Lets all create more wildlife together as a team

[HarryToolips]

I believe we all know where we currently stand on the current wildlife allocation policy..We all know that more importantly, RH's and GO's need to bring decreasing wildlife numbers and AAH in many parts of our province back up...So we've finally gotten the provincial government to dedicate all hunting and wildlife $$ that we as hunters spend on tags etc back into wildlife, and that's a huge positive step in the right direction...so now what?? I thought we were going to get an independent group (independent from government) to take control of the funds, and use them toward wildlife and habitat..latest I've heard is that a bunch of other wildlife/habitat groups with different views and interests on wildlife are opposing this, and I can't find anything on the BCWF website or anywhere that says what our next move is...

Can we tell them all to put their $$ where their mouths are, like we do, or shut up and go away?? Can we get this ball rolling sooner than later by a new petition toward the provincial government to stop sitting on their hands and make some decisions with regards to the funding so we can move forward??

I have some ideas with regards to spending that $$...I think we should start killing two birds with one stone, and do aerial surveys and aerial shooting of wolves at the same time (or is the new NDP govt not going to support a wolf cull?) And Maybe we should start using some of that $$ toward spur FSR deactivation - is there any other way to inhibit FN harvest?? And what about FN hunter education? - getting them to realize OUR importance as conservationists, to stop putting up illegal road blocks and start working with us, and in areas from what I've heard like Region 5, stop the harvest of female breeding animals!(I know that it's only certain FN that do this, many are awesome and abide by our hunting seasons, and many do a lot for conservation).

Take for example, I'm excited for the potential wildlife booms we could have in region 8 with all the recent burns, but could you imagine how good the hunting could be if we de-activated a portion of our massive FSR access??

Everybody chime in....what's our next move, and how we going to do it??

[Rob Chipman]

"So we've finally gotten the provincial government to dedicate all hunting and wildlife $$ that we as hunters spend on tags etc back into wildlife"

Do we know that the GreeNDP are going to follow through on that?

[HarryToolips]

^^^^^i sure hope so....are we all going to write individually, or is this something the BCWF can get the official word on for us???

[HappyJack]

They don't have to deactivate the forest service roads they just have to ban vehicle access, which is fine for the guides as they will have horses and planes to fly in the clients. Way less competition from resident hunters that way. :-) Maybe if all game is put on LEH the harvests could be tightly controlled, harvest reporting could be online too. Some resident hunters would get NIL on everything, but what the heck, it's just less competition for guided hunters. Maybe the first step should be to have no guided hunts for animals that have to be under LEH because there is a heavy resident demand?? Limit the FN harvest? Well just give each family all the free AAA beef they want for free, but then everyone would complain about that so it might not work so well.

[Fisher-Dude]

"So we've finally gotten the provincial government to dedicate all hunting and wildlife $$ that we as hunters spend on tags etc back into wildlife"

Do we know that the GreeNDP are going to follow through on that?

NDGreen never committed to the wildlife funding model.

They said they were in favour of tag money going to wildlife, but there's already more than annual tag revenue going to wildlife so we have no pledge to increase that funding by putting the tag portion in a separate organization like we had with the Libs.

I fully expect the NDGreen to listen to the enviros opposed to the funding model, who supported them in the election, and the separate wildlife society won't happen. I also expect them to simply say, "Okay, wildlife gets $18 million a year (as it currently does from general revenue), so we'll make sure your $10 million in tag revenue makes up part of that $18 million."

The NDP, being run by the public sector unions like the BCGEU, would be under tremendous pressure not to contract out any wildlife management to a separate group.

[Avalanche123]

NDGreen never committed to the wildlife funding model.

They said they were in favour of tag money going to wildlife, but there's already more than annual tag revenue going to wildlife so we have no pledge to increase that funding by putting the tag portion in a separate organization like we had with the Libs.

I fully expect the NDGreen to listen to the enviros opposed to the funding model, who supported them in the election, and the separate wildlife society won't happen. I also expect them to simply say, "Okay, wildlife gets $18 million a year (as it currently does from general revenue), so we'll make sure your $10 million in tag revenue makes up part of that $18 million."

The NDP, being run by the public sector unions like the BCGEU, would be under tremendous pressure not to contract out any wildlife management to a separate group.

Even under the Liberal Gov't the flavour of the day was "contracting out".....(I am a public servant and yes I voted Liberal...) I agree with your statement but contracting out was going on before the NDP took power. :(

[Fisher-Dude]

Even under the Liberal Gov't the flavour of the day was "contracting out".....(I am a public servant and yes I voted Liberal...) I agree with your statement but contracting out was going on before the NDP took power. :(

My point exactly. Libs are fine with contracting out and moving services out from inside government, NDP hates it.

The wildlife agency would be outside of government like Freshwater Fisheries, and thus I doubt the NDP has any intention of letting it happen.

[HarryToolips]

I thought all parties of government agreed to put all of our funding back into wildlife?? And I thought out of the $14 million revenue generated by hunting tags and licences last year for example, only $2 million went back into wildlife?

[Wild one]

So sounds like things are up in the air again and possibly looking less bright

[Fisher-Dude]

I thought all parties of government agreed to put all of our funding back into wildlife?? And I thought out of the $14 million revenue generated by hunting tags and licences last year for example, only $2 million went back into wildlife?

Funding for the ministry is about $18 million annually from general revenue.

The $2 million from tags goes to HCTF. The rest goes to general revenue.

The funding model adopted by the Liberals would see the $18 million continue to the ministry from general revenue, and the other $10 million or so of tag revenue go to the wildlife agency.

Net gain to wildlife: $10 million.

The only party to commit to the wildlife agency was the Liberals, the rest just said tag revenue should fund wildlife...which it kind of already does. There was no commitment by the NDGreens to increase funding by $10 million.

[two-feet]

Harry, in my opinion group holding the stacked deck right now is the FN. If we could make them allies instead of scape goats our battle would be half over.

[HarryToolips]

^^^^right, so how we going to go about doing that?? Do we plea for their (FN's) help through the BCWF? Where is the BCWF in all of this?? Maybe they should be asking the new government on our behalf why did the Libs pledge this extra $$ toward wildlife and habitat, and they aren't?? If the Green Party is so green, you would think they would be on board...

[HarryToolips]

Funding for the ministry is about $18 million annually from general revenue.

The $2 million from tags goes to HCTF. The rest goes to general revenue.

The funding model adopted by the Liberals would see the $18 million continue to the ministry from general revenue, and the other $10 million or so of tag revenue go to the wildlife agency.

Net gain to wildlife: $10 million.

The only party to commit to the wildlife agency was the Liberals, the rest just said tag revenue should fund wildlife...which it kind of already does. There was no commitment by the NDGreens to increase funding by $10 million.
HCTF = habitat conservation trust fund??? What a pi$$ off, I swear I heard before the election results were declared that all parties agreed to that, hence it wasn't necessarily a positive platform for just the Libs..

[HarryToolips]

Well I guess we all better start flooding em with emails folks....we need to let them know how important this funding is to us, and that wildlife in BC is one of the things that is supposed to make BC unique..

premier@gov.bc.ca

[604redneck]

People that want to ban guides are idiots. They want to make a living and we want to as well.! Pretty simple

[hoochie]

Ive been online reading more about allocation policy etc. what a mess.

[338win mag]

What a mess is right, and there are some huge issue's of trust with the parties involved.

I dont want money collected from resident hunters or money collected in any way used for road de-activation....
let the forest companies pay for it....that can be there contribution to wildlife in this province. Instead of taking some of the forest companies should spend a few bucks (and its a drop in the bucket) and give a little back.
Vehicle restrictions.....too big an area to enforce...deactivate so even a quad cant get through and the only access is with 2 legs.

[hawk-i]

If you want more deer moose and elk, start by reducing the bears and wolves.

