Act.
This funding goes back to the management of wildlife and habitat.
Mining and forestry might have to ante up when it comes to habitat reclamation.

I'm sure others will think differently but in my view these are the three key components to turning this downslide around, the rest of the corrective steps will have to be worked out amongst the reps at the table.

Habitat restoration, access management, predator management, allocation, wildlife population recoveries and species closure zones would all be issues dealt with by the round table....not an emotion driven, vote grabbing politician or a biased bureaucrat.

A note on the retired outfitter Barry Brandow, who organized the Youtubed meeting.....if we had more so called hunters and wildlife enthusiasts in this province that were as passionate about wildlife as Barry has been for many years we would not be in as deep of a hole as we are in today.

[Wild one]

Bearvalley

I agree the wildlife management system needs to change just as much as $ is needed. Dumping $ into a broken system will not give the best results. I hear lots about $ but no true plan on what to do with it

All 3 suggestions towards a solution I believe could be effective. May just be good guidelines to start with but can see it as an improvement

money is needed but an effective plan for it is just as important

[bownut]

Thanks Bearvalley I was starting to think that I had it all wrong. All the funding in the world won't solve a thing without a solid plan.

Spoke with a few buddies last week about our concerns and happened onto the youtube meeting, couldn't believe what I saw,
same topics and concerns. Hope the Big Picture Groups are paying attention.
I would like to know when the next meeting is I am sure that a group from Kelowna would love to sit in.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

An adequate funding supply will not solve the wildlife problems we are facing at present unless it is managed properly to see that the money is spent responsibly on wildlife issues.
This is where the "roundtable" approach of co management needs to come into play.
The current wildlife management team of "voter fearing polititians" and "bureuacratical decision makers" isn't working...the entire wildlife portfolio is in need of a make over.

So how do we fix it...

-Create a Wildlife mangement roundtable, made up of all affected user groups.
Resident hunters, guide outfitters, FN's, trappers, wildlife/back country tourism, agriculture, forestry, mining, the
COS, and yes...the anti hunting segment.

-Direct all money generated by wildlife back to wildlife.
This includes all license money, royalties and funding raised through the sale of special permits.
Outside funding will also come into play if the contributors are seeing it will go to a useful purpose.

-Legislate a tax similar to the Pittman Robertson Act.
This funding goes back to the management of wildlife and habitat.
Mining and forestry might have to ante up when it comes to habitat reclamation.

I'm sure others will think differently but in my view these are the three key components to turning this downslide around, the rest of the corrective steps will have to be worked out amongst the reps at the table.

Habitat restoration, access management, predator management, allocation, wildlife population recoveries and species closure zones would all be issues dealt with by the round table....not an emotion driven, vote grabbing politician or a biased bureaucrat.

A note on the retired outfitter Barry Brandow, who organized the Youtubed meeting.....if we had more so called hunters and wildlife enthusiasts in this province that were as passionate about wildlife as Barry has been for many years we would not be in as deep of a hole as we are in today.


This and creating a grouo group that makes wildlife decisions that is separate from government and can do things (like predator management) without having to worry about getting re-elected.

[bownut]

Why is it then if this group that is being totally transparent with their feelings and trying to voice their concerns to the ministry's decision makers, they are viewed as a threat?
Remember the truth will always be the truth, and scare tactics won't work when the true "Big Picture" is seen.
.
Nows the time two find proper ways to tally the damage and recognize what the true effect that hunter harvest along with all the other factors have on the wildlife.
Be perfectly clear that if this group wanted to hide their actions they wouldn't have posted the meetings for people to see correct?
Now is the time for everyone to put away their egos and stop treating groups like this one as the enemy, Thats the first step mentions in Bearvalleys motion
to improving the present state that we are in(ROUND TABLE)
Why do people keep trying to kick the knees out of every passionate group that is willing to give up their time to wildlife trying to find ways to improve and sustain them, they are alright
by me. Common ground needs to be established and all involved need to accept and recognize when they are wrong. That's the only way it is going to work.

Ignorants and being stubborn will not solve a thing and when it all unfolds the truth will be seen, thats for sure. It will be too late for the "I told you so's" the damage is done.
Recognize where the concerns are, and respect all involved, that's when the problems will be corrected.

It's funny when a large organization needs support they turn to the little guys, individuals in groups like Rock Creek ,yet when they have something to bring to the table they,
get a close door.
Thats how to destroy the constructive process and create division within the ranks, hope thats not the case here for when the "Big Picture" needs their support
it won't be there. When other small groups see the way they were treated, what happens next? Kind of like building a wall.

[longwalk]

Bownut,when you talk about "respect for all involved" you have to realize that Barry Brandow traditionally has not not been a friend of the resident hunter. Some of the statements he has made over the years regarding animals
numbers and resident hunters have been inflammatory. I don't see a leopard changing his spots that easily.

[bownut]

Fair enough and thats where people need to filter out the emotion and look at the facts, I don't know the man and he hasn't crossed me , but what he brings to the table and how you absorb it is whats important.
The wildlife can't speak for themselves so it up to all of us as Hunters to open up our eyes and seek out the truth.

As a avid outdoorsman who has lived in the Okanagan Valley all my life I have seen many changes, changes that have accumulatively effective our wildlife populations. That is some that we all can't deny, so
now is the time for change. Change that many may not want to except.
If we look back on history and continue formulated our practice plans without evolving we are destine for a big crash.
How is it that study groups can roll into a area on a annual bases and perform the same data entry with little regards to the concerns of the residents who live there, these people are the
laws of average. After all it's their back yard that is being examined is it not.
It is these types of actions that raise the eyebrows of many, including me.



Eg. Back when the fires of 03' hit the Okanagan the local fire fighters and field crews were not only challenged by the magnitude of the fire, they were also faced with the decision making from imported experts.
These decisions sometimes were without the blessing of the locals who knew their backcountry. There were many untold battles over this process of thinking.

Long story short, after the smoke cleared, a new system of practice was developed which strengthen a unified bond with all parties involved.
It's no different with wildlife, we need to get everyone to the table and make the best plan of attack.

[Wild one]

Bownut many hunters see the need for change and even agree on what some of the changes should be. I have seen over the years the number of hunters concerned about how BCs wildlife increase. Unfortanatly this is often where agreements end

I have also watched the divide between hunters grow as well. Many hunters are too caught up on how one group effects the other and lots of finger pointing. At this time there is a huge lack of trust bettween the user groups of BCs wildlife. There seems to be a lack of compromise and greed. All sides want to think they are the good guys well others are evil. Truth is most are pushing the agenda of the group they represent and could careless who's toes they step on.

A few of the BS stereotypes were even thrown around in that meeting but a ton more still exist

The mentality of the user groups need to change before they start working together. Without this even bearvalleys round table idea would most likely just end in fighting and dirty deals amongst the members. Great idea if comprise existed but unsure how well it would work with the present state of mind

Sure hope the pissing match stops before we all loose

[bownut]

You are so correct on the state that we are in, the biggest fear that I have is that the wildlife suffer while everyone adapts to the changes needed. The clock is ticking and our next moves must be
first and foremost with all at the table,. There is no other way.

If hunters don't see this decline in the quantity and quality in the backcountry related to cause and effect, then they are not looking deep enough.

[HarryToolips]

The biggest issue I see personally in many parts of region 8 is loss of winter habitat from all the new housing and development...all this growth sucks...but I'm still seeing decent numbers of mulies and whitetails, even after these so called 'generous' seasons were implemented, the only difference is slightly less winter range, hopefully that trend will stop..

[bownut]

You are so correct on that winter range, and with housing permits on a steady increase I can't see it getting any better.

Lets look at the fore sure factors:
-Habitat loss is on a steady increase
-The predators are at a all time high. Hunters are seeing wolves in every corner of the valley, and cat hunters don't have any problem cutting tracks.
-Forest industry is taking out the fir now that the pine is done and access to the prime upper elevation habitat is open up.
-The ministry isn't funding enough of the management system to allow for proper studies and policing of our backcountry.
- Hunters have become more efficient in their pursuit of wildlife. Eg. quads, trail cameras, baiting, google earth, long range rifles ect.
-A steady increase in opportunity, eg. doe seasons, extended seasons, increased bag limits ect

With all of these known factors picking away at our game populations and , it's just a matter of time and the pond will empty.

The experts have said that Dead On Ground Data dose not effect our game populations and the harvest isn't enough of a factor.
Do we truly know what these numbers are and when you factor all the things that we agree on, will change ever happen?
Will the wildlife be able to weather out this storm? That is my biggest fear and it should be yours.

[338win mag]

This and creating a grouo group that makes wildlife decisions that is separate from government and can do things (like predator management) without having to worry about getting re-elected.

SSS said this^^^^^ agree totally

bownut...you have some good idea's, a couple points here, we should be careful what we wish for,
Do we really want all hunters to get involved? that sounds like a shyte storm, and i'm not trying to put anyone down but alot of guys dont know what it takes to get along and simply dont have the intelligence to be an asset, "too many indians and not enough chiefs" watch the video and there are some pretty good examples, everyone is an expert. I see that working for about 3 seconds, simply my point of view and thats why SSS is a good idea.

Do we really want reg change?...perhaps some change is needed, ie: wt doe season...What I mean is that any decisions made now while we have a little bump in the road may be long lasting (forever) and resolve itself in the next 10-20 years.
I'd rather hunt and not shoot anything than have my/your season shortened when in 10-20 years there is no need for it.

We are in real danger of hunting going to LEH only for resident hunters, my opinion only.

I would also be willing to pay more for a license and tags if.....the money went directly back to the system from which it came.
Its totally unacceptable that it isn't now.
I seriously dont think anyone is running any system right now and if someone is in charge I would ask ...why is there access to any forest fire and why isn't there vehicle restrictions for the these burns?
It gets old seeing guys hunting these burns and shooting every mule deer that sticks its head out, the benefit of a fire seems to have gone to the hunter instead of it being for the wildlife, it makes no sense at all.

[boxhitch]

The experts keep saying that hunter harvest doesn't effect our game populations without any regard to the increased pressures they are already feeling.
It doesn't add up to good good game management. Are they using alternative facts ?)
If the pressures are having an overall affect, the pop numbers would show it overall. Development pressures tend to be localized, small piece of the big picture


shooting every mule deer that sticks its head outwhich is called poaching, unless they are restricting the kill to the % of the pop. that can be taken without upsetting the number of fawns hitting the ground each spring.

[Wild one]

Are they using alternative facts ?)
If the pressures are having an overall affect, the pop numbers would show it overall. Development pressures tend to be localized, small piece of the big picture

which is called poaching, unless they are restricting the kill to the % of the pop. that can be taken without upsetting the number of fawns hitting the ground each spring.

I think what he is getting at is he would rather see deer populations benifit from the burns in a fashion that is more likely to increase overall population long term. Personally I could see it being benifical to deer numbers if burns were tougher access.

Yes this is not overly benifical to hunters unless the population grows to a point the surplus expands beyond the burn. Personally I can see in theory how this could be benifical long term.

If it could benifit population overall at the cost of tougher access to hunters I would say it is worth it

[horshur]

If you don't hunt the growth hard you effectively stall it. Nature will limit itself. There cannot be exponential growth for long..Not limiting game in productive areas will hasten the degradation of the area. Or it won't be long untill the vacuum created is filled with predators.

[boxhitch]

If it could benifit population overall at the cost of tougher access to hunters Discussion of access always brings some heat on, and it usually starts splitting into the quality vs quantity
Good thing the regulating is in place to ensure a new crop to fight over.

[boxhitch]

If you don't hunt the growth hard you effectively stall it. Nature will limit itself. There cannot be exponential growth for long..Not limiting game in productive areas will hasten the degradation of the area. Or it won't be long untill the vacuum created is filled with predators.Agreed. wildlife can't be stockpiled

[Fisher-Dude]

- Hunters have become more efficient in their pursuit of wildlife. Eg. quads, trail cameras, baiting, google earth, long range rifles ect.



If we were more efficient harvesters, days per kill data that we have would reflect that.

It's not the case. DpK data indicates no efficiencies, and points instead to lower kill efficiencies in many areas.

This is just one example of coffee shop talk that results in the demand for poor decisions in wildlife management.

When we stick to science, wildlife wins.

When we demand social results that are designed to benefit one particular user group, wildlife loses.

When I hear groups start their rationale with "All these hunters come to OUR area from the lower mainland..." I see little benefit for wildlife in the ensuing discussion.

[guest]

An adequate funding supply will not solve the wildlife problems we are facing at present unless it is managed properly to see that the money is spent responsibly on wildlife issues.
This is where the "roundtable" approach of co management needs to come into play.
The current wildlife management team of "voter fearing polititians" and "bureuacratical decision makers" isn't working...the entire wildlife portfolio is in need of a make over.

So how do we fix it...

-Create a Wildlife mangement roundtable, made up of all affected user groups.
Resident hunters, guide outfitters, FN's, trappers, wildlife/back country tourism, agriculture, forestry, mining, the
COS, and yes...the anti hunting segment.

-Direct all money generated by wildlife back to wildlife.
This includes all license money, royalties and funding raised through the sale of special permits.
Outside funding will also come into play if the contributors are seeing it will go to a useful purpose.

-Legislate a tax similar to the Pittman Robertson Act.
This funding goes back to the management of wildlife and habitat.
Mining and forestry might have to ante up when it comes to habitat reclamation.

I'm sure others will think differently but in my view these are the three key components to turning this downslide around, the rest of the corrective steps will have to be worked out amongst the reps at the table.

Habitat restoration, access management, predator management, allocation, wildlife population recoveries and species closure zones would all be issues dealt with by the round table....not an emotion driven, vote grabbing politician or a biased bureaucrat.

A note on the retired outfitter Barry Brandow, who organized the Youtubed meeting.....if we had more so called hunters and wildlife enthusiasts in this province that were as passionate about wildlife as Barry has been for many years we would not be in as deep of a hole as we are in today.

Excellant contribution to this thread BV .......

the above makes a ton of sence. As mentioned, the funding needs to remain consistent and only grow, not diminish, not affected by the government of the day decisions, no matter who is elected.

CT

[Wild one]

If you don't hunt the growth hard you effectively stall it. Nature will limit itself. There cannot be exponential growth for long..Not limiting game in productive areas will hasten the degradation of the area. Or it won't be long untill the vacuum created is filled with predators.

I don't think the population would go untouched as there is always willing to go that extra mile. I am thinking more along the lines of removing vehicle access not a hunting ban. I would also assume with mule deer they would migrate to other locations throughout the season and some would be harvested during these times. I am not a 100% with mule deer but I know with many animals young disperse into surrounding areas. For the most part restricting road access to a burn in my opinion is just limiting access to part of the deers range.

Predators are always a factor and increaseing prey no matter how it is achieved will increase predator numbers. Predator management will be an issue regardless. With many set on the idea of habitat inhancement to increase game numbers predator management will need to follow

I have seen the benifit of not trap areas on trap lines and the benifit of hunting areas where there is factors limiting hunting pressure. From what I experience I could see it potentially benifical with very small impact on hunting. How much of an improvement this could bring is the ? Are we talking 1 deer or a 100 I don't know

One I often ? Is if we as hunters impact numbers in high pressure areas through stress but this is merely something I wonder about

Again I have no idea how effective limiting road access to a burn could be at increasing deer numbers but understand the theory behind it

[Fisher-Dude]

Predators are always a factor and increaseing prey no matter how it is achieved will increase predator numbers. Predator management will be an issue regardless. With many set on the idea of habitat inhancement to increase game numbers predator management will need to follow




Proper habitat restoration isn't just about producing nutrition.