[HarryToolips]

People that want to ban guides are idiots. They want to make a living and we want to as well.! Pretty simple
I agree, and this thread is about us all working together, let's deal with getting the standard 90/10 split later...first we need funding to run a funding model..

[HarryToolips]

What a mess is right, and there are some huge issue's of trust with the parties involved.

I dont want money collected from resident hunters or money collected in any way used for road de-activation....
let the forest companies pay for it....that can be there contribution to wildlife in this province. Instead of taking some of the forest companies should spend a few bucks (and its a drop in the bucket) and give a little back.
Vehicle restrictions.....too big an area to enforce...deactivate so even a quad cant get through and the only access is with 2 legs.
I agree..we already don't have enough CO's, definitely not enough to enforce access restrictions...start deactivating roads, and yes getting logging companies to do it would make sense..

[HarryToolips]

If you want more deer moose and elk, start by reducing the bears and wolves.
Totally agree...I doubt the new government would support a wolf cull with the greens in there, but I sure hope the BCWF can speak on our behalf and promote one with the new govt....

[Wild one]

If any hunter wants to see a reduction in predators they can do there part even if it is small. We are all allowed our 2 black bear a year( also good meat if dealt with correctly) and we can all attempt with wolves and coyote. The canines may not be easy targets but if you don't put in the effort and time to learn you will never see success. Yes wolves are a higher impact predator but most seem to forget the little coyote is no slouch expecially with fawns


I have said it in the past there is a free to the public predator control that is not utilized to full potential. Trappers can be very effective and can make larger impact than hunter because there methods work 24/7 and cover more ground. 2 things that can make this group more effective. 1 get the traplines active there is regulations in place for this but little enforcement ( yes the odd inactive line is being auctioned) still lost of lines not being trapped. 2 this might piss off some trappers but add a small quota of wolves to be trapped on traplines with healthy wolf numbers. Ontario does this with beaver and it is part of keeping a trapline. Lots of trappers(not all) don't target wolves because of effort vs value.

Do to general public it is tough to get support for predator management and I think might be tougher with our new govt. So why not at least focuse on where we could at least get some kind of impact for starters without needing majore funding or support from the general public

Start with a small impact at least well hunters push for the tougher to accomplish govt cull

[btridge]

I agree..we already don't have enough CO's, definitely not enough to enforce access restrictions...start deactivating roads, and yes getting logging companies to do it would make sense..

We need to address the road deactivation problem with the forest service. Every road that is built for timber harvest has to have a permit to build. As part of the permitting process, the mandatory deactivation of harvest spur roads should be included. Put the cost directly on the company that is benefiting up front so they can work it into their harvest plan.

[btridge]

They don't have to deactivate the forest service roads they just have to ban vehicle access, which is fine for the guides as they will have horses and planes to fly in the clients. Way less competition from resident hunters that way. :-) Maybe if all game is put on LEH the harvests could be tightly controlled, harvest reporting could be online too. Some resident hunters would get NIL on everything, but what the heck, it's just less competition for guided hunters. Maybe the first step should be to have no guided hunts for animals that have to be under LEH because there is a heavy resident demand?? Limit the FN harvest? Well just give each family all the free AAA beef they want for free, but then everyone would complain about that so it might not work so well.

Road access closures should include ALL forms of transportation including bikes and horses. A road closure should mean you can access only with your own two feet and a heart beat.

[Wild one]

We need to address the road deactivation problem with the forest service. Every road that is built for timber harvest has to have a permit to build. As part of the permitting process, the mandatory deactivation of harvest spur roads should be included. Put the cost directly on the company that is benefiting up front so they can work it into their harvest plan.

I know at least with the outfit I was working for many of the roads had a time limit to be deactivated when it came to block roads

But deactivated roads are still atv accessible and this is for futur surveying, emergency, and at times the road is planned to be reopened to access blocks planned for the futur

[btridge]

I know at least with the outfit I was working for many of the roads had a time limit to be deactivated when it came to block roads

But deactivated roads are still atv accessible and this is for futur surveying, emergency, and at times the road is planned to be reopened to access blocks planned for the futur

I have deactivated many roads, If the plan calls for no ATV access, it can be done , it all depends on the level of deactivation called for.

[Dannybuoy]

Just going to chime in here , there are many outdoor enthusiasts including hunters that will fight this road deactivation program . I don't agree with it as it limits who can access the outback . I will be writing my MLA and MP to ask that my tax dollars stop being used to restrict my access to the outdoors/alpine. As far as the "new" agency , I would expect that it would detract from any $ being spent on wildlife as it will cost $$ many millions just to set up etc.
As has been said before on other threads , there isn't a "Team"

[Wild one]

I have deactivated many roads, If the plan calls for no ATV access, it can be done , it all depends on the level of deactivation called for.

I don't doubt I imagine there are many factors involved. I only know what was asked for by the 3 guys I know doing it local and the reasons they gave me

[Boner]

But deactivated roads are still atv accessible and this is for futur surveying, emergency, and at times the road is planned to be reopened to access blocks planned for the futur

Agreed. Maybe gates would be a better solution.:twisted:

Deactivated roads make it take longer for me to access first aid at work.

[HarryToolips]

If any hunter wants to see a reduction in predators they can do there part even if it is small. We are all allowed our 2 black bear a year( also good meat if dealt with correctly) and we can all attempt with wolves and coyote. The canines may not be easy targets but if you don't put in the effort and time to learn you will never see success. Yes wolves are a higher impact predator but most seem to forget the little coyote is no slouch expecially with fawns


I have said it in the past there is a free to the public predator control that is not utilized to full potential. Trappers can be very effective and can make larger impact than hunter because there methods work 24/7 and cover more ground. 2 things that can make this group more effective. 1 get the traplines active there is regulations in place for this but little enforcement ( yes the odd inactive line is being auctioned) still lost of lines not being trapped. 2 this might piss off some trappers but add a small quota of wolves to be trapped on traplines with healthy wolf numbers. Ontario does this with beaver and it is part of keeping a trapline. Lots of trappers(not all) don't target wolves because of effort vs value.

Do to general public it is tough to get support for predator management and I think might be tougher with our new govt. So why not at least focuse on where we could at least get some kind of impact for starters without needing majore funding or support from the general public

Start with a small impact at least well hunters push for the tougher to accomplish govt cull
Amen......I've taken my share of black bears but as you said, wolf and coyote are extremely hard to get...but will keep trying..

[HarryToolips]

We need to address the road deactivation problem with the forest service. Every road that is built for timber harvest has to have a permit to build. As part of the permitting process, the mandatory deactivation of harvest spur roads should be included. Put the cost directly on the company that is benefiting up front so they can work it into their harvest plan.
Amen............

[HarryToolips]

I know at least with the outfit I was working for many of the roads had a time limit to be deactivated when it came to block roads

But deactivated roads are still atv accessible and this is for futur surveying, emergency, and at times the road is planned to be reopened to access blocks planned for the futur
Not always, I've found FSR spur roads where even ATvs can't get in...need more of it...another advantage of this is we will see some bigger bucks/bulls...

[HarryToolips]

Just going to chime in here , there are many outdoor enthusiasts including hunters that will fight this road deactivation program . I don't agree with it as it limits who can access the outback . I will be writing my MLA and MP to ask that my tax dollars stop being used to restrict my access to the outdoors/alpine. As far as the "new" agency , I would expect that it would detract from any $ being spent on wildlife as it will cost $$ many millions just to set up etc.
As has been said before on other threads , there isn't a "Team"
I suggested previously: more deactivation of spur roads, not all....there's plenty that can be deactivated and plenty more still to access by vehicle...

[lange1212]

The Libs did commit to increase wildlife funding “verbally” but never transferred any money to that cause. The Libs had a history of making promises and commitments only to renege on them (2007 allocation policy is one example).
Saying that because there’s a new gov’t in power the funding is now questionable, well it was never provided in the first place. The question is was this nothing more than an election ploy to gain votes by the Libs? Did they truly intend to follow through on this investment? Will the new gov’t take the reins and make this a reality?

We all support increased funding for wildlife. It’s one of those topics that no matter what side of the fence you sit on people share this common interest and benefit.

For it to truly work it should to be independent of government, otherwise the money disappears into the abyss and not seen in wildlife management. A clear TOR needs to be established with the core fundamental that it's to be used 100% for the betterment of wildlife and habitat, and NOT used by any stakeholder group to further personal gain, agendas, ideologies, business objectives…. There are other avenues to address theseother topics.

There’s some risk to an independent model as well. I fear they’re a host of people and businesses rubbing their hands together hoping for the vault door to open, and seen as a way by some to personally benefit financially. Reflecting on a number of humanitarian funds where only cents on the dollar go towards the cause, with the vast majority going towards administration costsand directly into people’s pockets.

I believe that a minimum % needs to be carved in stone for administration fees and not to be exceeded, and contracts offered forthe benefit of wildlife need a mechanism in place establishing a net wildlife gain formula. If the value of the contract and work being done does not support effective wildlife gains then it must be rejected and invested elsewhere.

Back in the day this is how Ducks Unlimited approved or rejected projects. They looked at the project and had a biological formula of how many ducks would be produced; each duck had a dollar value, if the return value (ducks produced) was at or exceeded the total dollar investment of the project, it moved forward, if not it was rejected.

Funding models can be open to abuse whether held by gov’t or an independent body. For true success we need some sharp minds without personal agendas or seeking personal gain to create a rock solid operating policy with measurables, checks, and bounds, with the sole platform of creating more wildlife. Without that I question the funding model being very fruitful to wildlife.

In my personal opinion

[Wild one]

Amen......I've taken my share of black bears but as you said, wolf and coyote are extremely hard to get...but will keep trying..

I made my own attempts last winter results not so good. But switched jobs where I have more free time so I will unleash hell this winter. Putting down the rifle and laying out the cable and steel this winter. When it comes to killing coyotes/wolves trapping trumps hunting lol

[btridge]

Agreed. Maybe gates would be a better solution.:twisted:

Deactivated roads make it take longer for me to access first aid at work.

And how long did it take you to to access first aid before there was a road there? Gates do nothing to impede predatores that use roads. A big part of the disscussion around access to the back country is " is it a right for Me to have unlimited access at the expense of wildlife?". There is so much access into areas that were formerly VERY hard if not practically impossible to hunt, that the sanctuaries of wildlife have disappeared. So the the question I have is at what point does the publics right to access over ride the wildlifes right to have a place to live? There needs to be a disscussion around how much access is acceptable to all parties including hunters, workers and wildlife. In my opinion, the harvest spur roads were put in to harvest the timber, once completed, the road should be recontoured back to nature, Not just water barred, culverts and bridges pulled.

[Fisher-Dude]

As far as the "new" agency , I would expect that it would detract from any $ being spent on wildlife as it will cost $$ many millions just to set up etc.
As has been said before on other threads , there isn't a "Team"

Agency was to get $200,000 seed money then an initial $5 million to hire staff and establish programs, get a lease on a building, etc.

Naysayers want to keep opposing any efforts to change the decline of wildlife, worried about how it will affect them, personally.

Naysayers should get informed first, before they spout about something they obviously know squat about. Maybe what they're poo-pooing is actually GOOD for wildlife, and them personally.

In these threads, the common theme is that those who don't bother to show up at their club or regional meetings tend to have the loudest opposition to doing something for wildlife.

[Fisher-Dude]

If you want more deer moose and elk, start by reducing the bears and wolves.

Wolf control will help elk and moose, won't do anything for deer.

In 21 studies on the effects of pred control on mule deer, there was one positive population response. With deer it's always about habitat.

[Dannybuoy]

And how long did it take you to to access first aid before there was a road there? Gates do nothing to impede predatores that use roads. A big part of the disscussion around access to the back country is " is it a right for Me to have unlimited access at the expense of wildlife?". There is so much access into areas that were formerly VERY hard if not practically impossible to hunt, that the sanctuaries of wildlife have disappeared. So the the question I have is at what point does the publics right to access over ride the wildlifes right to have a place to live? There needs to be a disscussion around how much access is acceptable to all parties including hunters, workers and wildlife. In my opinion, the harvest spur roads were put in to harvest the timber, once completed, the road should be recontoured back to nature, Not just water barred, culverts and bridges pulled.
OR the question is does road access even affect wildlife in respect to predators ? I would say the impact would be very small unless the predator numbers were very high in which case the predator number should be reduced and roads would definitely help with that.
And that is not even addressing atv enthusiasts/fisher persons and other outdoor users concerns with access.

[Fisher-Dude]

The Libs did commit to increase wildlife funding “verbally” but never transferred any money to that cause. The Libs had a history of making promises and commitments only to renege on them (2007 allocation policy is one example).
Saying that because there’s a new gov’t in power the funding is now questionable, well it was never provided in the first place. The question is was this nothing more than an election ploy to gain votes by the Libs? Did they truly intend to follow through on this investment? Will the new gov’t take the reins and make this a reality?

We all support increased funding for wildlife. It’s one of those topics that no matter what side of the fence you sit on people share this common interest and benefit.

For it to truly work it should to be independent of government, otherwise the money disappears into the abyss and not seen in wildlife management. A clear TOR needs to be established with the core fundamental that it's to be used 100% for the betterment of wildlife and habitat, and NOT used by any stakeholder group to further personal gain, agendas, ideologies, business objectives…. There are other avenues to address theseother topics.

There’s some risk to an independent model as well. I fear they’re a host of people and businesses rubbing their hands together hoping for the vault door to open, and seen as a way by some to personally benefit financially. Reflecting on a number of humanitarian funds where only cents on the dollar go towards the cause, with the vast majority going towards administration costsand directly into people’s pockets.

I believe that a minimum % needs to be carved in stone for administration fees and not to be exceeded, and contracts offered forthe benefit of wildlife need a mechanism in place establishing a net wildlife gain formula. If the value of the contract and work being done does not support effective wildlife gains then it must be rejected and invested elsewhere.

Back in the day this is how Ducks Unlimited approved or rejected projects. They looked at the project and had a biological formula of how many ducks would be produced; each duck had a dollar value, if the return value (ducks produced) was at or exceeded the total dollar investment of the project, it moved forward, if not it was rejected.

Funding models can be open to abuse whether held by gov’t or an independent body. For true success we need some sharp minds without personal agendas or seeking personal gain to create a rock solid operating policy with measurables, checks, and bounds, with the sole platform of creating more wildlife. Without that I question the funding model being very fruitful to wildlife.

In my personal opinion

Let's just keep fighting guides for allocation, and forget about doing something for wildlife, because that has worked so great in the past 40 years.

Someone would just steal all the money for wildlife anyway.

Right.

[Dannybuoy]

Agency was to get $200,000 seed money then an initial $5 million to hire staff and establish programs, get a lease on a building, etc.

Naysayers want to keep opposing any efforts to change the decline of wildlife, worried about how it will affect them, personally.

Naysayers should get informed first, before they spout about something they obviously know squat about. Maybe what they're poo-pooing is actually GOOD for wildlife, and them personally.

In these threads, the common theme is that those who don't bother to show up at their club or regional meetings tend to have the loudest opposition to doing something for wildlife.
I sincerely hope you are not referring to me as a "naysayer"
I am pointing out that not all hunters are on board with Alot of the ideas that are discussed on this forum .
I did attend the town hall and have discussed some of the issues with my MLA and intend to write as well .

[btridge]

OR the question is does road access even affect wildlife in respect to predators ? I would say the impact would be very small unless the predator numbers were very high in which case the predator number should be reduced and roads would definitely help with that.
And that is not even addressing atv enthusiasts/fisher persons and other outdoor users concerns with access.