It includes restoring habitat that includes escape terrain.

For example, mule deer need sight lines, moose need blow down where those long legs are an advantage over shorter wolf legs, elk need thick ESSF to hide, etc.

Predator management can be accomplished with more than dead predators in many situations.

We have to manage with dead predators in areas that aren't going to be habitat-restored for a few years, and that's where we can pinpoint those efforts.

A recent mule deer study actually showed a negative response to gunning of basically all predators.

In many areas, if we take care of the habitat, the rest takes care of itself. With scarce resources and a large landscape, we need to focus efforts where one action (habitat) will look after two or more (nutrition, preds) issues.

[Dannybuoy]

Agreed. wildlife can't be stockpiled

Its this kind of thinking that separates the hunters ..... while there is a limit of wildlife that an area can support , both in quality and quantity , the numbers have shrunk to a minimum ? . If you had been in the Okanagan 20, 30, 40 or more years ago you wouldn't be questioning this fact .
While I may not know the solution , money isn't going to fix it .

[Wild one]

FD I will have to agree with you 100% on the importance of habitat beyond nutrition and how it plays a roll even with predator issues. Would also say we can agree winter survival where it limits snow pack.

[Fisher-Dude]

Its this kind of thinking that separates the hunters ..... while there is a limit of wildlife that an area can support , both in quality and quantity , the numbers have shrunk to a minimum ? . If you had been in the Okanagan 20, 30, 40 or more years ago you wouldn't be questioning this fact .
While I may not know the solution , money isn't going to fix it .

We tried stockpiling wildlife 20 years ago.

Then it snowed and 75% of them died.

Boxhitch is aware of the consequences of that failed experiment which was fueled by vocal minorities who wanted wildlife managed for social reasons rather than by science.

Money IS the solution, but most consumptive users want someone else to pay the bill, or someone else to show up for the work party. That has to change.

[Ourea]

Nice to see some are getting it, what a viable platform needs to be/should look like.
Some very good comments being made.
This is one of the few threads that has lead to progressive discussion.
It is creating unity rather than division.

The concept of creating a sustainable and long term funding model to address wildlife concerns has been platformed some time ago.
It is gaining traction and support from all sides including Gov.
Hopefully it comes to fruition.

[bownut]

Good stuff guys, this is how it starts, people sharing in a positive manner. Think of it like a good book and open the first page without skipping to the end.
Habitat seems to be the first chapter, look at all its factors and make more changes, changes base on input and science.
Put a hold on all the increased Opportunity and Seasons until habitat shows a positive change.
Stop the fear that if we back our Opportunity for a while that it will take years to get it back. Look at how fast we got to here.
Get out there and use the Predator Opportunities that we have already, not that it will have much effect but it's a start.
Be a positive critic of the science being used and ask how decisions were equated. It's ok to show that you care.
Support any organization that you feel are doing the right things and be ready to be questions, for it's those questions that will show truth.

Once again good stuff, I hope that what I brought to the table will create some common ground and start to establish that Round Table that Bearvalley spoke of.
Cheers

[bownut]

Question with regards to die off of the past.
Has this province in the past twenty years ever come near the Carrying Capacity of the land and does that thinking hold any truth considering all the increase in the habitat loss that we just spoke of?
That does not sound like good science to me.

[Wild one]

We tried stockpiling wildlife 20 years ago.

Then it snowed and 75% of them died.

Boxhitch is aware of the consequences of that failed experiment which was fueled by vocal minorities who wanted wildlife managed for social reasons rather than by science.

Money IS the solution, but most consumptive users want someone else to pay the bill, or someone else to show up for the work party. That has to change.


Dont take this the wrong way but I honestly believe a portion of the public would be more likely to pony up the cash if the seen an indepth plan on what the $ was going towards. We all here habitat enhancement, predator control, and wildlife studies but on a provincial level this is not very indepth.

The public is not very trusting in this day and age. We have all watch organizations waste $ that was given with good intentions with little to no results and than be asked for more. Lots of cons and broken promises have made it so many don't part with there hard earned $

I would say a trust issue is more likely than hunters not willing to put $ towards wildlife. Than add in the hunters that do not hear about projects they would be willing to invest in.

Indepth information on projects and getting the information to a larger number of those who might be intrested in donating. Lots of hunters out there that care about BCs wildlife but have no intrest in joining clubs or other organizations.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

If you don't hunt the growth hard you effectively stall it. Nature will limit itself. There cannot be exponential growth for long..Not limiting game in productive areas will hasten the degradation of the area. Or it won't be long untill the vacuum created is filled with predators.

Which is pretty much what happened in OMP.

[bownut]

For sure on that one the first step is to open the books and review the management history and maybe hold some individuals accountable for the actions.
I don't mean a headhunt but a question and answer meeting.

[bownut]

Logging out for now, once again good stuff people.

[boxhitch]

Its this kind of thinking that separates the hunters ..... while there is a limit of wildlife that an area can support , both in quality and quantity , the numbers have shrunk to a minimum ? . If you had been in the Okanagan 20, 30, 40 or more years ago you wouldn't be questioning this fact .
While I may not know the solution , money isn't going to fix it .Yeah maybe I'm out of whack. I can still go to Aberdeen, Pinaus, Silver Hills, upper Kettle and still see the sign I did 10-15 years ago and get my meat, and in the last 5 years have collected my two largest racks ever. but maybe its just me.

What has changed is the impact of resource extraction. Eliminate that and all this chatter is moot

[boxhitch]

Dont take this the wrong way but I honestly believe a portion of the public would be more likely to pony up the cash if the seen an indepth plan on what the $ was going towards. So how would that plan work? To achieve a target of X number of which species? All? And who decides what X should be?
Plans need realistic achievable targets, and targets have to be justified. We can't just decide to throw as much money as possible to grow as many critters as possible, its not realistic. Nor is it needed.
The vast majority of hunters are satisfied with the way things are, or the push-back to existing managers would be larger.

[Wild one]

So how would that plan work? To achieve a target of X number of which species? All? And who decides what X should be?
Plans need realistic achievable targets, and targets have to be justified. We can't just decide to through as much money as possible to grow as many critters as possible, its not realistic. Nor is it needed.
The vast majority of hunters are satisfied with the way things are, or the push-back to existing managers would be larger.

I wonder myself on the plan to solve issues with $ it seems to be what many repeat is needed. I can't give you an answer when I have not heard it myself

In my opinion I would not say most hunters are satisfied. Most don't push management or even realize it's an option. Most don't even know it is possible to contact a regional Bio even

I would say opinions on BCs management is not a cut and dry majority in either direction. I would say I large portion don't think of it and only adjust their hunts to what is available

[boxhitch]

Not poking at you WO, just rambling on

only adjust their hunts to what is available Nice to live in the country The Creator and Ma Nature favours

A couple problems with BVs vision
-getting a room full of special interest groups together to come up with a common goal........exercise in futility
-getting all $$ generated by fish and wildlife back into fish and wildlife......would only be a numbers game. Gov't has commented that they already spend more than is generated, its all in where the lines are drawn
Gov't never wants to be pinned down on budgeting commitments, they always want the smoke-and-mirrors with shells game
Local managers just lost some funds that were earlier committed, like they missed the shelf-life label

[338win mag]

I think what he is getting at is he would rather see deer populations benifit from the burns in a fashion that is more likely to increase overall population long term. Personally I could see it being benifical to deer numbers if burns were tougher access.

Yes this is not overly benifical to hunters unless the population grows to a point the surplus expands beyond the burn. Personally I can see in theory how this could be benifical long term.

If it could benifit population overall at the cost of tougher access to hunters I would say it is worth it

Thank you wild one for explaining that, I didn't think it was necessary but ,,,,,game pops go through the roof after a fire, it has a spiraling outward effect, benefiting the region at large. When all the legal game is shot up,,,legally, its not much benefit is it?
I never said close any area's, walk in and hunt if you need to hunt, thats where many big bucks are hanging out.

Against vehicle restrictions and deactivating roads and vehicular access...really?

[Wild one]

Not poking at you WO, just rambling on
Nice to live in the country The Creator and Ma Nature favours

A couple problems with BVs vision
-getting a room full of special interest groups together to come up with a common goal........exercise in futility
-getting all $$ generated by fish and wildlife back into fish and wildlife......would only be a numbers game. Gov't has commented that they already spend more than is generated, its all in where the lines are drawn
Gov't never wants to be pinned down on budgeting commitments, they always want the smoke-and-mirrors with shells game
Local managers just lost some funds that were earlier committed, like they missed the shelf-life label

I to see issues with having all interest groups trying to work together with the history between them. If they could play nice yes it could work but I don't trust any of them have the ability to work together at this time. No doubt in my mind there would be dirty deals between each other.

The $ issue you bring up is interesting

I personally believe BCs wildlife management could improve but also understand some of the changes man has done to BC and factors from Mother Nature cannot be controlled or changed. I don't see any magic way to improve everything either no matter the $ availible. Reality is no matter what some will not be pleased.

Truth of the matter is I have watch some populations improve and others crash along with some species expand their range. It has been a mix of negitive and positive over the years. I believe it is many factors that have played a roll in this

Could things be better yes but my opinion of better may not match the next hunter inline

[horshur]

Thank you wild one for explaining that, I didn't think it was necessary but ,,,,,game pops go through the roof after a fire, it has a spiraling outward effect, benefiting the region at large. When all the legal game is shot up,,,legally, its not much benefit is it?
I never said close any area's, walk in and hunt if you need to hunt, thats where many big bucks are hanging out.

Against vehicle restrictions and deactivating roads and vehicular access...really?

no it doesn't. In fact it has negative effect long term on adjacent areas. It is just like what is posted here regular about whitetails. The burn supports a greater population of ungulates which translates to greater population of predators...predators must disperse due to social structure so adjacent poorer habitat has a greater proportional number of predators then would be pre burn..these adjacent areas suffer greater predation then if they had not been near a burn.

[HarryToolips]

If we were more efficient harvesters, days per kill data that we have would reflect that.

It's not the case. DpK data indicates no efficiencies, and points instead to lower kill efficiencies in many areas.

This is just one example of coffee shop talk that results in the demand for poor decisions in wildlife management.

When we stick to science, wildlife wins.

When we demand social results that are designed to benefit one particular user group, wildlife loses.

When I hear groups start their rationale with "All these hunters come to OUR area from the lower mainland..." I see little benefit for wildlife in the ensuing discussion.
Exactly....besides, I'll bet the advantages that bownut listed are negated from hunters, in general, being lazier compared to back in the day..

[Dannybuoy]

Yeah maybe I'm out of whack. I can still go to Aberdeen, Pinaus, Silver Hills, upper Kettle and still see the sign I did 10-15 years ago and get my meat, and in the last 5 years have collected my two largest racks ever. but maybe its just me.

What has changed is the impact of resource extraction. Eliminate that and all this chatter is moot

You should have been around more 10-15 years . Ask around .... Not even close .

[338win mag]

no it doesn't. In fact it has negative effect long term on adjacent areas. It is just like what is posted here regular about whitetails. The burn supports a greater population of ungulates which translates to greater population of predators...predators must disperse due to social structure so adjacent poorer habitat has a greater proportional number of predators then would be pre burn..these adjacent areas suffer greater predation then if they had not been near a burn.

Thats funny, its how game has been managed for thousands of years, your saying what....hunt the burns hard? to keep predators down?

[Wild one]

You should have been around more 10-15 years . Ask around .... Not even close .

As someone who has hunted part of those areas for over 20 years off and on I would agree deer numbers have been better in the past.

[338win mag]

I've hunted those area's for over 40 years, also agree not even close, I still fill the freezer but dont see anywhere near the game I used to. Moose, the Moose pop was poor years ago, rare to see one, then they started to take off and they were everywhere, things were looking good, now,,,,back to where they were 30-40 years ago, poor.

[Dannybuoy]

338win mag, WildOne , Thanks for agreeing , The point is the management of wild life has gotten worse and throwing more money into the existing train of thought (science based?) isn't working . And when there is fairly abundant game the FN converge , set up camp and kill everything within rifle shot .ie silver star , whatshan, pratt lake etc etc etc . I don't recall seeing reefer units set up in those area's 20+ years ago .... but what do I know ?:roll:

[Stone Sheep Steve]

338win mag, WildOne , Thanks for agreeing , The point is the management of wild life has gotten worse and throwing more money into the existing train of thought (science based?) isn't working . And when there is fairly abundant game the FN converge , set up camp and kill everything within rifle shot .ie silver star , whatshan, pratt lake etc etc etc . I don't recall seeing reefer units set up in those area's 20+ years ago .... but what do I know ?:roll:

With the shoestring budget that wildlife managers have in BC, they can't actually make more wildlife. They can only manage licensed hunters.

On the bright side, some First Nation Bands have taken a huge step forward and have approached Wildlife managers and have asked what steps they can take.

Lets hope that spreads around the province.

[boxhitch]

Would like to see a pic of one of those reefer trucks

Comparing todays numbers to those of decades earlier won't garner any interest in opening the wallet and spending hard earned cash. Folks live today and look forward to tomorrow
Could hunting be easier? Sure
Could game be richer near to the urban area so hunters didn't have to spend $$ to put meat in the freezer? Sure
Do I want to give more dollars to someone else to squander as they see fit in the hopes of cutting my DpK in half? NO! Would rather fund my own foolish exploits
I know, things like DpK and b/d or d/f ratios are just alternative facts

[boxhitch]

All this talk about better game management and I bet the number that have actually sat a read what the Gov't has for management policies (yes, Dorothy, in print also) can be counted on one foot.
Then there are the alternative management plans created by NGOs that pretty much mirror the Gov't papers.
Makes for some dry reading, but........
Might suggest browsing through those and trying to pique out a fault.

[Dannybuoy]

With the shoestring budget that wildlife managers have in BC, they can't actually make more wildlife. They can only manage licensed hunters.

On the bright side, some First Nation Bands have taken a huge step forward and have approached Wildlife managers and have asked what steps they can take.

Lets hope that spreads around the province.

I hope that happens too (FN )
You are right about managing hunters as well ... look at the other differences from a few years ago ... the hunting season pretty much ended in Oct for mulies and mid Nov for WT . Now the seasons go well into Dec . Pretty hard not to get a deer or two when they are rutting , add that to the number of bowhunters that take advantage on that season ... also the any deer seasons , youth etc . The WT probably cant even stand this pressure for long esp IF we have another wicked winter/spring like the year FisherD refers to (96?)
I realize that I am speaking on a local level and it may be entirely different in reg 5 etc .

[Dannybuoy]

Would like to see a pic of one of those reefer trucks

Comparing todays numbers to those of decades earlier won't garner any interest in opening the wallet and spending hard earned cash. Folks live today and look forward to tomorrow
Could hunting be easier? Sure
Could game be richer near to the urban area so hunters didn't have to spend $$ to put meat in the freezer? Sure
Do I want to give more dollars to someone else to squander as they see fit in the hopes of cutting my DpK in half? NO! Would rather fund my own foolish exploits
I know, things like DpK and b/d or d/f ratios are just alternative facts

Now that I know you a) don't get out much b) have your head in the sand c) a & b
I bother responding again

[boxhitch]

93-94 regs reg 4
w/t- bucks sept 10-nov 20 or 30 some units,
m/d- anybuck sept 10- oct31 then 4pt Nov1-15, some anybuck sept 10-nov 15, some anybuck sept10-nov25

[boxhitch]

93-94 regs reg 8
w/t- some 4pt sept 1-9, anybuck sept10-31, also some sept 10- nov 25, some sept 10-nov9
plus an early and late archery
m/d-some 4pt sept1-9 or 4pt sept10-oct 31, some anybuck sept10-oct31 or sept10-nov9 or sept10-nov15
plus early and late archery

[boxhitch]

Now that I know you a) don't get out much b) have your head in the sand c) a & b
I bother responding againand the myth continues
anyone, has a pic or vid ever been sent to rapp?
no reefer truckshttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/clear.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1879065) in my area, though I did see three guys claiming to be from lml with four deer hanging. Maybe waiting for the truck )

[horshur]

As someone who has hunted part of those areas for over 20 years off and on I would agree deer numbers have been better in the past.

and worse too.

[Dannybuoy]

93-94 regs reg 8
w/t- some 4pt sept 1-9, anybuck sept10-31, also some sept 10- nov 25, some sept 10-nov9
plus an early and late archery
m/d-some 4pt sept1-9 or 4pt sept10-oct 31, some anybuck sept10-oct31 or sept10-nov9 or sept10-nov15
plus early and late archery

Is this when the (change) longer seasons started ? If so thanks for adding proof to what I said . I had thought it was about 20 years ago .... call it bs because it was 22

[Wild one]

and worse too.

Mule deer wise yes

[Dannybuoy]

and the myth continues
anyone, has a pic or vid ever been sent to rapp?
no reefer truckshttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/clear.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1879065) in my area, though I did see three guys claiming to be from lml with four deer hanging. Maybe waiting for the truck )

I realize it is fruitless to argue with someone who has blinders on but WOW ! you take the cake !
I have said all I wish to say on this issue as it is only going sideways now

[horshur]

you guys ever hear how the fishing was in Knouf and Paul lake in the 20's and 30's ever read why? Is it like that now? Why?

[bownut]

Hey guys back on again, sure good to see some open eyes out there. The wheels are rolling straight for a change, and we haven't hit the ditch for a while.

Reading along I noticed some replies are a little defensive but thats ok too, like I said before we need to filter out the emotion and stay focused.
A bit of history on years of hunting and what was available then is good to hear, it will give some new hunters a taste of the potential that ares can achieve.
Without stock piling of coarse, that would be unhealthy for the population.

Our Regulations have been a opportunity based Regs. for quite sometime and the harvest data as flawed as it reflects it. When you give hunters another week or species to hunt
the harvest goes up, you don't need science to figure that out. It's when harvest number drop off with all these increased opportunities, we have problems.
That may be whats happening now?

It will be interesting to see what the 2013 -2016 data shows, can't seem to find it anywhere.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Once everyone realizes that hunting seasons have little impact on mule deer populations, we will all be on the same page. Pushing the giant boulder from the same side will start us in the right direction.

SSS

[bownut]

I don't read the LEH Regs much, are mule deer does still on the blocks?
How about the park?

[338win mag]

93-94 regs reg 8
w/t- some 4pt sept 1-9, anybuck sept10-31, also some sept 10- nov 25, some sept 10-nov9
plus an early and late archery
m/d-some 4pt sept1-9 or 4pt sept10-oct 31, some anybuck sept10-oct31 or sept10-nov9 or sept10-nov15
plus early and late archery

This is too hard on the brain, you used to be able to shoot 2 wt bucks...and yes the reefer trucks...yup

[Ourea]

Once everyone realizes that hunting seasons have little impact on mule deer populations, we will all be on the same page. Pushing the giant boulder from the same side will start us in the right direction.

SSS

Bang on SSS

Until people recognize what the primary drivers are that challenges wildlife numbers and sustainability.....well, the wheel goes round and round.
Regulation is so far down the list it's not worth mentioning and ridiculous to suggest that it will right the sinking ship.
The research is endless to support this.

To suggest that $$$ (funding model) is not a key to addressing the issues, is again, missing what the well identified remedies are.

[bownut]

If hunting seasons have little effect on Mule deer populations, why is it the U.S. who has money to do the studies have cut back so hard? Look just to the south of us on the U.S side
and compare their hunting seasons to ours. This may shed some light on how screwed up we are.
This is also free data that our managers can use to formulate a plan instead of picking pieces out that confirm their actions.
If you don't think these animals share the same habitat loss and predation then we should continue wasting money with our present mule deer study.
Hunter pressure plays a role believe it or continue the downward trend.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

If hunting seasons have little effect on Mule deer populations, why is it the U.S. who has money to do the studies have cut back so hard? Look just to the south of us on the U.S side
and compare their hunting seasons to ours. This may shed some light on how screwed up we are.
This is also free data that our managers can use to formulate a plan instead of picking pieces out that confirm their actions.
If you don't think these animals share the same habitat loss and predation then we should continue wasting money with our present mule deer study.
Hunter pressure plays a role believe it or continue the downward trend.

Set your target ratios and adjust seasons to meet those post hunting season objectives. Every state has different objectives and have to adjust their seasons accordingly.

Hunter density south of 49 doesn't compare to here.

[Ourea]

Regions with NO MD DOE SEASON .... yet MD doe numbers have imploded.
More MD bucks won't make more MD.
More MD does put more fawns on the ground.

Comment/Point....
I can only imagine if there still was an interior caribou season in the Kootenays.....
Hunters would be on this website arguing over how regulation needs to be changed.....that the bios have "mismanaged" yet again....

When populations, such as interior caribou, that are not hunted, are suffering the same challenges as hunted species......
Need to look at the bigger picture and how to fix it.
Regulation is not the solution

[HarryToolips]

What SSS and Ourea are saying is the truth, it's the science behind it folks....and sure the WT deer may have been impacted in certain areas, like with the 2 doe limit etc in region 4, but that has been reduced now, and take reg 8, where we see a tonne of pressure, the WT are doing just fine from mine and many others observations...

[Whonnock Boy]

A quick google found that there is almost double the licensed hunters in Washington state as we have here.

https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/licenseinfo/HuntingLicCertHistory20042015.pdf


If hunting seasons have little effect on Mule deer populations, why is it the U.S. who has money to do the studies have cut back so hard? Look just to the south of us on the U.S side
and compare their hunting seasons to ours.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

A quick google found that there is almost double the licensed hunters in Washington state as we have here.

https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/licenseinfo/HuntingLicCertHistory20042015.pdf


And a quarter of the area?....or is it fifth? Can't remember

[Rob Chipman]

Boxhitch:

"All this talk about better game management and I bet the number that have actually sat a read what the Gov't has for management policies (yes, Dorothy, in print also) can be counted on one foot."

Can you point me in the right direction? Any links you may have that I may have missed are appreciated. Thanks.

[LBM]

Regions with NO MD DOE SEASON .... yet MD doe numbers have imploded.
More MD bucks won't make more MD.
More MD does put more fawns on the ground.

Comment/Point....
I can only imagine if there still was an interior caribou season in the Kootenays.....
Hunters would be on this website arguing over how regulation needs to be changed.....that the bios have "mismanaged" yet again....

When populations, such as interior caribou, that are not hunted, are suffering the same challenges as hunted species......
Need to look at the bigger picture and how to fix it.
Regulation is not the solution

Studys have shown that the number 1 reason for there decline was due to lack of and loss of habitat.

[tuner]

And a quarter of the area?....or is it fifth? Can't remember
Washington is a fifth the size and has a population of approximately 2.4M people more than BC. That's approx. the population of metro Vancouver,they also have double the number of registered hunters, so it's not surprising that they have different hunting regs.

[bearvalley]

Comment/Point....
I can only imagine if there still was an interior caribou season in the Kootenays.....
Hunters would be on this website arguing over how regulation needs to be changed.....that the bios have "mismanaged" yet again....

When populations, such as interior caribou, that are not hunted, are suffering the same challenges as hunted species......
Need to look at the bigger picture and how to fix it.
Regulation is not the solution

Good point, Ourea.
Reading tru these posts shows how tough it will be to get a functioning wildlife roundtable operating.
Hopefully the reps involved when that group is formed can see the big picture...the big picture is far beyond closing the freezer lid on some meat.

Maybe I'm being premature but I do beleive we are heading into a new chapter in wildlife management.
There is a like mindset in some members of all user groups and the common goal is sustainable wildlife.
To maintain sustain wildlife we need a healthy ecosystem.

Our past methods of management have failed.
Not everyone will agree with this.
There will always be the ones content with cruising down mile after mile of unlimited access, waving at their fellow hunters as they pursue non existent opportunities.
That's not my idea of a true hunting experience.

Saying that I believe we will have a wildlife roundtable.
I also believe we will see funding from wildlife based licenses, permits and royalties.
The toughest one to get will be the funds generated by a tax such as the Pittman-Robertson Act.

To do this we have to educate and convince the voting public that this funding is to be used for the good of the entire ecosystem....not just to create more wildlife for the freezer of a hunter.

Next we need (for lack of a better name)... a business plan.
This starts with up to date, independently done wildlife inventory counts.
Next we need to figure out regionally, what species we want and how many.

In in order to make this business plan fly we need a predator management program.
One that is at arms length from government and therefor escapes manipulation from the uneducated voter.

After that we can get to work on harvest unaccountability, over allocation and the many other fires that are pointless if wildlife continues to decline.

On the statement that "we can't bank wildlife"......that is very true.....but even truer is the fact that "0 X 0 = 0".
We are all going to have to give some to win....but then that's just my opinion.

[bearvalley]

What SSS and Ourea are saying is the truth, it's the science behind it folks....and sure the WT deer may have been impacted in certain areas, like with the 2 doe limit etc in region 4, but that has been reduced now, and take reg 8, where we see a tonne of pressure, the WT are doing just fine from mine and many others observations...

Dont get me wrong when I say this but science is not always the tell all.
Science is only as good as the author and who delivers it.
An example case is the G bear issue.
Bruce McLellan has released scientific reports on hunt sustainability and Paul Parquet has authored studies in contradiction.
These studies are individually believed or disbelieved by either the pro or anti G bear hunters.

[Dannybuoy]

You make a lot of sense BV , good posts . I cant say I see any positive changes happening though ....
For the record , I don't take it personal .... I choose not to shoot does , and the last few years Mulies .
WT are still pretty easy and resilient ... may take a doe someday as well .

[boxhitch]

Boxhitch:Can you point me in the right direction? Any links you may have that I may have missed are appreciated. Thanks.BC Gov own website http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/
click 'wildlife' and 'habitat' on the left margin, see the dropdown

https://www.goabc.org/conservation/management-symposium/
created from round table discussions

The science is known, the gaps are known, the needs are known, the will is missing, there it gets political

[bownut]

If the BCWF would stick to their Mandate listed in their Nov. Pres. Report in that nice glossy Magazine that everyone has been quoting, we may stand a chance.
If not it won't even make good fire paper. The Big Picture is becoming clearer and people are watching. 50000 member you would think there would be a few thinkers
in the bunch.

[boxhitch]

There is a like mindset in some members of all user groups and the common goal is sustainable wildlife.
To maintain sustain wildlife we need a healthy ecosystem. Doubt you will get any argument on that


Our past methods of management have failed And yet here we are, with generous gos seasons for most species
Are pops. at their maximum of potential, no. Do they need to be? to be considered sustainable? no
Who would ever decide what target levels for all species could or should be?


The toughest one to get will be the funds generated by a tax such as the Pittman-Robertson Act. iirc the P-R Act adds a levy to all outdoor users and activities in the form of a tax on all outdoors merchandise sold?
guns, rods, hooks, kayaks, tents, butterfly nets, beach umbrellas? not sure how far it goes

[boxhitch]

Next we need (for lack of a better name)... a business plan.
This starts with up to date, independently done wildlife inventory counts.
Next we need to figure out regionally, what species we want and how many.imo it doesn't even have to go that far.
Build the best possible SAFE habitat for all species of plant and animals, and the numbers will look after themselves. No need to cherry-pick which species should get priority.
Wholesale harvesting of beetle wood has had just as big an impact of ermine and marten and owls as it has had on moose

[bownut]

So Habitat Loss is the big bad wolf and we all can agree on that, but will the managers continue to increase Opportunity as history shows. or will there be a cap , one day off for Christmas?
Lets call it for what it is, the mandate will always will be directed to increasing the hunter numbers to create revenue and membership.
This process also pleased the hunting community so there was no fight, after all who doesn't want longer seasons.

Based on science is who proposed all these increases and what were the reasons for these changes. I am still confused on why Whitetail does need a general open season when LEH
was taking care of it. Did we really have to go Jehad on does in such a rapid manner?
People say they compete with the mule deer and it is not good for their recovery. Then they increase the bag limits in region 8 to 3 so a hunter can harvest a white tail buck/doe
and still put the sights on a mule deer. Sounds like great mule deer recovery practice. We now have a When Its Brown Its Down Season. Shame on them.

I keep hearing how we need more money and that mandate is perfectly clear, I just worry that the wildlife will be the Sacrificial lamb.

[338win mag]

Doubt you will get any argument on that

And yet here we are, with generous gos seasons for most species
Are pops. at their maximum of potential, no. Do they need to be? to be considered sustainable? no
Who would ever decide what target levels for all species could or should be?

iirc the P-R Act adds a levy to all outdoor users and activities in the form of a tax on all outdoors merchandise sold?
guns, rods, hooks, kayaks, tents, butterfly nets, beach umbrellas? not sure how far it goesI would also think this idea brilliant, it makes alot of sense to implement a similiar tax here, so long as it went back to its intended use, more sense than a carbon tax which is making no sense at all.

The youth reading these threads need to know that wildlife is going to rebound and were gonna be in good shape and game pops are gonna go up and down, I got skunked too when pops were high.

[GoatGuy]

So Habitat Loss is the big bad wolf and we all can agree on that, but will the managers continue to increase Opportunity as history shows. or will there be a cap , one day off for Christmas?
Lets call it for what it is, the mandate will always will be directed to increasing the hunter numbers to create revenue and membership.
This process also pleased the hunting community so there was no fight, after all who doesn't want longer seasons.

Based on science is who proposed all these increases and what were the reasons for these changes. I am still confused on why Whitetail does need a general open season when LEH
was taking care of it. Did we really have to go Jehad on does in such a rapid manner?
People say they compete with the mule deer and it is not good for their recovery. Then they increase the bag limits in region 8 to 3 so a hunter can harvest a white tail buck/doe
and still put the sights on a mule deer. Sounds like great mule deer recovery practice. We now have a When Its Brown Its Down Season. Shame on them.

I keep hearing how we need more money and that mandate is perfectly clear, I just worry that the wildlife will be the Sacrificial lamb.

If your intent is to discuss the future of wildlife management, you should probably articulate your arguments a bit better, use some data, science and then some common sense.