I've worked on building roads behind gates, I've also operated road grader on keeping these roads open, gates or not. After years of seeing the predator tracks going from drainage to drainage to drainage and their kills, YES THEY USE THE ROADS, and this has a detrimental effect on wildlife. I didn't include all of the other user groups but lets just say all human users vs wildlife values.

[Ourea]

The Libs did commit to increase wildlife funding “verbally” but never transferred any money to that cause. The Libs had a history of making promises and commitments only to renege on them (2007 allocation policy is one example).
Saying that because there’s a new gov’t in power the funding is now questionable, well it was never provided in the first place. The question is was this nothing more than an election ploy to gain votes by the Libs? Did they truly intend to follow through on this investment? Will the new gov’t take the reins and make this a reality?

We all support increased funding for wildlife. It’s one of those topics that no matter what side of the fence you sit on people share this common interest and benefit.

For it to truly work it should to be independent of government, otherwise the money disappears into the abyss and not seen in wildlife management. A clear TOR needs to be established with the core fundamental that it's to be used 100% for the betterment of wildlife and habitat, and NOT used by any stakeholder group to further personal gain, agendas, ideologies, business objectives…. There are other avenues to address theseother topics.

There’s some risk to an independent model as well. I fear they’re a host of people and businesses rubbing their hands together hoping for the vault door to open, and seen as a way by some to personally benefit financially. Reflecting on a number of humanitarian funds where only cents on the dollar go towards the cause, with the vast majority going towards administration costsand directly into people’s pockets.

I believe that a minimum % needs to be carved in stone for administration fees and not to be exceeded, and contracts offered forthe benefit of wildlife need a mechanism in place establishing a net wildlife gain formula. If the value of the contract and work being done does not support effective wildlife gains then it must be rejected and invested elsewhere.

Back in the day this is how Ducks Unlimited approved or rejected projects. They looked at the project and had a biological formula of how many ducks would be produced; each duck had a dollar value, if the return value (ducks produced) was at or exceeded the total dollar investment of the project, it moved forward, if not it was rejected.

Funding models can be open to abuse whether held by gov’t or an independent body. For true success we need some sharp minds without personal agendas or seeking personal gain to create a rock solid operating policy with measurables, checks, and bounds, with the sole platform of creating more wildlife. Without that I question the funding model being very fruitful to wildlife.

In my personal opinion

lange1212 is getting it for the most part.

Analyze until youre paralyzed approach by many on here accomplishes nothing. The concept is sound, favors only wildlife and is sustainable. No user group can try to influence gov for favortism as the politics have been removed with this model. That is why some are already trying to "crush" it behind doors. Sad.

[Ourea]

And nothing is going to happen for some time with a new Gov at the helm. Sadly, wildlife is so far down the list of priorities for any Gov, especially a new one.

[Boner]

So your part of the problem too. Road hunters like their roads smooth. :)

[charlie_horse]

See id be one of the people opposed to road closures unless it was proven to actually help ungulate numbers but all I see happening is condensing road hunters. I have no problem packing game out distances right now, and like a lot people here im sure I get a sick pleasure out of packing meat, but in 20 years when I can't do that I want to still be able to drive and hunt. So if the reason for road closures is bigger horns and less competition then I'm against it.

Also the tab should be included in future timbersales by the logging companies and not our resources if this group starts to take form and road closures are on the menu.

[Ourea]

Road deactivation, not road closures.
There r stakeholders that r exempt to rd closures and will take full advantage of their status.

[steveo]

Road deactivation, not road closures.
There r stakeholders that r exempt to rd closures and will take full advantage of their status.
You are right there are stakeholders that are exempt such as handicap hunters to name one. Do road closures not work to an effective capacity or your thinking is road deactivation is just final. With road deactivation it also keeps out bear, wolf, coyote, and cougar hunters that would benefit ungulate recovery also it limits the local trapper from accessing areas that may have predator trapping on his list.

[Wild one]

You are right there are stakeholders that are exempt such as handicap hunters to name one. Do road closures not work to an effective capacity or your thinking is road deactivation is just final. With road deactivation it also keeps out bear, wolf, coyote, and cougar hunters that would benefit ungulate recovery also it limits the local trapper from accessing areas that may have predator trapping on his list.


Road deactivation does come at a price. It also depends on the level of deactivation. In my opinion road deactivation really benefits wildlife when the bush reclaims the road. Before than it truly only limits truck access( which limits human impact) but still leaves predator highways. It is long term benifical in my opinion.

As for trappers the level of deactivation is what will decide what impact it makes. Personally had no issue running the deactivated roads on my own line with atv or snowmobile. But a lifted truck could do the same till snow levels got too deep.

Truth is neither hunter or many trappers put in effort to target predators that impact ungulates. In the predator aspect of the issues an increase in effort by both parties would be nice to see

[Dannybuoy]

You are right there are stakeholders that are exempt such as handicap hunters to name one. Do road closures not work to an effective capacity or your thinking is road deactivation is just final. With road deactivation it also keeps out bear, wolf, coyote, and cougar hunters that would benefit ungulate recovery also it limits the local trapper from accessing areas that may have predator trapping on his list.
Exactly steveo . I am glad to see others on this site with the same opinion. I believe the BCWF should be petitioning the government against these road deactivation , waste of taxpayer monies.

[Ourea]

There is no silver bullet.
Gotta chip away.
Having barriers that limit uncontrolled harvest of does and cows needs to have a mechanism to keep it in check.

[Wild one]

There is no silver bullet.
Gotta chip away.
Having barriers that limit uncontrolled harvest of does and cows needs to have a mechanism to keep it in check.


In some areas limiting uncontrolled harvest through road deactivation could have a greater impact than many realize

[steveo]

In some areas limiting uncontrolled harvest through road deactivation could have a greater impact than many realize
There is not much debate with your line of thinking and even I could think of a few areas that I myself would put on a hit list. All I am saying is all the pros and all the cons have to be put on the table before any votes are counted and obvious this initiative would be in strategic spots where predator management wasn't an issue. With what is going one in this province with fires I wonder if restricting fire fighting access would be a factor or not?

[Wild one]

There is not much debate with your line of thinking and even I could think of a few areas that I myself would put on a hit list. All I am saying is all the pros and all the cons have to be put on the table before any votes are counted and obvious this initiative would be in strategic spots where predator management wasn't an issue. With what is going one in this province with fires I wonder if restricting fire fighting access would be a factor or not?


There really is no one answer to BCs wildlife issues instead things really need to be looked at for each individual area

Truth is as hunters we may just need to loose a little to gain long term. If hunters want to see wildlife issues addressed in my opinion we need to put what the wildlife needs to improve first even if it causes us as hunters to adjust how we do things

[Ourea]

Sounds like u 2 have got it all figured out.
The amount of preds killed by rd hunters has very little effect on pred numbers.

Another thought - snow compaction by vehicle traffic in the winter, when ungulates are most vulnerable, creates the Pred Hiways

[Wild one]

Sounds like u 2 have got it all figured out.
The amount of preds killed by rd hunters has very little effect on pred numbers.

Another thought - snow compaction by vehicle traffic in the winter, when ungulates are most vulnerable, creates the Pred Hiways

At this time in BC I would say out side of bear hunting predator hunting is very low amoungst all hunters. It is way more popular in other provinces but BCs land scape adds challenges other predator hunters in other provinces don't face. Even though predator hunting is not high impact it needs more promotion in BC. Little impact is better than none

As for trapping for the most part efforts are invested in fur of value vs effort. There are those who target wolves but many do not. I have seen the impact on wolf numbers on lines where trappers invest effort in wolves. Often when I see the impact on wolves by trapping it is because it is a GO that has both the trapline and GO territory for the area so he is a motivated wolf trapper. There is only some of fur trappers who invest effort in wolves. Like I stated earlier an incentive like Ontarios beaver quota to keep a line is an option to increase trapping of wolves. But the issues BC has of not enforcing trapline use it or loose it law is anoth roadblock

Between the need of govt support and public backlash regarding predator culls I think help here is going to be tough. But promoting predator hunting and incentive to make trappers target wolves is better than nothing and low cost.