When I read things like "Jehad", "When Its Brown Its Down Season", and see a complete ignorance (either intentional or unintentional) of science, I tune out. Quite frankly it reminds me exactly of what's going on down south. Don't worry about fact, science, or informing yourself - just make something out, throw out some rhetoric (you aced it with the Jehad reference).

Without a doubt the most significant barrier to wildlife recovery in BC is and always has been hunters schizophrenic attachment to hunting regulations.

It's displacement activity at its finest.

[Walking Buffalo]

Nice to see some are getting it, what a viable platform needs to be/should look like.
Some very good comments being made.
This is one of the few threads that has lead to progressive discussion.
It is creating unity rather than division.

The concept of creating a sustainable and long term funding model to address wildlife concerns has been platformed some time ago.
It is gaining traction and support from all sides including Gov.
Hopefully it comes to fruition.


Once everyone realizes that hunting seasons have little impact on mule deer populations, we will all be on the same page. Pushing the giant boulder from the same side will start us in the right direction.

SSS


Bang on SSS

Until people recognize what the primary drivers are that challenges wildlife numbers and sustainability.....well, the wheel goes round and round.
Regulation is so far down the list it's not worth mentioning and ridiculous to suggest that it will right the sinking ship.
The research is endless to support this.

To suggest that $$$ (funding model) is not a key to addressing the issues, is again, missing what the well identified remedies are.


Ourea,

Has this proposed funding model been shopped around the hunting community for their opinion?

The concept and lobbying seems to be rather hush-hush on details, nothing in the public domain.

People shouldn't be expected to help push an obstacle out of the way without knowing what they are putting their hands on.


Good ideas with the intent to benefit the public will die if the people are not brought into the loop.
Perhaps it is time to share the details.
Yes, there is risk involved in doing so.
Ideas that can survive this risk are worthy, those that can't....

[GoatGuy]

If hunting seasons have little effect on Mule deer populations, why is it the U.S. who has money to do the studies have cut back so hard? Look just to the south of us on the U.S side
and compare their hunting seasons to ours. This may shed some light on how screwed up we are.
This is also free data that our managers can use to formulate a plan instead of picking pieces out that confirm their actions.
If you don't think these animals share the same habitat loss and predation then we should continue wasting money with our present mule deer study.
Hunter pressure plays a role believe it or continue the downward trend.

Washington and Idaho both manage areas between 15 bucks:100 does to around 30 bucks:100 does post hunt depending on the area.

BC manages to a minimum of 20 bucks:100 does, which is above what Idaho and Washington state TARGET post hunt. They intentionally manage to lower buck:doe ratios than BC does in some of their areas.

BC has numerous MUs which consistently result in more than 30 bucks:100 does post hunt. Ironically many of 'our deer' which are 4 pts all season and we close Nov 10th, are being hunted in a December any buck season in Idaho...... and Idaho is quite fine with mule deer regulations; their mule deer population is increasing across most of the state. AND they have doe seasons.... yet their pops continue to increase.

The reason some of their seasons are shorter is because they have WAY MORE HUNTERS than BC does. Washington state was as high as 360,000 hunters at one point; right now they have around 200,000 in a place 1/5 the size of BC. BC is around 110,000.


Idaho, a jurisdiction 1/4 the size of BC shot 38,000 mule deer (incl BT) last year compared to 20,000 shot in BC (2014). Idaho also shot around 30,000 white-tailed deer compared to around 12,000 in BC (2014).

Idaho is killing around 70,000 deer per year across an imaginary line. BC would be lucky to harvest half of that.

Again, I will circle back to what is important to deer: How many are standing after the season, not how long the hunting season is. So how is it a jurisdiction which exists across an imaginary line, is 1/4 the size, shoots more than twice as many deer, and the deer populations are increasing? Do you still think it's about hunting regulations?


You talk about 'picking pieces out that confirm their actions' and I would agree.

You have taken an intentionally ignorant approach to what is being done in terms of mule deer hunting across Western North America and fit it to what you think is the issue without a single strand of evidence. "The seasons are shorter in the US, so that must be what will fix our wildlife populations."

What the evidence says is in Idaho, across an imaginary line, they are managing for lower sex ratios in some areas, they are harvesting more deer, increasing the number of tags, and their mule deer population is still increasing...... yet you still want to talk about hunting regulations.


What this should tell you is it isn't about hunting regulations. If you talk to Mark Hurley, the mule deer expert, and head of science for Idaho, he will tell you the same thing. If you talk to any other mule deer expert they will tell you the same thing. The researchers, and managers across North America will tell you what you are peddling is complete BS, but there is a continued reversion back to hunting regulations as if it is some sort of panacea.

The willful ignorance to science is what got us to where we are. 40 years of changing the hunting regulations, with no focus on wildlife population drivers is what has got us to where we are. A bunch of good old boys dreaming up the number of points an antler should have before you can shoot it. How well has that worked? Really? Have things improved? Are there deer/elk/moose running all over the hills? From what I can see, it doesn't look like it. But when I look over an imaginary line I see a jurisdiction which is focused on population drivers, not hunting regulations, and guess what: their wildlife populations are increasing. They are experiencing some record high harvests.

At some point we will either wake up and smell the coffee, or go extinct.

Hunting regulations are the quickest route to extinction.

[GoatGuy]

I don't read the LEH Regs much, are mule deer does still on the blocks?
How about the park?

You might kill 5-8 does/year in MU 8-09 through LEH.

The park is part of 8-09, but it's unlikely that someone will hike in to the park when they could simply road hunt and see 20-30 does in a couple of hours close to town.

In the Okanagan you will kill more mule deer does on the highways in one day than you will kill through all of the LEH in the region.



So what's important?

[GoatGuy]

Ourea,

Has this proposed funding model been shopped around the hunting community for their opinion?

The concept and lobbying seems to be rather hush-hush on details, nothing in the public domain.

People shouldn't be expected to help push an obstacle out of the way without knowing what they are putting their hands on.


Good ideas with the intent to benefit the public will die if the people are not brought into the loop.
Perhaps it is time to share the details.
Yes, there is risk involved in doing so.
Ideas that can survive this risk are worthy, those that can't....

1)yes
2) yes, in the public domain
3) There will be more in advance of the prov. election. Lots of people who have been exposed to increased funding, but care only about hunting regulations (as you can see). "We don't need more money, just more regulations."

[338win mag]

You might kill 5-8 does/year in MU 8-09 through LEH.

The park is part of 8-09, but it's unlikely that someone will hike in to the park when they could simply road hunt and see 20-30 does in a couple of hours close to town.

In the Okanagan you will kill more mule deer does on the highways in one day than you will kill through all of the LEH in the region.



So what's important?

Sounds hypothetical, in one day? I know its high but...

I think we need to work on barriers (fencing) on the highways then and the insurance companies can help pay for them with all the ICBC claims with thousands of deer hit on Okanagan highways.

[GoatGuy]

Sounds hypothetical, in one day? I know its high but...

I think we need to work on barriers (fencing) on the highways then and the insurance companies can help pay for them with all the ICBC claims with thousands of deer hit on Okanagan highways.

Agreed.

Challenge with fencing and migratory wildlife populations. Some of our pops migrate a long ways from summer/winter range, fencing alone blocks the migratory routes.

Need fencing and overpasses/underpasses.

What the solution looks like:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/highway-crossings-credited-for-decline-in-national-park-wildlife-deaths

Works well, costs a lot of money, needs hunters support.

[Fisher-Dude]

We kill 165 mule deer does/year on LEH in region 8.

Population is between 28,000 - 42,000 mule deer in region 8.

That is between 0.58% and 0.39% harvest.

But yeah, let's keep talking about how awful our regulations are and demand immediate closures because doe LEH is detrimental to mule deer populations. :roll:

[LBM]

Agreed.

Challenge with fencing and migratory wildlife populations. Some of our pops migrate a long ways from summer/winter range, fencing alone blocks the migratory routes.

Need fencing and overpasses/underpasses.

What the solution looks like:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/highway-crossings-credited-for-decline-in-national-park-wildlife-deaths

Works well, costs a lot of money, needs hunters support.

May stop vehicle collisions but will cause a lot more deaths by wolves and coyotes once they figure out how well running them into the fence works
then you will just be blaming them instead of the fence.

[GoatGuy]

LBM, if the response was to me, FYI put you on ignore list after the last batch of fiction.

Not a productive use of time.

[btridge]

Washington and Idaho both manage areas between 15 bucks:100 does to around 30 bucks:100 does post hunt depending on the area.

BC manages to a minimum of 20 bucks:100 does, which is above what Idaho and Washington state TARGET post hunt. They intentionally manage to lower buck:doe ratios than BC does in some of their areas.

BC has numerous MUs which consistently result in more than 30 bucks:100 does post hunt. Ironically many of 'our deer' which are 4 pts all season and we close Nov 10th, are being hunted in a December any buck season in Idaho...... and Idaho is quite fine with mule deer regulations; their mule deer population is increasing across most of the state. AND they have doe seasons.... yet their pops continue to increase.

The reason some of their seasons are shorter is because they have WAY MORE HUNTERS than BC does. Washington state was as high as 360,000 hunters at one point; right now they have around 200,000 in a place 1/5 the size of BC. BC is around 110,000.


Idaho, a jurisdiction 1/4 the size of BC shot 38,000 mule deer (incl BT) last year compared to 20,000 shot in BC (2014). Idaho also shot around 30,000 white-tailed deer compared to around 12,000 in BC (2014).

Idaho is killing around 70,000 deer per year across an imaginary line. BC would be lucky to harvest half of that.

Again, I will circle back to what is important to deer: How many are standing after the season, not how long the hunting season is. So how is it a jurisdiction which exists across an imaginary line, is 1/4 the size, shoots more than twice as many deer, and the deer populations are increasing? Do you still think it's about hunting regulations?


You talk about 'picking pieces out that confirm their actions' and I would agree.

You have taken an intentionally ignorant approach to what is being done in terms of mule deer hunting across Western North America and fit it to what you think is the issue without a single strand of evidence. "The seasons are shorter in the US, so that must be what will fix our wildlife populations."

What the evidence says is in Idaho, across an imaginary line, they are managing for lower sex ratios in some areas, they are harvesting more deer, increasing the number of tags, and their mule deer population is still increasing...... yet you still want to talk about hunting regulations.


What this should tell you is it isn't about hunting regulations. If you talk to Mark Hurley, the mule deer expert, and head of science for Idaho, he will tell you the same thing. If you talk to any other mule deer expert they will tell you the same thing. The researchers, and managers across North America will tell you what you are peddling is complete BS, but there is a continued reversion back to hunting regulations as if it is some sort of panacea.

The willful ignorance to science is what got us to where we are. 40 years of changing the hunting regulations, with no focus on wildlife population drivers is what has got us to where we are. A bunch of good old boys dreaming up the number of points an antler should have before you can shoot it. How well has that worked? Really? Have things improved? Are there deer/elk/moose running all over the hills? From what I can see, it doesn't look like it. But when I look over an imaginary line I see a jurisdiction which is focused on population drivers, not hunting regulations, and guess what: their wildlife populations are increasing. They are experiencing some record high harvests.

At some point we will either wake up and smell the coffee, or go extinct.

Hunting regulations are the quickest route to extinction.

Well said.

[LBM]

LBM, if the response was to me, FYI put you on ignore list after the last batch of fiction.

Not a productive use of time.
No not for you just putting another fact out there.
But you and your group ignoring people is one of the problems out there for it wasn't that long ago when people were complaining about declining populations and your group said every thing was fine and that those bringing it up didn't no how to hunt etc, find it funny how you now think theres a problem. Time to get off the high horse and quit worrying about personal agendas. The only one losing in this is the wildlife.

[GoatGuy]

The latest from a report on CN after they had installed exclusion fencing in three high collision areas. The number of moose killed went down 87% in these three areas. The area is called Telkwa subdivision it runs between Endako and Smithers (hwy distance is around 200 kms).

"While collision levels along the TelkwaSubdivision ranged from 36 to 71 in five of the past sixyears, extreme snow depths in the winter of 2014-2015resulted in an estimated 168 moose-train collisions." That is after collisions went down in those 3 areas......

From a Globe and Mail article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-residents-demand-action-to-reduce-moose-deaths-along-cn-railway-tracks/article29600443/

"Between 2007 and 2012, there were 454 to 501 moose kills on the stretch of rail between Endako and Smithers known as the Telkwa Subdivision, Mr. Snetsinger said in his report – suggesting a forgone value to the province of an estimated $500,000 in hunting and associated revenues."

Region 6 hasn't had a cow moose season since 1998.



I think we should focus on the hunting season..........................................

[bownut]

Hey nice to see you join in Goatguy, too baad you had a go at my spelling, but I got you talking didn't it.

Good information and data by the way very informative stuff, you rock dude.


Can I ask you one simple question... are you happy with the results so for?
Your a math expert, and I am just a idiot, so help me learn.
With all the increases in opportunity and bag limits, has the harvest gone up proportionally?
I know as previously stated harvest data means nothing but , what is the trend.

I noticed that from 2001 -2013 the M/W deer harvest for 8-10 almost averaged 925 Resident hunters to 1421, and the days afield increased by around 3000.
If the total harvest increased by 212 animals is that a good trend?
*In 2011 and 2012 there was a slight increase, lets call that the Golden Years.
If your pleased does 2014-2016 Harvest reflect the same results?
"
Remember I am just a dumb Armchair Biologist who cares about his heritage, and really hate when I get call a "Fawn Killer" by Fisher Dude and a Dumb guy who can't spell by you.
I guess all I can do is Filter That Out and stay focused.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings big guy. Knuckles...

[bownut]

Great numbers, Great science how did we afford to get all this accurate and concise data? When we are so short of funds could these numbers be flawed?
That is one of the big questions that most people are asking. So many questions so little time.

[Fisher-Dude]

Then they increase the bag limits in region 8 to 3 so a hunter can harvest a white tail buck/doe
and still put the sights on a mule deer. Sounds like great mule deer recovery practice. We now have a When Its Brown Its Down Season. Shame on them.


Do you have any idea what the incremental harvest of that change is?

Here's a hint: the 2nd deer tag is filled by less than 4% of hunters.

Explain the conservation concern of then offering a 3rd tag.

Look forward to your answer.

[GoatGuy]

What's happening across an imaginary line in Idaho.

https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/2016-big-game-outlook

There's more if you follow the link, here's the summary:


"Idaho’s fall hunting season is likely to be outstanding. Coming on the heels of an all-time record white-tailed deer harvest in 2015 and the highest harvests in more than a decade for mule deer and elk, hunting this fall should be similar last year.
Let’s take a quick look at the 2015 hunt. Deer hunters had a 43-percent success rate in general season hunts and a 61 percent success rate in controlled hunts. They took 68,768 deer, which included a record 30,568 whitetails that topped the previous record of 29,800 whitetails set in 1999. It was also the largest deer harvest since 1991, and 36 percent above the 10-year average harvest.
Elk hunters weren’t far behind. They harvested 24,543 elk in 2015, which easily topped the 2014 harvest of 20,700 which was considered a pretty good year. It was also 35 percent above the 10-year average, and the largest elk harvest since 1996. General-season elk hunters had a 22 percent success rate, and hunters with controlled tags more than doubled that with 46 percent success. Combined, the average success rate was 27 percent for elk hunting.
With a little luck, elk hunters this year could top 25,000 elk during fall hunts,which has only happened three times in the last 40 years.
And that new whitetail record may be short-lived. The 2016 harvest could “easily match” last year’s, according to Fish and Game’s big game manager Jon Rachael. With whitetail hunting growing in popularity in Idaho and whitetail populations strong, this year could break another record.
Mule deer hunters won’t get left out of the bounty. Herds are healthy and growing throughout much of the state and should provide an above-average harvest. With a little help from the weather in fall, it could also be an exceptional year for mule deer hunting. "

[HarryToolips]

Thanks for the info there GG.....

[GoatGuy]

Hey nice to see you join in Goatguy, too baad you had a go at my spelling, but I got you talking didn't it.

Good information and data by the way very informative stuff, you rock dude.


Can I ask you one simple question... are happy with the results so for?
Your a math expert, and I am just a idiot, so help me learn.
With all the increases in opportunity and bag limits, is the harvest gone up proportionally?
I know as previously stated harvest data means nothing but , what is the trend.

I noticed that from 2001 -2013 the M/W deer harvest for 8-10 almost averaged 925 Resident hunters to 1421, and the days afield increased by around 3000.
If the total harvest increased by 212 animals is that a good trend?
*In 2011 and 2012 there was a slight increase, lets call that the Golden Years.
If your pleased does 2014-2016 Harvest reflect the same results?
"
Remember I am just a dumb Armchair Biologist who cares about his heritage, and really hate when I get call a "Fawn Killer" by Fisher Dude and a Dumb guy who can't spell by you.
I guess all I can do is Filter That Out and stay focused.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings big guy. Knuckles...

1) No, not happy with the results.



If you look at the big picture, you will find hunting seasons are generally more restrictive, hunter harvest is generally down, and wildlife is generally (with some exceptions) in decline. While hunter numbers have increased in the last 10 years, they are still down compared to the 70s, 80s, and early 90s as is harvest. If you look across NA you will find BC has very few hunters given its size and abundance of species.

Female harvest has been all but eliminated for moose, elk, and mule deer, yet populations continue to decline..... and hunters still want to talk about hunting seasons. It hasn't worked for 40 years, but let's try it again, just in case. That tool ran out of steam in 1997, 20 years ago. If your wildlife populations haven't recovered since the majority of antlerless harvest was cancelled, chances are they won't.

You can pick individual MUs, and you can pick baselines that support any theory you wish to convey. Take 2001, or 2004, or 1998 as your baseline to suit the agenda. Have seen it where people pick the year after a die-off to establish their baseline to rationalize over-harvest "ever since the die-off." Or you can cherry pick it in relation to the number of hunters if you want and say that's a bad thing in isolation of other variables. You can fire off rhetoric about one MU, or come up with a theory that 5 LEH does is what's driving mule deer populations. You can talk about how much more restrictive seasons are in jurisdictions that are 1/4 the size of BC and have twice as many hunters as if it's even a rational comparison. Not interested.

It's about what's standing after the season. If the sperm is hitting the egg at the right time, and you aren't shooting a pile of antlerless animals chances are your problems are not caused by hunting. That is simply the reality of the situation.

You simply won't fix the wildlife problem until you turn your mind to the population drivers.

We have to have it in our heads: How do we increase wildlife populations? That is the question hunters need to start asking. How do we get back what we once had?

Right now you have, "we need to change the hunting regulations" in our head. These two are worlds apart. Generations of hunters have had "we need to change the hunting regulations" in their head and if you look around you can see the results. It ain't working. Why people would continue to go back to a well that's been dry for at least 20 years is mind boggling to me.




Don't recall calling you a "Dumb guy who can't spell" but if I did I apologize. Interest is that kind of minutia is non-existent.

[GoatGuy]

Great numbers, Great science how did we afford to get all this accurate and concise data? When we are so short of funds could these numbers be flawed?
That is one of the big questions that most people are asking. So many questions so little time.


CN paid for it because some of the local hunters/outfitters thought it was an important issue.

Lots of work to go, but those pushing and prodding government and industry are pointed in the right direction.

That is a big picture approach.

[Bucksandbeers]

Do you have any idea what the incremental harvest of that change is?

Here's a hint: the 2nd deer tag is filled by less than 4% of hunters.

Explain the conservation concern of then offering a 3rd tag.

Look forward to your answer.

if you are going to throw out percentages how about these for reasons not to do the 3 deer per year season...

How many guide outfitters fill all their annual quota's? A very small percent right? Yet you were one of the guys livid about the govt increasing their quotas even though you knew it was going to have very little impact on actual resident harvest numbers and no impact on your "conservation concern"!!

also you claim you are so far ahead of everyone on the issues of wildlife management and now all you need are the funds to get the ball rolling. Let's just say you do have all the answers, and you start trying to put more animals on the mountain like you claim, don't you think having that 3 deer limit in place could be a big limiting factor for the growth of the herd? May not be a conservation concern but sure won't help to increase pops, or do you think the 3 deer limit will help deer populations grow?

[horshur]

if you are going to throw out percentages how about these for reasons not to do the 3 deer per year season... In

How many guide outfitters fill all their annual quota's? A very small percent right? Yet you were one of the guys livid about the govt increasing their quotas even though you knew it was going to have very little impact on actual resident harvest numbers and no impact on your "conservation concern"!!

also you claim you are so far ahead of everyone on the issues of wildlife management and now all you need are the funds to get the ball rolling. Let's just say you do have all the answers, and you start trying to put more animals on the mountain like you claim, don't you think having that 3 deer limit in place could be a big limiting factor for the growth of the herd? May not be a conservation concern but sure won't help to increase pops, or do you think the 3 deer limit will help deer populations grow?
Here there is a trophy lake above my place used to have nice big fish in it..It was ice fished by locals regular because of the big trout. A lodge lobbied for access restrictions and ice fishing closer as well reduced limit. This lake has natural spawning depending on snow run off. Because of the lack harvest do to restrictions imposed and the natural spawning a overpopulation resulted... Effectively ruining the productivity of the lake..Now it is full of skinny stunted fish...Even if that lake winter killed it would take years to recover the damage of overpopulation...This is the state of deer hunting in many places in BC

[horshur]

My question is do you all think the range can handle more deer...

[bearvalley]

My question is do you all think the range can handle more deer...

I can't speak for your neck of the woods but Region 5 sure can.

[bownut]

If Hunters are not filling their tags is that good or bad. Nothing to harvest sounds like a bad thing to me, unless your as picky as I am.
Not sure how to add that up.
Give a hunter ten tags when their is only 2 animals only benefits the Banker I am thinking. Or is everyone that bad at hunting?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

If Hunters are not filling their tags is that good or bad. Nothing to harvest sounds like a bad thing to me, unless your as picky as I am.
Not sure how to add that up.
Give a hunter ten tags when their is only 2 animals only benefits the Banker I am thinking. Or is everyone that bad at hunting?

Nothing has changed with regards to mule deer limits. They are the species of concern.

All increased opportunity is with whitetails which is part of the southern interior mule
deer recovery strategy.

[bownut]

And that may be the problem that we are facing and as far as a strategy why is it we put a provincial bag limit in one region, we still kept the mule deer in the sights.
If you have a predator problem and you shoot all your white tails were do they turn to... the mule deer.
Carry on

[bearvalley]

If you have a predator problem and you shoot all your white tails were do they turn to... the mule deer.
Carry on

That makes about as much sense as reducing moose numbers in order to starve wolves out of an area in order to recover a declining caribou population.
The wolves are still going to eat something.....a good chance it will be caribou.
Science told someone that might work.
Dead wolves would have been the solution....no scientific study needed to arrive at that conclusion.

[Fisher-Dude]

And that may be the problem that we are facing and as far as a strategy why is it we put a provincial bag limit in one region, we still kept the mule deer in the sights.
If you have a predator problem and you shoot all your white tails were do they turn to... the mule deer.
Carry on

Science shows the opposite.

Cougars supplement their diets with whitetails and don't decline as they should with mule deer populations, and then further decimate mule deer populations.

Read this: http://www.sgrc.selkirk.ca/bioatlas/pdf/Cougar_Predation_and_Population_Growth.pdf

[358mag]

That makes about as much sense as reducing moose numbers in order to starve wolves out of an area in order to recover a declining caribou population.
The wolves are still going to eat something.....a good chance it will be caribou.
Science told someone that might work.
Dead wolves would have been the solution....no scientific study needed to arrive at that conclusion.
So true BV , but sometimes I have to wonder if science cant see the trees because of the forest .

[Bucksandbeers]

Nothing has changed with regards to mule deer limits. They are the species of concern.

All increased opportunity is with whitetails which is part of the southern interior mule
deer recovery strategy.

Plenty of science shows whitetail numbers have no competitive effect on mule deer populations so are you saying it's ok that the increase in opportunity is not to benefit the wildlife and only to benefit hunter harvest? Sorry Steve, not being rude just trying to understand your theory how this helps Mule Deer? Sounds like you are very well versed and are trying educate and not just talk down to people!

[Stone Sheep Steve]

And that may be the problem that we are facing and as far as a strategy why is it we put a provincial bag limit in one region, we still kept the mule deer in the sights.
If you have a predator problem and you shoot all your white tails were do they turn to... the mule deer.
Carry on

Again, hunting isn't impacting mule deer numbers. That's something you are just going to have to grasp.

Cougars always prefer mule deer over whitetails.

We have the ability to deal with cougars. That doesn't take political will....unlike dealing with wolves.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

That makes about as much sense as reducing moose numbers in order to starve wolves out of an area in order to recover a declining caribou population.
The wolves are still going to eat something.....a good chance it will be caribou.
Science told someone that might work.
Dead wolves would have been the solution....no scientific study needed to arrive at that conclusion.

The recommendation from the bios including reducing wolves at the same time as reducing moose numbers. But unfortunately the political will wasn't there at the time.

[bearvalley]

The recommendation from the bios including reducing wolves at the same time as reducing moose numbers. But unfortunately the political will wasn't there at the time.

So maybe a rewrite of BC's Grey Wolf Management Plan should be undertaken.
The political will was taken away in black and white...
This is just one more flaw that shows why we need a wildlife stakeholder round table.
Its not fair to the politicians to blame them for not doing what they knew needed done.
Its not fair to the Regional Wildlife Managers and the bios to entirely take the flack.
The blame in this case is entirely on the shoulders of the uneducated voting public that government fears the reprecussion of.
Sad way to manage the wildlife resource.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

So maybe a rewrite of BC's Grey Wolf Management Plan should be undertaken.
The political will was taken away in black and white...
This is just one more flaw that shows why we need a wildlife stakeholder round table.
Its not fair to the politicians to blame them for not doing what they knew needed done.
Its not fair to the Regional Wildlife Managers and the bios to entirely take the flack.
The blame in this case is entirely on the shoulders of the uneducated voting public that government fears the reprecussion of.
Sad way to manage the wildlife resource.

Agreed....

[GoatGuy]

That makes about as much sense as reducing moose numbers in order to starve wolves out of an area in order to recover a declining caribou population.
The wolves are still going to eat something.....a good chance it will be caribou.
Science told someone that might work.
Dead wolves would have been the solution....no scientific study needed to arrive at that conclusion.



The scientists recommended predator reduction concurrently with moose reduction; the politicians wouldn't support it at the time.

[GoatGuy]

Plenty of science shows whitetail numbers have no competitive effect on mule deer populations so are you saying it's ok that the increase in opportunity is not to benefit the wildlife and only to benefit hunter harvest? Sorry Steve, not being rude just trying to understand your theory how this helps Mule Deer? Sounds like you are very well versed and are trying educate and not just talk down to people!


Please show the science that apparent competition is not an issue. Would love to see it.

[bearvalley]

The scientists recommended predator reduction concurrently with moose reduction; the politicians wouldn't support it at the time.

Which moose reduction?
The caribou recovery I'm thinking of turned into a wolf study that ran short of funding.
Then it went to a moose reduction plan implemented by an increase in moose hunting oppurtunities.
Then the wolf study was reinstated...only to find that the original tampering with the packs had increased the wolf population.
So the wolf study carried on until the lead researcher passed away or it ran out of funding again.
During both phases of the wolf study there was some reduction in the wolf population.
Probably about enough to cause pack fragmentation and compound the predation of caribou.
The Regional bios and staff working on the project were elated that something was being done for these caribou and fully wanted the removal of the wolf packs.
The expert that was consulted with on this caribou recovery recommended wolf removal.
Do you really want to know who put the brakes on to solving the problem?
You probably don't want to hear it on this forum.
Another reason for a stakeholder round table.

[Bucksandbeers]

Please show the science that apparent competition is not an issue. Would love to see it.

Here is one example. I read lots of these threads and I see you reference Idaho lots for wildlife management. Plenty others out there if you look as well.
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/wlf448/competition%20of%20mule%20&%20white-tailed%20deeer.pdf

This quote from the article sums it up...
"Of more than 30 papers published on competition between ungulate species none provide convincing evidence for competition." "Non provide measures of strength or impact of competition"

[bownut]

Thanks for sending the link. There are several concerns over the use of this study as a means of a management tool in the present day situation - namely the timeliness of the information, as well as the breath and depth of the study itself. Firstly, according to the abstract (page 2), this study was conducted from 1997-2000, with a report publication in 2002. Essentially this data is 15-20 years old. This would mean that this data is most likely outdated and not comparable to present day factors. Secondly, this data was collected as a snapshot study, within a very small sample population and area. This fact is reiterated by the the researchers on pages 25-26 in the Management Acknowledgment section.

To directly quote the researchers themselves from the Management Acknowledgment section:

'The results and recommendations presented in this paper are not unequivocal because of the small sample sizes, short time series and lack of experimental replication. We urge other researchers to test to test for apparent competition in systems where mule deer and white tail tail are sympatric, and mule deer to be declining.".

With this they are simply stating the short comings of their own study.

In conclusion, I would hope that we are not building a whole management plan for future conservation based on this small sample report.

[Bucksandbeers]

Agreed, was just throwing out examples as asked, if anyone wants to look into it like I have in the past you will find a majority don't believe competition is a factor, some will suggest it "may" be, but more say it is not. Unless something in the past few years has completely changed. Thank you for the insight bownut, much appreciated. What are your thoughts on competition between mule deer and whitetail deer bownut?

[bownut]

The competition of whitetail/muley historically was a non-issue. They each had their own ranges and ecosystems (lowland v highland). However, due to habitat lose, increased predation, increase in hunter access we have created population densities that are confined to smaller area, which have unfortunately resulted in increased competition between the species. This is now like shooting fish in a barrel because they are now condensed to the same small areas. This is definitely should be a red flag to all concerned hunters because thinning out the whitetail at this point will certainly be detrimental to both species.

Being that mule deer are the preferred prey of cougars, (and the wolves are out there taking care of everything else), past science and current management really needs to be revisited and not based on past biases and (mis)information.

[338win mag]

So maybe a rewrite of BC's Grey Wolf Management Plan should be undertaken.
The political will was taken away in black and white...
This is just one more flaw that shows why we need a wildlife stakeholder round table.
Its not fair to the politicians to blame them for not doing what they knew needed done.
Its not fair to the Regional Wildlife Managers and the bios to entirely take the flack.
The blame in this case is entirely on the shoulders of the uneducated voting public that government fears the reprecussion of.
Sad way to manage the wildlife resource.