You are correct about snow packed roads but I would say this is mostly industry use in most areas. With some added snowmobile recreation use. These to are bigger than the hunting traffic doing so in most areas

You are bang on though with snow packed trails being predator highways. Snared my fair share of canines by making trails with a snowmobile and snaring them

[358mag]

You are right there are stakeholders that are exempt such as handicap hunters to name one. Do road closures not work to an effective capacity or your thinking is road deactivation is just final. With road deactivation it also keeps out bear, wolf, coyote, and cougar hunters that would benefit ungulate recovery also it limits the local trapper from accessing areas that may have predator trapping on his list.
So how did the above users-hunters use and access the areas before any roads were put in ????

[Dannybuoy]

So how did the above users-hunters use and access the areas before any roads were put in ????
The government wants to deactivate roads that have been here for 100 years or more in some cases ..... Pretty soon only the elite will be able to access the backcountry....

[358mag]

The government wants to deactivate roads that have been here for 100 years or more in some cases ..... Pretty soon only the elite will be able to access the backcountry....

Do you have any info on what 100 year old roads they want to deactivate ??

[HarryToolips]

So how did the above users-hunters use and access the areas before any roads were put in ????
Bingo....think about it: how many hunters are actually using those roads for pred hunting and control, vs. how many hunters, including those that have rights to harvest any ungulate at any time, are using those roads to hunt ungulates??..and how many preds are taking advantage of those roads??? Folks, I'm not suggesting that every FSR spur road be deactivated, but as previously mentioned, many of these areas back in the day you could not access, or it would take a hell of a hike in..why not deactivate a %, to give more big game more sanctuaries like they once had..

[Dannybuoy]

Do you have any info on what 100 year old roads they want to deactivate ??
Yes , and I am being general in the road ages ... let's say give or take 20 years so .....
Examples ... Duncan lk fsr , Healy Cr . Both of these were put in by the miners in the late 1800s , they have already pulled some bridges on the duncan and destroyed the last 30 or 40 km so far .?.. I hear Healy Cr is next

[HarryToolips]

There is no silver bullet.
Gotta chip away.
Having barriers that limit uncontrolled harvest of does and cows needs to have a mechanism to keep it in check.
I agree...so take region 5 for example folks: massive harvest of beetle kill in the last x amount of years, massive FSR access - massive areas where the regrowth has not had time to get big, and moose numbers are taking a massive hit in many of these areas of uncontrolled harvest -how much positive impact would some FSR deactivation have??

[Lillypuff]

dead against road closures or deactivation. you want to limit most over the age of 65 and under the age of 15? I will not shoot an animal if it more than a km from a road I can access. Say goodbye to hunting to me! I will fish.

[Ourea]

dead against road closures or deactivation. you want to limit most over the age of 65 and under the age of 15? I will not shoot an animal if it more than a km from a road I can access. Say goodbye to hunting to me! I will fish.

No one is saying this proposal would effect all spur roads. Sensitive areas and locations where FSR density is to the point where wildlife has no safe zones....these areas need to be looked at.

[Ourea]

Going to try and pull it back up to the 30,000 ft level....
I believe the spirit of this thread was to discuss a come together approach to address wildlife issues.
Without fail the big picture discusion ends up in the minutiae.

Rd deactivation (in some areas/circumstances) is just one of many tools that can assist and protect wildlife where rd access is having a negative impact.

Again, the big picture is to create a funding model all parties can support that will invest in wildlife and the habitat they so desperately need.

[Boner]

Another thread where people are divided on how to save the wildlife.

Increase CO numbers, throw the book at poachers, throw the book(not restorative justice) at FN's who are wasting or selling meat, throw the book at anyone pit lamping with a firearm. Not an easy solution, or it would have been done already.

Deactivating more roads seems like a solution, but I have seen with my own two eyes that people think they can get away with stuff because they are way back there by themselves with quads during restricted atv hours, or access where they think they are alone because it's tough to get to.

FWIW, I agree with deactivating roads, but it's not the only solution to solving the problem. Also the part about educating FN's to not shoot females is a bunch of BS, the few who do shoot females know the consequences of their actions, they just don't give a shit.

[HarryToolips]

Agency was to get $200,000 seed money then an initial $5 million to hire staff and establish programs, get a lease on a building, etc.

Naysayers want to keep opposing any efforts to change the decline of wildlife, worried about how it will affect them, personally.

Naysayers should get informed first, before they spout about something they obviously know squat about. Maybe what they're poo-pooing is actually GOOD for wildlife, and them personally.

In these threads, the common theme is that those who don't bother to show up at their club or regional meetings tend to have the loudest opposition to doing something for wildlife.
This was the agenda that the Libs proposed....talked to minister Thompson at the meeting in April and he seemed sincere about it, though yes it's hard to say if it woulda come to fruition 100% as planned if the Libs won..

[HarryToolips]

No one is saying this proposal would effect all spur roads. Sensitive areas and locations where FSR density is to the point where wildlife has no safe zones....these areas need to be looked at.
Bingo.....read the previous posts thoroughly Lillypuff...

[HarryToolips]

Going to try and pull it back up to the 30,000 ft level....
I believe the spirit of this thread was to discuss a come together approach to address wildlife issues.
Without fail the big picture discusion ends up in the minutiae.

Rd deactivation (in some areas/circumstances) is just one of many tools that can assist and protect wildlife where rd access is having a negative impact.

Again, the big picture is to create a funding model all parties can support that will invest in wildlife and the habitat they so desperately need.
Bingo....we need to work as a unified team, and bottom line is we all need to convince the government wildlife needs more $$$$$.....

[HarryToolips]

Another thread where people are divided on how to save the wildlife.

Increase CO numbers, throw the book at poachers, throw the book(not restorative justice) at FN's who are wasting or selling meat, throw the book at anyone pit lamping with a firearm. Not an easy solution, or it would have been done already.

Deactivating more roads seems like a solution, but I have seen with my own two eyes that people think they can get away with stuff because they are way back there by themselves with quads during restricted atv hours, or access where they think they are alone because it's tough to get to.

FWIW, I agree with deactivating roads, but it's not the only solution to solving the problem. Also the part about educating FN's to not shoot females is a bunch of BS, the few who do shoot females know the consequences of their actions, they just don't give a shit.
Yes deactivating more, NOT ALL FSR spur roads is part of the solution, and yes stricter penalties would also be beneficial...FN education would be beneficial to those that truly don't know their consequences their making on wildlife..

[Dannybuoy]

dead against road closures or deactivation. you want to limit most over the age of 65 and under the age of 15? I will not shoot an animal if it more than a km from a road I can access. Say goodbye to hunting to me! I will fish.
And it's not just hunting that these deactivations affect , fishing, atv and hiking (where roads lead to trailheads)
Division in the ranks ... hell ya !!

[Boner]

Yes deactivating more, NOT ALL FSR spur roads is part of the solution, and yes stricter penalties would also be beneficial...FN education would be beneficial to those that truly don't know their consequences their making on wildlife..

On this site, I mentioned reporting people to the CO's who were using atv's for hunting purposes during closed times, and got flack from members. We're a divided community and always will be. It was said that I'm wasting the CO's time, and that the rule was created a long time ago by GO's and that their agenda doesn't mesh with the resident hunters.

FN education should be throwing the book at the above offenders I mentioned above, and the rest hopefully will tow the line after they hear what happens.