It kinda is the politicians fault, for not doing something they know is right but are risking their pension and their political careers?

The un-educated voters, some of these wolf lovers are educated, lets not underestimate these people, or at least the ones behind are educated using the seemingly un-educated to act as fodder.
Its no different than many other issue's we face in Canada where people vote with their heart instead of their head, this is precisely why an independent group of wildlife managers "run the show" as I think it was SSS and others elude to.
The hunting community by and large are too honest to resort to some of the underhanded tactics that some of these other groups will stoop.

[GoatGuy]

Here is one example. I read lots of these threads and I see you reference Idaho lots for wildlife management. Plenty others out there if you look as well.
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/wlf448/competition%20of%20mule%20&%20white-tailed%20deeer.pdf

This quote from the article sums it up...
"Of more than 30 papers published on competition between ungulate species none provide convincing evidence for competition." "Non provide measures of strength or impact of competition"


Apparent competition, not competition between ungulates, apparent competition..........

[Fisher-Dude]

Here is one example. I read lots of these threads and I see you reference Idaho lots for wildlife management. Plenty others out there if you look as well.
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/wlf448/competition%20of%20mule%20&%20white-tailed%20deeer.pdf

This quote from the article sums it up...
"Of more than 30 papers published on competition between ungulate species none provide convincing evidence for competition." "Non provide measures of strength or impact of competition"

Cory, you should have read the graphs on page 5 of your link.

Increased mule deer numbers suppressed whitetail population growth rates.

Increased whitetail numbers suppressed mule deer population growth rates.

Sometimes, cherry picking will bite you squarely in the ass.

[bearvalley]

It kinda is the politicians fault, for not doing something they know is right but are risking their pension and their political careers?

The un-educated voters, some of these wolf lovers are educated, lets not underestimate these people, or at least the ones behind are educated using the seemingly un-educated to act as fodder.
Its no different than many other issue's we face in Canada where people vote with their heart instead of their head, this is precisely why an independent group of wildlife managers "run the show" as I think it was SSS and others elude to.
The hunting community by and large are too honest to resort to some of the underhanded tactics that some of these other groups will stoop.

The term "un-educated voter" was used in a slightly sarcastically way by me.

I probably understand the drivers behind wolf protectionism as much as any poster on this forum. Most would be damn surprised if they knew the actual names of some of the people that have put our wildlife in jeprody by making management calls that benefit their own personal wants. I have little use for the ones that pretend to be on the hunting teams side while throughout their professional career they have cut our throats.

Maybe instead of the word un-educated I should have said "brainwashed".....that's what's been done in many cases when it comes to wildlife management.
The sheep have been molded by the wolves.

We have been fed a line of ongoing BS when it comes to what's going on with wildlife management.
The ones presently in charge have been able to divert attention by keeping the different stakeholder groups at each other's throats by continually playing the allocation, LEH, quota.....special interest groups favouritism game.
In the meantime we get fed the line that everything is good, numbers are fine......
A lot of this is basked on inadequate or skewed data.

Its not working so good lately because guys from these groups are talking.

As for SSS thinking up the concept of an independent group to manage wildlife...... no offence to SSS.....it wasn't his thought.

This Roundtable approach to wildlife management is desperately needed.
Both forms of wolves will get thinned out then.

[338win mag]

A separate entity for wildlife management....distancing itself from government...similiar to how the forest companies are now enjoying a free for all in the bush, now with the MOF taking a backseat, it would appear the government is not at fault for the total destruction of habitat. I knew something was up when they seemingly removed forestry from being the "watchdog" and taking care of riparian and other critical habitat. It never seems to be on voter's agenda's, funny how that works.

Here's another question that has alot of people wondering about...Why are cattle being grazed in critical winter Mule deer habitat? A bizarre situation that needs to be explored, if there needs to be cattle destroying habitat then maybe it should be above a certain elevation, above winter habitat, its bad enough they are ruining our water supply and spreading invasive plants changing the eco-system potentially forever, thats simply inviting a massive disaster that we will never recover from.
The clear losers here is wildlife.

[338win mag]

I'm not implying it was SSS idea, he mentioned it is all, I think some original idea's are needed now more than ever, lol.

[bearvalley]

A separate entity for wildlife management....distancing itself from government...similiar to how the forest companies are now enjoying a free for all in the bush, now with the MOF taking a backseat, it would appear the government is not at fault for the total destruction of habitat. I knew something was up when they seemingly removed forestry from being the "watchdog" and taking care of riparian and other critical habitat. It never seems to be on voter's agenda's, funny how that works.

Here's another question that has alot of people wondering about...Why are cattle being grazed in critical winter Mule deer habitat? A bizarre situation that needs to be explored, if there needs to be cattle destroying habitat then maybe it should be above a certain elevation, above winter habitat, its bad enough they are ruining our water supply and spreading invasive plants changing the eco-system potentially forever, thats simply inviting a massive disaster that we will never recover from.
The clear losers here is wildlife.

We are talking a different scenario here.
All users of wildlife will be involved at the table.
In the case of forestry....management was left solely to the tree harvesters.

On the cattle issue...cows have grazed mule deer winter for decades. In exchange farming and ranching has created spring range for mule deer. It's a bit of a trade off.
Can you point out one specific area where cattle grazing on winter range has caused the crash of mule deer.
Lets take a look at Empire Valley.
Historically it supported a large cattle herd and an abundant mule deer population.
Today the cattle herd is a fraction of the past.
Empire Valley has protected areas with no grazing allowed.
The mule deer numbers have crashed.....go figure.

l won't say that a cow won't shit in a creek but I recall when Coldstream Ranch out of Vernon went thru taking the rap for water contamination caused by cattle.
When the water tests were done it came forth that the contamination was from wildlife and human waste....go figure.

When we're pointing fingers we better stop and think about what we are doing.
Where does my turd go when I flush the toilet.
Are all the knapweed seeds off my pickup or quad....maybe I'm spreading invasive weeds.

That kind of thinking fits in the big picture.

[338win mag]

Thanks for responding BV, I'll get back on that!

[Bucksandbeers]

Cory, you should have read the graphs on page 5 of your link.

Increased mule deer numbers suppressed whitetail population growth rates.

Increased whitetail numbers suppressed mule deer population growth rates.

Sometimes, cherry picking will bite you squarely in the ass.

Its not cherry picking at all it's always been my argument that people use so called science when needed and then claim lack of science when it works for them. You can find proof for every argument. In the article you posted last night I read and find non conclusive eveidence of competition. As is most science nothing in the first 30 pages I have read so far is conclusive. This may be a cause, this may be the problem, this may be what is happening. Just like you can cherry pick from what I post I can cherry pick from everything you post. Where does this get us? You need to stop speaking like your science is so definitive. I always try to speak from a Wildlife point of view and try to ask lots of questions, not try to pretend I have all the answers.

[BL77]

The term "un-educated voter" was used in a slightly sarcastically way by me.

I probably understand the drivers behind wolf protectionism as much as any poster on this forum. Most would be damn surprised if they knew the actual names of some of the people that have put our wildlife in jeprody by making management calls that benefit their own personal wants. I have little use for the ones that pretend to be on the hunting teams side while throughout their professional career they have cut our throats.

Maybe instead of the word un-educated I should have said "brainwashed".....that's what's been done in many cases when it comes to wildlife management.
The sheep have been molded by the wolves.

We have been fed a line of ongoing BS when it comes to what's going on with wildlife management.
The ones presently in charge have been able to divert attention by keeping the different stakeholder groups at each other's throats by continually playing the allocation, LEH, quota.....special interest groups favouritism game.
In the meantime we get fed the line that everything is good, numbers are fine......
A lot of this is basked on inadequate or skewed data.

Its not working so good lately because guys from these groups are talking.

As for SSS thinking up the concept of an independent group to manage wildlife...... no offence to SSS.....it wasn't his thought.

This Roundtable approach to wildlife management is desperately needed.
Both forms of wolves will get thinned out then.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Bucksandbeers]

Well said BV!

[Dannybuoy]

This thread is making my head hurt . The more I read , the more I think the "science" based theories are wrong and would be another failed experiment . The best I can hope for is that no changes are made and we take our chances that mother nature manages it for us . cant do a worse job than when biologists and scientists stick their noses in the mix .

[Dannybuoy]

Its not cherry picking at all it's always been my argument that people use so called science when needed and then claim lack of science when it works for them. You can find proof for every argument. In the article you posted last night I read and find non conclusive eveidence of competition. As is most science nothing in the first 30 pages I have read so far is conclusive. This may be a cause, this may be the problem, this may be what is happening. Just like you can cherry pick from what I post I can cherry pick from everything you post. Where does this get us? You need to stop speaking like your science is so definitive. I always try to speak from a Wildlife point of view and try to ask lots of questions, not try to pretend I have all the answers.

For the record . I read that the same .

[Stone Sheep Steve]

The term "un-educated voter" was used in a slightly sarcastically way by me.

I probably understand the drivers behind wolf protectionism as much as any poster on this forum. Most would be damn surprised if they knew the actual names of some of the people that have put our wildlife in jeprody by making management calls that benefit their own personal wants. I have little use for the ones that pretend to be on the hunting teams side while throughout their professional career they have cut our throats.

Maybe instead of the word un-educated I should have said "brainwashed".....that's what's been done in many cases when it comes to wildlife management.
The sheep have been molded by the wolves.

We have been fed a line of ongoing BS when it comes to what's going on with wildlife management.
The ones presently in charge have been able to divert attention by keeping the different stakeholder groups at each other's throats by continually playing the allocation, LEH, quota.....special interest groups favouritism game.
In the meantime we get fed the line that everything is good, numbers are fine......
A lot of this is basked on inadequate or skewed data.

Its not working so good lately because guys from these groups are talking.

As for SSS thinking up the concept of an independent group to manage wildlife...... no offence to SSS.....it wasn't his thought.

This Roundtable approach to wildlife management is desperately needed.
Both forms of wolves will get thinned out then.

None taken. Wasn't my idea just added it to the list you presented. I figured you knew about it but just accidently left it off the list of what approach we need to take.

[GoatGuy]

Here's the best lay book on mule deer. If folks are concerned, suggest you buy it.

https://www.amazon.com/Mule-Deer-Conservation-Management-Strategies/dp/0974241504


Would lend mine out but pretty sure someone on HBC has had my copy for a couple years.........

[Seeker]

It appears we can all agree on two things; i - the desperate need for increased funding and ii- the need for a round table of parties invested in ecosystem preservation and restoration. I think everything else is secondary until we get these two things established.

It sounds like the funding concept is being pushed on the politicians as we speak. It will be tough to convince them to release funds from general revenue, but if so, how can we as individuals or Fish and Game clubs further this agenda to ensure it gets the attention of the politicians that make these or will make these decisions. I believe writing letters is minimally effective, but I will contribute. We need something that carries weight, that froces the politicians to address this issue. Any other ideas that we as a user group can carry out? ex Advertising, Billboards or radio ads? Do we have some "influential" people that can plant a seed or two in the appropriate offices?

The round table, I believe is desperately needed. Can we organize a meeting with representatives from key user groups simply to assess the feasibility of the round table? I think if we can accomplish this alone and invite or notify the minister of FLNRO of such a gathering, that may be enough to get his attention and start him thinking. Heck, he might already be considering such an option, but this would then increase his concern regarding the round table. Another question is how do we get players such as mining and forestry involved when likely all they are going to hear is that you need to financial compensation for habitat degradation? What purpose will the group serve if it still has to go through the ministry once it makes any decisions or recommendations? I think we all know we still have the gatekeeper that will control what will ultimately be allowed to happen regarding crown land.

Just some om my thoughts.

[Ourea]

Seeker is getting it

[bearvalley]

Seeker is getting it

Seeker is....and so are a lot of others.

[bearvalley]

None taken. Wasn't my idea just added it to the list you presented. I figured you knew about it but just accidently left it off the list of what approach we need to take.

I would suggest you read my list again.

[bownut]

Is The Round Table Meeting In Cranbrook in March not a good start, seems to have been cleared off this sight?

[bearvalley]

The round table, I believe is desperately needed. Can we organize a meeting with representatives from key user groups simply to assess the feasibility of the round table? I think if we can accomplish this alone and invite or notify the minister of FLNRO of such a gathering, that may be enough to get his attention ...

The minister is aware and paying attention.

[GoatGuy]

It appears we can all agree on two things; i - the desperate need for increased funding and ii- the need for a round table of parties invested in ecosystem preservation and restoration. I think everything else is secondary until we get these two things established.

It sounds like the funding concept is being pushed on the politicians as we speak. It will be tough to convince them to release funds from general revenue, but if so, how can we as individuals or Fish and Game clubs further this agenda to ensure it gets the attention of the politicians that make these or will make these decisions. I believe writing letters is minimally effective, but I will contribute. We need something that carries weight, that froces the politicians to address this issue. Any other ideas that we as a user group can carry out? ex Advertising, Billboards or radio ads? Do we have some "influential" people that can plant a seed or two in the appropriate offices?

The round table, I believe is desperately needed. Can we organize a meeting with representatives from key user groups simply to assess the feasibility of the round table? I think if we can accomplish this alone and invite or notify the minister of FLNRO of such a gathering, that may be enough to get his attention and start him thinking. Heck, he might already be considering such an option, but this would then increase his concern regarding the round table. Another question is how do we get players such as mining and forestry involved when likely all they are going to hear is that you need to financial compensation for habitat degradation? What purpose will the group serve if it still has to go through the ministry once it makes any decisions or recommendations? I think we all know we still have the gatekeeper that will control what will ultimately be allowed to happen regarding crown land.

Just some om my thoughts.

mmmmmmmmm

you're onto it....

[Ourea]

Seeker is....and so are a lot of others.

By get it I mean identifying the drivers that will make a long term difference in support of wildlife.
The problems are obvious.
Many are struggling with the resolution....."the plan".

Regulation changes are not going to make a long term difference.
You can out right shut down harvest in some areas and wildlife populations will continue to decrease.

Get out of the mud and look at the 30,000 ft view

[Seeker]

Is The Round Table Meeting In Cranbrook in March not a good start, seems to have been cleared off this sight?

Care to elaborate? When exactly? Who is at the meeting and is it recognized by affected parties as a legitimate gathering of serious stakeholders? I do not pretend to know all the influential people in these circles yet, but I am learning. I have not heard any details and would love to know more and a way to follow it up. Is there a reason for secrecy? I don't like secrecy, it portrays deceit, but I realize at points it is necessary.

Beyond that, we need more influence. We need to find ways to be heard and not simply dismissed as I feel we largely were when it came to the allocation issue. Let's not get into that, I just want to find ways that force the politicians to speak to the issues and to garner what I feel is deserved attention.

[Ourea]

Care to elaborate? When exactly? Who is at the meeting and is it recognized by affected parties as a legitimate gathering of serious stakeholders? I do not pretend to know all the influential people in these circles yet, but I am learning. I have not heard any details and would love to know more and a way to follow it up. Is there a reason for secrecy? I don't like secrecy, it portrays deceit, but I realize at points it is necessary.

Beyond that, we need more influence. We need to find ways to be heard and not simply dismissed as I feel we largely were when it came to the allocation issue. Let's not get into that, I just want to find ways that force the politicians to speak to the issues and to garner what I feel is deserved attention.

There are two ways to make things happen.
Push from the bottom up.....
Or, build a hammer (ie: leverage)

Can't pound a nail if you don't have a hammer......

[bearvalley]

By get it I mean identifying the drivers that will make a long term difference in support of wildlife.
The problems are obvious.
Many are struggling with the resolution....."the plan".

Regulation changes are not going to make a long term difference.
You can out right shut down harvest in some areas and wildlife populations will continue to decrease.

Get out of the mud and look at the 30,000 ft view

You're right Ourea....and there's a lot more dirt in the water than regulation changes.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I would suggest you read my list again.

Ill take your word for it. Must have missed it. My apologies

[Whonnock Boy]

Fish on.... I passed on it the first time, but I cannot resist the second. I'm interested. Shoot me a pm if needed. Regards....


Most would be damn surprised if they knew the actual names of some of the people that have put our wildlife in jeprody by making management calls that benefit their own personal wants.



Do you really want to know who put the brakes on to solving the problem?

[J_T]

Care to elaborate? When exactly? Who is at the meeting and is it recognized by affected parties as a legitimate gathering of serious stakeholders? I do not pretend to know all the influential people in these circles yet, but I am learning. I have not heard any details and would love to know more and a way to follow it up. Is there a reason for secrecy? I don't like secrecy, it portrays deceit, but I realize at points it is necessary.

Beyond that, we need more influence. We need to find ways to be heard and not simply dismissed as I feel we largely were when it came to the allocation issue. Let's not get into that, I just want to find ways that force the politicians to speak to the issues and to garner what I feel is deserved attention. I wouldn't accuse this group of secrecy. The PRECISE reason for the meeting is to get away from secretive dealings that are personal agenda driven. And move to a wildlife first, collaborative approach. This HBC site, makes this seem like a Provincial meeting. It's a proactive regional group that have established dialogue with other stakeholders and each has agreed to contribute what it can to the big picture by offering their perspective. I don't see this as a meeting where people from around the Province must travel to and attend. However I might suggest, if good things come of it, other regional and provincial organizations might take notice.

[Seeker]

I wouldn't accuse this group of secrecy. The PRECISE reason for the meeting is to get away from secretive dealings that are personal agenda driven. And move to a wildlife first, collaborative approach. This HBC site, makes this seem like a Provincial meeting. It's a proactive regional group that have established dialogue with other stakeholders and each has agreed to contribute what it can to the big picture by offering their perspective. I don't see this as a meeting where people from around the Province must travel to and attend. However I might suggest, if good things come of it, other regional and provincial organizations might take notice.

My apologies, I did not mean to imply that secrecy was being carried out, I simply had not heard of any meaning and therefore assumed (obviously incorrectly) a level of secrecy. If you don't mind JT could you PM the groups that you have interested in attending that meeting? I would be very interested in hearing the results.

[338win mag]

We are talking a different scenario here.
All users of wildlife will be involved at the table.
In the case of forestry....management was left solely to the tree harvesters.

On the cattle issue...cows have grazed mule deer winter for decades. In exchange farming and ranching has created spring range for mule deer. It's a bit of a trade off.
Can you point out one specific area where cattle grazing on winter range has caused the crash of mule deer.
Lets take a look at Empire Valley.
Historically it supported a large cattle herd and an abundant mule deer population.
Today the cattle herd is a fraction of the past.
Empire Valley has protected areas with no grazing allowed.
The mule deer numbers have crashed.....go figure.

l won't say that a cow won't shit in a creek but I recall when Coldstream Ranch out of Vernon went thru taking the rap for water contamination caused by cattle.
When the water tests were done it came forth that the contamination was from wildlife and human waste....go figure.

When we're pointing fingers we better stop and think about what we are doing.
Where does my turd go when I flush the toilet.
Are all the knapweed seeds off my pickup or quad....maybe I'm spreading invasive weeds.

That kind of thinking fits in the big picture.

Yes, although instead of the word "crashed" I would use the term "declined" whether its due to the cattle, thats unlikely, however I'm not a biologist but I know who is and it has been pointed out to me that its absolutely a concern, why wouldn't it be?
I do wonder how the wildlife knows about the land swaps and where their traditional winter range has moved to and is located.
I'll pm the co-ordinates.

I dont know about the coldstream ranch but....is it critical Mule deer winter habitat? possibly but I'm leaning towards no.
I have seen a pond of cow piss roughly 2 acres or bigger running directly into a large communities (cities) water reservoir and the people who also saw this were horrified. I'm simply pointing to another issue that I know for a fact is a concern.

There are already regulations in place in regards to where human turds go and I know of no examples to share, can the same be made for the cattle industry?

I wonder how and what is in it for an offending entity to partake in a roundtable?

BTW, I think the tax that boxhitch spoke of earlier is an exellent idea.

[GoatGuy]

Yes, although instead of the word "crashed" I would use the term "declined" whether its due to the cattle, thats unlikely, however I'm not a biologist but I know who is and it has been pointed out to me that its absolutely a concern, why wouldn't it be?
I do wonder how the wildlife knows about the land swaps and where their traditional winter range has moved to and is located.
I'll pm the co-ordinates.

I dont know about the coldstream ranch but....is it critical Mule deer winter habitat? possibly but I'm leaning towards no.
I have seen a pond of cow piss roughly 2 acres or bigger running directly into a large communities (cities) water reservoir and the people who also saw this were horrified. I'm simply pointing to another issue that I know for a fact is a concern.

There are already regulations in place in regards to where human turds go and I know of no examples to share, can the same be made for the cattle industry?

I wonder how and what is in it for an offending entity to partake in a roundtable?

BTW, I think the tax that boxhitch spoke of earlier is an exellent idea.


Yes, there is empirical evidence related to cattle overgrazing and even eating all the browse in areas.

There are issues with invasive weeds/riparian area destruction and erosion in areas of the province. These are both well documented.


Having said that there are a lot of issues on the landscape tied to a number of different human induced factors (roads, quads, snowmobiles, logging, mining, fences, highways, weeds and on and on and on and on).

There is often no silver bullet, there is only incremental change.

Change comes from money, science and people who want it.

The challenge for hunters is do they want change, or do they want to repeat what they've done in the past?

[Fisher-Dude]

The challenge for hunters is do they want change, or do they want to repeat what they've done in the past?


Hell, you don't even have to put your beer down to yell for more hunting regulations.

[bownut]

Is that all you have to add to this educational thread? Good stuff, carry on...and on...and on....

[Rob Chipman]

Bear Valley (and I'm picking on you 'cause you've made some good points):

"So maybe a rewrite of BC's Grey Wolf Management Plan should be undertaken."


I think a wolf management plan has to be part of an overall wildlife conservation/human impact management/hunter right and access enhancement plan. In other words, you're right, but we need a bigger picture plan that consists of a bunch of smaller integrated plans.



"This is just one more flaw that shows why we need a wildlife stakeholder round table"

We clearly have to make a change, and can't let government be the driver. I'm concerned with your roundtable plan about who qualifies as a stakeholder, and why. Let's cut right to the guide/outfitter issue, because it's a sore point with many. If you're a guide/outfitter from here in BC trying to make a living over the long term I'm obviously way more open to you than if you're a guy who buys a territory and hopes to re-sell it at a big gain based on a government allotment. We can argue over whether a guide/outfitter needs allocation from he government or whether it should be a different system, but I think you see where I'm going. If the guide/outfitter has an address in Montana or Germany but wants to be at a roundtable with me in order to preserve his business model I'm not interested in him as a stakeholder. If he's a BC guy year round who isn't trying to turn wildlife into commerce through government subsidy then I'm happy to throw in with him.

That caveat aside, a roundtable is a good idea in as much as you always do better negotiating your own outcomes with others than you do by letting someone else decide.

Who else do you see at a roundtable? Obviously FNs, resident hunters, professional bios. What about other recreational users? What about industrial/agricultural users as well as residential developers/urbanizers?


"Its not fair to the politicians to blame them for not doing what they knew needed done"

Yeah, well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one! :-)



"The blame in this case is entirely on the shoulders of the uneducated voting public that government fears the reprecussion of.
Sad way to manage the wildlife resource".

You've got a point there and I think the more we think that one through the clearer it becomes that we need to change the public perception of hunting, wildlife conservation and the impact of humans on wildlife and the wild landscape. We could come up with a great plan tomorrow that was beyond critique based on the science, but if it included killing wolves or grizzlies in the current climate we'd still face a ton of flack from capable and motivated special interest groups.

Anyway, good thread. I think you and I can agree, along with a lot of others, that the collective opinions of the HBC crowd are gradually coming together and moving in the right direction.

[Bucksandbeers]

Hell, you don't even have to put your beer down to yell for more hunting regulations.

Not sure how to take your comment?

If this is your way of appealing to the masses to step up and help out more, then you probably need to work on your people skills and you don't have to look far to wonder why there is so much animosity on these threads.

Or, you are blaming all current problems on hunters and trying to deflect the fact that wildlife management has played a big role, wildlife management in which you have had some input in the past.

Either way you have some great guys on here like "seeker", "bearvalley", "ourea" and more that are fighting for the same things yet have way more class in how they approach these topics. If you truly want to make a difference "fisher dude" you will start letting like minded people fight this fight and let some of these guys that have people skills push the agenda's forward. Things seem to move a step or two forward and in one sentence you move things three steps backwards!

[338win mag]

Is there a list of stakeholders for viewing? or perhaps its to preliminary for that, however just wondering.

Thanks goatguy for your info, and taking the time to make yourself available for comment.

[Fisher-Dude]

There are givers and there are takers among the hunting fraternity.

The givers show up for a meeting on a Saturday during hunting season, or make the effort to engage politicians, or lend their expertise to a conservation organization.

The takers wonder how they can change a hunting season so that those "lower mainland guys" stay away from "their" hunting spot.

The decision makers/politicians know very well who is whom. I'm glad we have some very dedicated people putting in selfless effort on behalf of fish and wildlife.

[bownut]

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ROUNDTABLE MEETING CRANBROOK MARCH 11 Contact. Robyn Duncan 250-427-9325 Ext. 210 Bill Hanlon 250-425-7231

THIS HOW IT STARTS BOYS ANDS GIRLS!!!

[J_T]

Is there a list of stakeholders for viewing? or perhaps its to preliminary for that, however just wondering.

Thanks goatguy for your info, and taking the time to make yourself available for comment.What do you mean is there a list of stakeholders? Anyone who uses, owns, manages, recreates, cares about the land is a stakeholder. Ranchers, Foresters, Mtn bikers, First Nations, berry pickers, bird watcher, hiker, wood cutters, ATV enthusiasts, mud boggers and hunters.

[BL77]

The organizations involved include the British Columbia Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, theSouthern Guide Outfitters, Wildsight, Ktunaxa Nation Council, Elk Valley Rod and Gun Clubs,East Kootenay Wildlife Association and the Shuswap Band.

It is my understanding that this meeting is being spearheaded by the BC Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. Hopefully this is just the first of many meetings organized throughout BC and it seems to me there are many of us on the same page to make that happen.

[bownut]

Sounds like your trying to make friends on the lower mainland fisher dude, way to transparent if you know what I an getting at.
You should have stopped with the giver part and forget the quotes. No productive once again.

So tiring when the threads start hitting the ditch. Focus..... WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLANS.

[J_T]

Lets not mistake "paid for the opportunity to speak for 5 minutes" for stakeholder. All are stakeholders. Anything short of inclusion of those impacted, falls short.

[bownut]

So true JT One Big Family, notice I didn't say Happy. Heres to a better future, god knows we can all use one.

[Fisher-Dude]

Lets not mistake "paid for the opportunity to speak for 5 minutes" for stakeholder. All are stakeholders. Anything short of inclusion of those impacted, falls short.

You're right, Jim.

Too often, hunters act in seclusion, and fail to consider other user groups that have similar but not identical goals for wildlife and habitat.

Plans inevitably fail when that lack of inclusion comes to light on the decision makers' desks.

[338win mag]

What do you mean is there a list of stakeholders? Anyone who uses, owns, manages, recreates, cares about the land is a stakeholder. Ranchers, Foresters, Mtn bikers, First Nations, berry pickers, bird watcher, hiker, wood cutters, ATV enthusiasts, mud boggers and hunters.
So theres going to be 4,000,000,000 people invited to the roundtable?
I was thinking more like FN, GO, BCWF, forest companies, bios....etc

[J_T]

^^Um, nope. This is a first meeting of interested parties. Groups that have talked and agreed its time to work together. Express their perspective, look for common ground and agree to some common goals. 1) wildlife are important to everyone, and 2) everyone's actions have an impact on wildlife. Thus the 'stated' variety of stakeholders.

Make no mistake, there is no ultimate agenda here other than working together and identifying the importance of wildlife. Perhaps elevating this during an election and having some options for consideration. Going forward in whatever vision this takes is a slow process of respect and working together. Expanding those involved, those who realize they should be involved and developing guidelines for future direction.

[338win mag]

I guess I'm not referring to your meeting in Cranbrook then, I'm referring to BV, sorry, I should of been more clear.

[338win mag]

It appears we can all agree on two things; i - the desperate need for increased funding and ii- the need for a round table of parties invested in ecosystem preservation and restoration. I think everything else is secondary until we get these two things established.

It sounds like the funding concept is being pushed on the politicians as we speak. It will be tough to convince them to release funds from general revenue, but if so, how can we as individuals or Fish and Game clubs further this agenda to ensure it gets the attention of the politicians that make these or will make these decisions. I believe writing letters is minimally effective, but I will contribute. We need something that carries weight, that froces the politicians to address this issue. Any other ideas that we as a user group can carry out? ex Advertising, Billboards or radio ads? Do we have some "influential" people that can plant a seed or two in the appropriate offices?

The round table, I believe is desperately needed. Can we organize a meeting with representatives from key user groups simply to assess the feasibility of the round table? I think if we can accomplish this alone and invite or notify the minister of FLNRO of such a gathering, that may be enough to get his attention and start him thinking. Heck, he might already be considering such an option, but this would then increase his concern regarding the round table. Another question is how do we get players such as mining and forestry involved when likely all they are going to hear is that you need to financial compensation for habitat degradation? What purpose will the group serve if it still has to go through the ministry once it makes any decisions or recommendations? I think we all know we still have the gatekeeper that will control what will ultimately be allowed to happen regarding crown land.

Just some om my thoughts.

This JT^^^^^

[bearvalley]

The proposed Cranbrook meeting is headed down the right path. Regional meetings like this are what are needed to bring forward local problems when a provincial body gets under way. There are already similar actions taking place around the province. A word of advice is let the locals have their say....if the gate gets opened to far the roar will drown them out.

[bownut]

Hey JT I hope that when all decision makers figure out some type of plan and the ground work is established, future directors don't step in and try to mess it all up.
Wildlife Managers need to continue building from a platform instead of rewriting it. This approach is more productive and cost effective.

When Wildlife Managers realize that the platform they have stepped onto were built by intelligent individuals that were faced with the same types of challenges,
we can move forward.

Looking forward to greener pastures for sure.

[338win mag]

Is there a management plan involving "key user groups" in any of the other provinces in Canada that could be a model here in BC?