[Dannybuoy]

Boner , maybe it's because the majority disagree with the existing restrictions and do not want even more restrictions ....nor do they believe it is in the wildlifes best interests .... just saying

[Wild one]

The concerns on how deactivation would affect hunters are valid and understand not wanting more restrictions

So rather than just hearing the opposition to these suggestions it would be interesting to hear alternative solutions from those that oppose any new restrictions

I think we can all agree we would like to see healthy game populations it's how it is achieved that is the debate that needs to be resolved

[Boner]

Boner , maybe it's because the majority disagree with the existing restrictions and do not want even more restrictions ....nor do they believe it is in the wildlifes best interests .... just saying

I understand, but you don't hear too many people complaining about the quad restricted hunting hours. If the majority feels that it's a bad restriction, I'm not hearing about it. Sorry it's a narrow thought on the overall picture, but it's what I can relate to.

Any forward thinking on the problem wouldn't happen here, but it is interesting to read conflicting views on it.

[Whonnock Boy]

No doubt, this is part of the problem. Apathy towards other hunters breaking the law, especially friends and family. This is where I believe we all must stand up and hold people accountable, even if it is kept within your own inner circle. If the behaviour persists, a person has a hard decision to make. Don't falter....

Observing, recording, and reporting is not that hard to do. Sure you'll be called a whistleblower, rat, or shit disturber, but look at where we are sitting now, and ask yourself, to date, how has the status quo has been working out for fish and wildlife?

Deactivation wont happen over night. As previously open landscape closes off to vehicle traffic, hopefully there will be an upswing in game populations allowing for those road hunters to continue to be successful.



On this site, I mentioned reporting people to the CO's who were using atv's for hunting purposes during closed times, and got flack from members. We're a divided community and always will be. It was said that I'm wasting the CO's time, and that the rule was created a long time ago by GO's and that their agenda doesn't mesh with the resident hunters.

FN education should be throwing the book at the above offenders I mentioned above, and the rest hopefully will tow the line after they hear what happens.

[Lillypuff]

understand and not going to read the whole thread sorry no time. my days of hiking into ok park and arthur mountain and road closures in the kootneys are over. I don't want my access limited any more than it is. I can't enjoy putting around the roads and shooting the first respectable thing? I sure don't think road hunters have much of a change on wildlife?

[Lillypuff]

Sure would like to know the average age of hunters in B.C? Anybody?

[Wild one]

Deactivation of roads is not suggested to slow the impact of regulated hunting but unfortanatly it would be a by product

The target is to lower the impact on unregulated hunters

[Ourea]

Deactivation of roads is not suggested to slow the impact of regulated hunting but unfortanatly it would be a by product

The target is to lower the impact on unregulated hunters

You are correct, 100%.

[Ohwildwon]

The concerns on how deactivation would affect hunters are valid and understand not wanting more restrictions

So rather than just hearing the opposition to these suggestions it would be interesting to hear alternative solutions from those that oppose any new restrictions

I think we can all agree we would like to see healthy game populations it's how it is achieved that is the debate that needs to be resolved

Certain FSR's could be handicapped road hunters only...

You know, a gate that opens with a hunting compass card! LOL :-)

[f350ps]

Deactivation of roads is not suggested to slow the impact of regulated hunting but unfortanatly it would be a by product

The target is to lower the impact on unregulated hunters
Nail meet hammer, well said, thanks for that! K

[Wild one]

Nail meet hammer, well said, thanks for that! K


Unfortunately to achieve desired results sometimes you got to suffer for them

This is offen why it is difficult to get things accomplished people want results but people are not willing to give anything up or risk change.

[Wild one]

If people think it is only those who road hunt that would be impacted think again many who hike drive into the bush a long ways before they start on foot.

[Slinky Pickle]

Even in my local area I have seen more FSRs created while unused ones are still in place. Like as been said, the lineal distance of FSR per hectare has increased immensely over the last 20 years. Road obliteration is expensive and therefor the forest companies aren't huge fans of the idea but I really think that there should be a finite number of kilometers of FSRs in a given region. Add another road, get rid of one... just that simple. There should be a logical limit to the amount of acceptable access in any given area but beyond that there needs to be some control.

Just my $CAN0.02

[goatdancer]

The idea of deactivation has to be approached carefully. There are lot of us who are 70+ and need a lot of help to recover and transport game for who knows how far back to our vehicles. I have no problem hiking a few kms in search of game but the old body has a problem with carrying or dragging the carcass those same kms back to my truck. That will definitely be a dilemma that needs to be addressed in any large scale deactivation.

[Ourea]

The idea of deactivation has to be approached carefully. There are lot of us who are 70+ and need a lot of help to recover and transport game for who knows how far back to our vehicles. I have no problem hiking a few kms in search of game but the old body has a problem with carrying or dragging the carcass those same kms back to my truck. That will definitely be a dilemma that needs to be addressed in any large scale deactivation.

This is well understood by those tasked with the fix.

None of it will happen without funding, a sound plan and credibility...
Something the hunting community has neither of as all they do is argue over what the best nail is to use.
Yet no one is supporting building the hammer to drive the nails. Nails are usless without a hammer.

[Rob Chipman]

^^^^ Unregulated hunting. That there's gonna be a tough, tough nut to crack. We need to address it, but I'm not sure how. What a minefield.

I will say this: I believe scientists who study wildlife think that higher road density is an overall negative. There's data to support the claim in certain instances, and it would seem self-evident to be detrimental to wildlife populations. I bring that up to reinforce the idea that science would underly our management decisions whether it's roads or predators or whatever.

[goatdancer]

This is well understood by those tasked with the fix.

None of it will happen without funding, a sound plan and credibility...
Something the hunting community has neither of as all they do is argue over what the best nail is to use.
Yet no one is supporting building the hammer to drive the nails. Nails are usless without a hammer.

That I agree with wholeheartedly. I guess if us old crocs need to figure out a way to bring out a beastie it will be a plus if it will end up helping to increase the animal population. My back hates you but it will have to suck it up.

[two-feet]

^^^^ Unregulated hunting. That there's gonna be a tough, tough nut to crack. We need to address it, but I'm not sure how. What a minefield.

I will say this: I believe scientists who study wildlife think that higher road density is an overall negative. There's data to support the claim in certain instances, and it would seem self-evident to be detrimental to wildlife populations. I bring that up to reinforce the idea that science would underly our management decisions whether it's roads or predators or whatever.

Yes. Even understated. At this point the only thing written in stone is the FN right to harvest without restriction, accountability or data collection. As I stated earlier the strongest play possible would be to get our FN communities as allies, not enemies. I am not sure how to go about it, but if a group with no objective other than helping wildlife were to facilitate the natives to put pressure on govt to create more wildlife then you would see the NDP bending over backwards. Then we could bicker about allocation.

[Rob Chipman]

^^^^"As I stated earlier the strongest play possible would be to get our FN communities as allies, not enemies."

I can't see any other way either. Not sure how we'll get there, but I can't imagine that any alternative will work. FNs aren't going anywhere, and they've got rock solid claims.

[HarryToolips]

^^^^ Unregulated hunting. That there's gonna be a tough, tough nut to crack. We need to address it, but I'm not sure how. What a minefield.

I will say this: I believe scientists who study wildlife think that higher road density is an overall negative. There's data to support the claim in certain instances, and it would seem self-evident to be detrimental to wildlife populations. I bring that up to reinforce the idea that science would underly our management decisions whether it's roads or predators or whatever.
This is it....some people got to stop thinking it's their God given right to drive every square km in a given area, and be ok with some % of the area being deactivated, then you would see a benefit to wildlife....

[HarryToolips]

That I agree with wholeheartedly. I guess if us old crocs need to figure out a way to bring out a beastie it will be a plus if it will end up helping to increase the animal population. My back hates you but it will have to suck it up.
This is a good guy right here....what is right for wildlife....everybody ask yourself this: in 1982 there was an all time high in BC hunter numbers at over 180,000 IIRC...what impact would the hunting have had back then if they had the access we have now???

[HarryToolips]

Yes. Even understated. At this point the only thing written in stone is the FN right to harvest without restriction, accountability or data collection. As I stated earlier the strongest play possible would be to get our FN communities as allies, not enemies. I am not sure how to go about it, but if a group with no objective other than helping wildlife were to facilitate the natives to put pressure on govt to create more wildlife then you would see the NDP bending over backwards. Then we could bicker about allocation.
Totally agree....

[Ourea]

That I agree with wholeheartedly. I guess if us old crocs need to figure out a way to bring out a beastie it will be a plus if it will end up helping to increase the animal population. My back hates you but it will have to suck it up.

Great attitude and the right attitude goatdancer.
Too many focus on fighting over the crumbs rather than making more cake.
The crumbs r getting harder to come by.
The time has come to help "make" rather than take.

[WWBC]

I would agree with road deactivating and more areas with ATV restrictions. What about. Bow Zones or extended bow seasons. More hunter opertunity lower harvest.

Not it my idea ( read it on this forum) mandatory 2 wolf tails for a moose tag.

[338win mag]

That I agree with wholeheartedly. I guess if us old crocs need to figure out a way to bring out a beastie it will be a plus if it will end up helping to increase the animal population. My back hates you but it will have to suck it up.

Great attitude, love it, theres still going to be lots of access for old guys, lol.

[Wild one]

I would agree with road deactivating and more areas with ATV restrictions. What about. Bow Zones or extended bow seasons. More hunter opertunity lower harvest.

Not it my idea ( read it on this forum) mandatory 2 wolf tails for a moose tag.


Archery seasons are a proven and effective tool used across North America to provide a low impact opurtunities for hunters. Unfortanatly in BC many oppose them so we get LEH or point restrictions instead.

Good way to add opurtunity but not a great tool to grow more wildlife

I agree with promoting predator hunting but if is giving out extra opportunity to target the ungulates we are trying to lower predation on its kinda counter productive. It would also make it a nightmare for calculating allowable harvest for tag numbers given out

[Fisher-Dude]

I would agree with road deactivating and more areas with ATV restrictions. What about. Bow Zones or extended bow seasons. More hunter opertunity lower harvest.

Not it my idea ( read it on this forum) mandatory 2 wolf tails for a moose tag.

If hunting were affecting ungulate numbers, then your idea would have some merit.

However, hunting is not driving ungulate populations, so imposing more restrictions on hunters is absolutely the wrong approach.

We haven't hunted southern caribou for > 30 years, and they are almost extinct.

We went from any buck mule deer Sept 10 - Nov 30 and GOS 3 weeks of does, to 4 point only closing Nov 10 and no doe season, mule deer decline.

We went from any bull moose, 6 week season and GOS cows, to spike fork only for 2 weeks, moose decline.

We went from 3 point bull elk Sept 10 - Nov 15 and some GOS cows, to 6 point only Sept 10 - Oct 20 and no GOS cows, and elk decline.

Restricting hunting further does nothing for ungulate populations. We've had 40 years of more restrictive seasons, we have only 60% of the hunters we had before, and species are in decline.

People need to learn from history and realize that blaming hunting for species declines is an incorrect approach to game management. People are quick to confuse "what's good for me (eg more bow seasons because I'm a bow hunter)" with conservation. It's the wrong approach, proven over and over.

[hawk-i]

Wolf control will help elk and moose, won't do anything for deer.

In 21 studies on the effects of pred control on mule deer, there was one positive population response. With deer it's always about habitat.

Bullderdash ...have personally seen deer population drop to near zero in 1 year when wolves moved in.

[LBM]

If hunting were affecting ungulate numbers, then your idea would have some merit.

However, hunting is not driving ungulate populations, so imposing more restrictions on hunters is absolutely the wrong approach.

We haven't hunted southern caribou for > 30 years, and they are almost extinct.

We went from any buck mule deer Sept 10 - Nov 30 and GOS 3 weeks of does, to 4 point only closing Nov 10 and no doe season, mule deer decline.

We went from any bull moose, 6 week season and GOS cows, to spike fork only for 2 weeks, moose decline.

We went from 3 point bull elk Sept 10 - Nov 15 and some GOS cows, to 6 point only Sept 10 - Oct 20 and no GOS cows, and elk decline.

Restricting hunting further does nothing for ungulate populations. We've had 40 years of more restrictive seasons, we have only 60% of the hunters we had before, and species are in decline.

People need to learn from history and realize that blaming hunting for species declines is an incorrect approach to game management. People are quick to confuse "what's good for me (eg more bow seasons because I'm a bow hunter)" with conservation. It's the wrong approach, proven over and over.

Yes people have to learn that humans are part of the reason for species decline.

[Fisher-Dude]

Yes people have to learn that humans are part of the reason for species decline.

I don't even think you hunt, Larry. Nor are you willing to do anything to help wildlife.

[Wild one]

Yes people have to learn that humans are part of the reason for species decline.

They are hence talk of road deactivation

Humans are no doubt a factor in many different ways. The way we change or destroy habitat is the biggest factor

But we are not the only factor

[Fisher-Dude]

Bullderdash ...have personally seen deer population drop to near zero in 1 year when wolves moved in.

So what you're saying is that all the science on mule deer should be abandoned, and we should pour scarce resources into what hasn't worked elsewhere?

Why didn't mule deer respond to pred control in 95% of studies?

When asked what makes a difference in mule deer populations at a recent presentation in Kelowna, mule deer expert Dr Sophie Gilbert answered "Habitat, habitat, habitat." You can check her credentials here: http://www.gilbertresearch.org/dr-sophie-gilbert/

[Fella]

Going to try and pull it back up to the 30,000 ft level....
I believe the spirit of this thread was to discuss a come together approach to address wildlife issues.
Without fail the big picture discusion ends up in the minutiae.

Rd deactivation (in some areas/circumstances) is just one of many tools that can assist and protect wildlife where rd access is having a negative impact.

Again, the big picture is to create a funding model all parties can support that will invest in wildlife and the habitat they so desperately need.

Well said. This whole debate is moot if there's no habitat for wildlife.

[brownmancheng]

So how do we create habitat? grasslands by controlled burns or more old growth timber by reducing industry?

I don't fully understand the road deactivation aspect. It only restricts vehicles so it is still a pred highway. And has been stated regulated hunting does not have a huge impact. So is it only to decrease unregulated hunting in these areas?

Seems as though compulsory reporting for all user groups should be a priority so the biologists have all the information they need.

[hawk-i]

So what you're saying is that all the science on mule deer should be abandoned, and we should pour scarce resources into what hasn't worked elsewhere?

Why didn't mule deer respond to pred control in 95% of studies?

When asked what makes a difference in mule deer populations at a recent presentation in Kelowna, mule deer expert Dr Sophie Gilbert answered "Habitat, habitat, habitat." You can check her credentials here: http://www.gilbertresearch.org/dr-sophie-gilbert/

So where the hell did I say that.???

Read it again and then once more if that's what it takes.

[HarryToolips]

So how do we create habitat? grasslands by controlled burns or more old growth timber by reducing industry?

I don't fully understand the road deactivation aspect. It only restricts vehicles so it is still a pred highway. And has been stated regulated hunting does not have a huge impact. So is it only to decrease unregulated hunting in these areas?

Seems as though compulsory reporting for all user groups should be a priority so the biologists have all the information they need.
Bingo....unregulated hunting is a major reason for major declines in certain areas, region 5 and 6 big time from what I hear...but buck:doe ratios are speculated to be down in certain parts of region 8 too..

[HarryToolips]

If hunting were affecting ungulate numbers, then your idea would have some merit.

However, hunting is not driving ungulate populations, so imposing more restrictions on hunters is absolutely the wrong approach.

We haven't hunted southern caribou for > 30 years, and they are almost extinct.

We went from any buck mule deer Sept 10 - Nov 30 and GOS 3 weeks of does, to 4 point only closing Nov 10 and no doe season, mule deer decline.