[GoatGuy]

Hey JT I hope that when all decision makers figure out some type of plan and the ground work is established, future directors don't step in and try to mess it all up.
Wildlife Managers need to continue building from a platform instead of rewriting it. This approach is more productive and cost effective.

When Wildlife Managers realize that the platform they have stepped onto were built by intelligent individuals that were faced with the same types of challenges,
we can move forward.

Looking forward to greener pastures for sure.

Don't understand the part about wildlife managers?

[GoatGuy]

Is there a management plan involving "key user groups" in any of the other provinces in Canada that could be a model here in BC?

Most
Most US jurisdictions use the commission style approach.

BC is certainly different in its required approach. As bearvalley said the roundtable with a more diverse representation is required. Operating in isolation only works for government, not the resource/users.

[338win mag]

Most
Most US jurisdictions use the commission style approach.

BC is certainly different in its required approach. As bearvalley said the roundtable with a more diverse representation is required. Operating in isolation only works for government, not the resource/users.

Good morning Goatguy
the more info made available= transparency= assistance in making this work.

[smallfry14]

As an 18 year old with pretty much unlimited options, what should I be looking into career-wise that will get me involved in keeping good numbers of animals on the mountain in BC? What are good courses to take in university to get me there?

[Bonz]

making money at a job in this isnt about animal conservation in my view from what ive seen. you wont be allowed to speak truths if its about a job. your told what to say and report basicly

[Dannybuoy]

making money at a job in this isnt about animal conservation in my view from what ive seen. you wont be allowed to speak truths if its about a job. your told what to say and report basicly

So Biologists and the guys doing these "reports" :-P

[338win mag]

As an 18 year old with pretty much unlimited options, what should I be looking into career-wise that will get me involved in keeping good numbers of animals on the mountain in BC? What are good courses to take in university to get me there?
I gotta think Biology or even perhaps a career in law enforcement, good subject for a thread of its own.

[Bonz]

So Biologists and the guys doing these "reports" :-P

ya most cases. we see it here with our resident copy n pasting researcher.

[wideopenthrottle]

I gotta think Biology or even perhaps a career in law enforcement, good subject for a thread of its own.

if only a good sized group of young outdoorsmen/women got into politics (without losing their integrity) and were able to effect change that way....

[338win mag]

if only a good sized group of young outdoorsmen/women got into politics (without losing their integrity) and were able to effect change that way....
Yes, without losing their integrity, so true.

[Seeker]

I believe we can accomplish this without getting into politics. As a career anyway. I would not wish that on anyone. Politicking is unfortunately going to be necessary. I am looking as we speak into conservation organizations in the Okanagan region that may be interested in such a round table. The list is young, but I am acquiring the potential contacts that I would feel have an interest. At this point I am not including forestry, mining or cattle ranchers as they are not recreating in the outdoors, they are using it for resource extraction. In my opinion, they will and should be included in a commission should it be formed that will handle the funds of a funding model as they will most likely be contributors to the fund. The round table first, and hopefully that will lead into a funding model.

The surprising issue that I just discovered is that the NDP has no potential candidates yet for the 3 riding's encompassing the Kelowna area (Kelowna-Mission, Kelowna - Lake Country and the newly renamed Kelowna West). It would be nice to have their perspective to create conversation and to apply pressure on their respective liberal candidates. The Liberal for Kelowna - Mission is none other than Steve Thomson, the current governments minister of FLNRO, so he would be the obvious choice to invite to such a discussion.

If anyone in the area is aware of any Conservation organizations in and around Kelowna, please PM me personally. I am not necessarily committing to organizing such an event. There is a lot to figure out in terms of executing what is necessary in order to bring it to fruition. I have never even contemplated organizing such an event, so needless to say the learning curve will be steep. I have two 5 year old boys in activities and I am already involved in my F&G club. I am married right now, but should I take this on, you folks will be the reason my marriage is abruptly ended. I am simply feeling out the situation.

[GoatGuy]

Good morning Goatguy
the more info made available= transparency= assistance in making this work.

agreed...........

[Walking Buffalo]

As an 18 year old with pretty much unlimited options, what should I be looking into career-wise that will get me involved in keeping good numbers of animals on the mountain in BC? What are good courses to take in university to get me there?

I would like to suggest a career in Ecology/Wildlife management, however with recognition to how the government system is evolving,
I'll suggest a person can be most effective by becoming a Lawyer.

[HarryToolips]

Good work Seeker....IF you were to take this on, or organize anything in the future, feel free to PM me if you want any help, I'm a busy guy with young family as well, but I'd try to work my schedule around helping out a bit..

[bownut]

And thats probably the biggest problem GoatGuy. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

[Ohwildwon]

As an 18 year old with pretty much unlimited options, what should I be looking into career-wise that will get me involved in keeping good numbers of animals on the mountain in BC? What are good courses to take in university to get me there?

Environmental lawyer...

Go after the big companies,

that don't properly account for their destruction of wildlife habitat...

Want inspiration?

Watch the movie Erin Brockovich...

[Stone Sheep Steve]

As an 18 year old with pretty much unlimited options, what should I be looking into career-wise that will get me involved in keeping good numbers of animals on the mountain in BC? What are good courses to take in university to get me there?

Any Universities offer courses in pyromania???

[bownut]

How accurate are the game counts for B.C., seems like there is much controversy over this topic?
This concerns many onlookers when we use statements like " Hunter Harvest has no effect on wildlife populations"
If we have based our Regulation on inaccurate findings , are we setting up for failure?
It seems like all the science in the world won't help us with our problems without proper data.

Could we be fooling ourselves into thinking that we are in great shape?

[bearvalley]

How accurate are the game counts for B.C., seems like there is much controversy over this topic?
This concerns many onlookers when we use statements like " Hunter Harvest has no effect on wildlife populations"
If we have based our Regulation on inaccurate findings , are we setting up for failure?
It seems like all the science in the world won't help us with our problems without proper data.

Could we be fooling ourselves into thinking that we are in great shape?

Right now we are in the dark.
Very little inventory work is up to date.
Some that has been provided is skewed.
How can random stratified inventory counts be compared with high density counts and provide solid data.
Ones an apple the other is a banana.

[bownut]

Wow thats scary! Hope Management slows the boat for a while at least until they figure out which way we are heading, it would be pretty easy to hit the rocks.

[GoatGuy]

Right now we are in the dark.
Very little inventory work is up to date.
Some that has been provided is skewed.
How can random stratified inventory counts be compared with high density counts and provide solid data.
Ones an apple the other is a banana.

What are high density counts?

[GoatGuy]

How accurate are the game counts for B.C., seems like there is much controversy over this topic?
This concerns many onlookers when we use statements like " Hunter Harvest has no effect on wildlife populations"
If we have based our Regulation on inaccurate findings , are we setting up for failure?
It seems like all the science in the world won't help us with our problems without proper data.

Could we be fooling ourselves into thinking that we are in great shape?


It depends on the area and species.

Some have been done recently, some haven't been done for a long time, some have never been done.

The regulations have for many areas moved to a fail-safe regime. That's how we ended up with little/no harvest of females and antler restrictions and widespread consistent regulations across many areas. Just managing for the lowest common denominator to make sure hunter harvest is not having a negative effect on wildlife populations.

[Dannybuoy]

It depends on the area and species.

Some have been done recently, some haven't been done for a long time, some have never been done.

The regulations have for many areas moved to a fail-safe regime. That's how we ended up with little/no harvest of females and antler restrictions and widespread consistent regulations across many areas. Just managing for the lowest common denominator to make sure hunter harvest is not having a negative effect on wildlife populations.

You need to read the report on the other mule deer management thread .... it seems to make sense unlike a lot of what I have been reading on this thread .

[Seeker]

How accurate are the game counts for B.C., seems like there is much controversy over this topic?
This concerns many onlookers when we use statements like " Hunter Harvest has no effect on wildlife populations"
If we have based our Regulation on inaccurate findings , are we setting up for failure?
It seems like all the science in the world won't help us with our problems without proper data.

Could we be fooling ourselves into thinking that we are in great shape?

We could be, but it’s the best we have at this time. What else do we have? There is a segment of our population that despite any results and how pertinent they are will doubt them none the less and call them BS. Those we will never satisfy. But we need population estimates and effective models to manage wildlife and that takes funding. Funding the government of our province has been resistant to allot to wildlife and habitat enhancement.

Thus the need for the push to request increased funding so we can improve both the data and the methods in which we collect it. We simply cannot ignore harvest data simply because we "believe" it is inaccurate. Even the limited data we collect is better than no data. And even though we have limited data, the great thing about having a spend happy neighbor to the near south is that we can somewhat piggy back on their research and results. Again, not perfect, but it’s the best we can do considering our limited funds and its way better than data we are producing and tenfold better than speculation based solely on anecdotal evidence.

People are social. We talk and when ideas get planted and take hold, we often believe in them despite no real validation. All it takes is one person to say, "data from the ministry is a bold faced lie!" and people will start to believe due to their ignorance of the true issues. It's not always their fault; they either don't have the means or the desire to pursue the matter further. I realize people may feel desperate because they have no way to contribute to what they perceive is a dire problem (declining wildlife populations). I am very often in the same boat, but I am doing everything that I have time to do, to make an informed, fact based judgment. The more I know, the more I realize I don't know. We need to educate ourselves. Ignoring the little data we have and making decisions blindly, IMO is only going to make things worse.

[bearvalley]

What are high density counts?
Jesse, you're the one guy on here that should know that answer.
Lets say we are counting moose.
Low density survey plots are 7 moose or less.
Medium density plots contain 8 to 20 moose.
High density plots have over 21.
You get a completely different result if you add up a random sampling of these plots against what you get if you just count the high density areas.

[338win mag]

We could be, but it’s the best we have at this time. What else do we have? There is a segment of our population that despite any results and how pertinent they are will doubt them none the less and call them BS. Those we will never satisfy. But we need population estimates and effective models to manage wildlife and that takes funding. Funding the government of our province has been resistant to allot to wildlife and habitat enhancement.

Thus the need for the push to request increased funding so we can improve both the data and the methods in which we collect it. We simply cannot ignore harvest data simply because we "believe" it is inaccurate. Even the limited data we collect is better than no data. And even though we have limited data, the great thing about having a spend happy neighbor to the near south is that we can somewhat piggy back on their research and results. Again, not perfect, but it’s the best we can do considering our limited funds and its way better than data we are producing and tenfold better than speculation based solely on anecdotal evidence.

People are social. We talk and when ideas get planted and take hold, we often believe in them despite no real validation. All it takes is one person to say, "data from the ministry is a bold faced lie!" and people will start to believe due to their ignorance of the true issues. It's not always their fault; they either don't have the means or the desire to pursue the matter further. I realize people may feel desperate because they have no way to contribute to what they perceive is a dire problem (declining wildlife populations). I am very often in the same boat, but I am doing everything that I have time to do, to make an informed, fact based judgment. The more I know, the more I realize I don't know. We need to educate ourselves. Ignoring the little data we have and making decisions blindly, IMO is only going to make things worse.

Its puzzling to me as to why we are looking south for "research" is this because it most closely resembles BC and its habitat/climate/topography?? Why cant we look east to some other provinces for research and results?

Maybe the federal government needs to be throwing some $$$$ into game management to all the provinces, in this case BC.

[bearvalley]

Its puzzling to me as to why we are looking south for "research" is this because it most closely resembles BC and its habitat/climate/topography?? Why cant we look east to some other provinces for research and results?

Maybe the federal government needs to be throwing some $$$$ into game management to all the provinces, in this case BC.

We can't be looking entirely to the south.
We are not dealing with the entirely the same list species nor do our southern neighbours have the predator load we contend with...other than exceptions such as Yellowstone.
Yellowstone is a prime example of a crash.
Look what 20 years of wolves did there.

[boxhitch]

Just imo
Individual head counts are expensive and unnecessary, without establishing target numbers. Nobody has a target for any species in BC.

If surveys are done repeatedly on a sizeable sample area, trends can be seen, which is more important info than actual total headcount.
Most important are the composition surveys, male/female ratios, mother/offspring ratios, age structure, all point to herd health and ability to reproduce

Generally, hunting regs limit the hunter take to the portion of the population deemed surplus to new crop recruitment, older bucks bulls and rams. Whats left behind after the hunter kill is supposed to be what it takes to put a new crop on the ground.
Environmental conditions dictate how the new crop will survive.

The simple answer about how to make more, is to make more good habitat that is safe to rear a new crop in.
The first step in that is to inventory, quantify and qualify the habitat that is available, then make decisions on how to improve it. The old adage 'nature abhors a vacuum' plays here, Critters will fill the available space
The number one limiting habitat is winter range. No matter what the summer carrying capacity may be, if the population can't make it through the winter, numbers will never grow
Build enough safe suitable wintering grounds and the rest is just bs

Neighbours to the south prop up their game pops. with huge winter feeding programs that make up for the lack of winter carrying capacity. Besides being controversial and in many cases unhealthy, it carries on.
Moose pops in the prairies farmlands is higher than ever as they discover feed that gets them through the dark months

[GoatGuy]

Jesse, you're the one guy on here that should know that answer.
Lets say we are counting moose.
Low density survey plots are 7 moose or less.
Medium density plots contain 8 to 20 moose.
High density plots have over 21.
You get a completely different result if you add up a random sampling of these plots against what you get if you just count the high density areas.


You're talking about blocks? They are usually habitat based.

Your last sentence is correct, although I don't know why anyone would fly the high blocks and extrapolate that across an entire landscape. Makes no sense.

[GoatGuy]

Its puzzling to me as to why we are looking south for "research" is this because it most closely resembles BC and its habitat/climate/topography?? Why cant we look east to some other provinces for research and results?

Maybe the federal government needs to be throwing some $$$$ into game management to all the provinces, in this case BC.

Depends on the area/species. If you want to look outside BC, best bet is to find a similar ecosystem.

Agreed the Feds should be, similar to the P-R down south.

[bearvalley]

Depends on the area/species. If you want to look outside BC, best bet is to find a similar ecosystem.

Agreed the Feds should be, similar to the P-R down south.

I might be thread jumping a bit here but is Idaho similar to BC when it comes to an ecosystem that supports deer？

[GoatGuy]

I might be thread jumping a bit here but is Idaho similar to BC when it comes to an ecosystem that supports deer？


Northern Idaho is, and we share deer. Same with WA. Have trans-boundary herds across all three jurisdictions.

No, nothing exactly like the cariboo.......

[bearvalley]

Northern Idaho is, and we share deer. Same with WA. Have trans-boundary herds across all three jurisdictions.

No, nothing exactly like the cariboo.......
Was not the comparison used in the other thread based on the deer stats in the entire state of Idaho and the deer stats in BC?

[GoatGuy]

Was not the comparison used in the other thread based on the deer stats in the entire state of Idaho and the deer stats in BC?


Yep, it can be broken down if you want, same with Washington state.

[338win mag]

Northern Idaho is, and we share deer. Same with WA. Have trans-boundary herds across all three jurisdictions.

No, nothing exactly like the cariboo.......

What can we do to encourage the deer from Idaho and Washington state to come live up here? lol

OK, do those states deal with the forest fire situation differently?

Do they let fires go to encourage winter habitat/start fires/limit access etc? I dont understand why we aren't managing the aftermath of our fires better, we know we can. ICBC claims go way up near recent burns from deer related claims, because deer from across the hwy are coming over to feed etc...