We went from any bull moose, 6 week season and GOS cows, to spike fork only for 2 weeks, moose decline.

We went from 3 point bull elk Sept 10 - Nov 15 and some GOS cows, to 6 point only Sept 10 - Oct 20 and no GOS cows, and elk decline.

Restricting hunting further does nothing for ungulate populations. We've had 40 years of more restrictive seasons, we have only 60% of the hunters we had before, and species are in decline.

People need to learn from history and realize that blaming hunting for species declines is an incorrect approach to game management. People are quick to confuse "what's good for me (eg more bow seasons because I'm a bow hunter)" with conservation. It's the wrong approach, proven over and over.
Right, and we know that the major reasons for caribou decline has been loss of the old growth forests which provide them critical forage they require such as lichens, as well as predation of course..

moose and elk supposedly are on the increase in region 8...but what's the main difference on the landscape now vs then? More preds? Maybe... but a hell of a lot more access now...face it people: we need more ungulate sanctuaries - doesn't mean all spur FSR's have to be deactivated, but a lot more would help..

[Bugle M In]

The fires right now have been the best thing to restore wildlife #'s.
I feel sorry for personnel property loss due to the fires that are going on right now....but....
if we are speaking strictly "create more wildlife" (disregarding human property loss etc)....I say burn baby burn!
There are some areas in the EK that need "huge 100,000 + hectare fires as well!
The only way that this type of "enhancement" will ever happen is from a "raging, uncontrollable wildfire"
Human prescribed burns couldn't even come close to this type of "wildlife/habitat enhancement" going on right
now.
And with fires, there are no roads ( or not many) being created to cause further concern about (over/easy access)
having more road deactivations.
Yes logging is necessary for families, and has created/given us hunters roads to access great hunting opportunities
that we all on this community should be thankful for....but, this "pine beetle fiasco" has created way too many roads,
as forestry companies try to cut down as much timber as possible before the beetle kills it.
And, from my understanding, because forestry companies have to pay a "stumpage fee", they are leaving the dead
timber (pine beetle killed) where it lies....just adding more fuel sources.
The change to the practice in the later 90's was not for the better IMO for anybody, especially wildlife.
They need to clean up those cut blocks better, and burn it all when they are done.
Oh, and I don't really want to get into the science factor, if we still have some groups who hunt in BC, but don't
have to give #'s to the ministry of what they "harvest".
How can we have science, if you can't "plug in" the correct #'s into the calculator???
Garbage in...garbage out...
Atv's should have to stay on the main roads....just like a truck....
They should not be allowed to "make new trails" throughout this province....
I don't necessarily blame the quad guys...it is more the "dirt bike clubs" who are creating these "new trails"...
The quad guys just find them....and off they go.
Ya...going to get some "heat" from the quad hunters from that last statement....but it is for the best to "help wildlife"
Sorry, but wildlife do need some areas where they are not continuously "hassled".
Habitat and access are probably the biggest factors.
Pred control is another issue.
Many in the ministry.... I think....feel that high pred #'s is just a short term problem that will rectify itself.....
which is true.....but it means the ungulate #'s will have to drop 1st.....then the preds die off naturally....
But, this thread is about making ungulate #'s flourish...so....you have to lower the high pred #'s we have right now.
Answer......poison.

[LBM]

I don't even think you hunt, Larry. Nor are you willing to do anything to help wildlife.

Again your putting out false information.
Some people can hunt and still be concerned about wildlife conservation, well if there was just one whitetail doe left in the country you
would still think and say you should be allowed to shoot it.

[LBM]

They are hence talk of road deactivation

Humans are no doubt a factor in many different ways. The way we change or destroy habitat is the biggest factor

But we are not the only factor

True not the only factor, but quit possible the largest factor depending on which region.

[Boner]

Yes logging is necessary for families, and has created/given us hunters roads to access great hunting opportunities
that we all on this community should be thankful for....but, this "pine beetle fiasco" has created way too many roads,
as forestry companies try to cut down as much timber as possible before the beetle kills it.
And, from my understanding, because forestry companies have to pay a "stumpage fee", they are leaving the dead
timber (pine beetle killed) where it lies....just adding more fuel sources.

Kinda laughing at this. Any pine left in the bush would either be a load that's too small to make a logging truck load, or a pile of pulp wood that's too far to make it economically feasible to ship. The stumpage on #4's (pulp wood) was 25 cents a cubic meter the last time I checked.

[Wild one]

True not the only factor, but quit possible the largest factor depending on which region.

As a hunter who learned to hide from others in strange pockets I realize human impact. I also believe there is a possibility stress caused by humans is an factor going unnoticed. The behaviour of animals is way different in areas they are not bothered by humans

[Wild one]

The fires right now have been the best thing to restore wildlife #'s.
I feel sorry for personnel property loss due to the fires that are going on right now....but....
if we are speaking strictly "create more wildlife" (disregarding human property loss etc)....I say burn baby burn!
There are some areas in the EK that need "huge 100,000 + hectare fires as well!
The only way that this type of "enhancement" will ever happen is from a "raging, uncontrollable wildfire"
Human prescribed burns couldn't even come close to this type of "wildlife/habitat enhancement" going on right
now.
And with fires, there are no roads ( or not many) being created to cause further concern about (over/easy access)
having more road deactivations.
Yes logging is necessary for families, and has created/given us hunters roads to access great hunting opportunities
that we all on this community should be thankful for....but, this "pine beetle fiasco" has created way too many roads,
as forestry companies try to cut down as much timber as possible before the beetle kills it.
And, from my understanding, because forestry companies have to pay a "stumpage fee", they are leaving the dead
timber (pine beetle killed) where it lies....just adding more fuel sources.
The change to the practice in the later 90's was not for the better IMO for anybody, especially wildlife.
They need to clean up those cut blocks better, and burn it all when they are done.
Oh, and I don't really want to get into the science factor, if we still have some groups who hunt in BC, but don't
have to give #'s to the ministry of what they "harvest".
How can we have science, if you can't "plug in" the correct #'s into the calculator???
Garbage in...garbage out...
Atv's should have to stay on the main roads....just like a truck....
They should not be allowed to "make new trails" throughout this province....
I don't necessarily blame the quad guys...it is more the "dirt bike clubs" who are creating these "new trails"...
The quad guys just find them....and off they go.
Ya...going to get some "heat" from the quad hunters from that last statement....but it is for the best to "help wildlife"
Sorry, but wildlife do need some areas where they are not continuously "hassled".
Habitat and access are probably the biggest factors.
Pred control is another issue.
Many in the ministry.... I think....feel that high pred #'s is just a short term problem that will rectify itself.....
which is true.....but it means the ungulate #'s will have to drop 1st.....then the preds die off naturally....
But, this thread is about making ungulate #'s flourish...so....you have to lower the high pred #'s we have right now.
Answer......poison.


Skidded lots of beatle kill a long with salvaged fires. It would blow your mind what some outfits salvage

[rocksteady]

Unfortunately a lot of hunters are not in favour of road closures or deactivation... especially in the east Koots...

[Bugle M In]

Kinda laughing at this. Any pine left in the bush would either be a load that's too small to make a logging truck load, or a pile of pulp wood that's too far to make it economically feasible to ship. The stumpage on #4's (pulp wood) was 25 cents a cubic meter the last time I checked.

Okay....when I am out there hunting, and I see the crews out working and they stop to talk...I ask questions.
If my information is wrong, it is only because those out in the field logging have passed along misinformation or
just plain bs.
So, my ears may hear wrong.....but my eyes don't lie.
I have seen some real changes to how things are removed from a cutblock, and what is not anymore....
especially since the mid 90's.
I do know I have seen hillsides that are half pine beetle killed, and other sections that are still green.
The green stuff is cut down, the dead stuff is still standing.....
I will take photos for all to see if anyone wishes to see....although the beetled killed trees are no longer
red.....grey/black.....but you can see them still standing....and just below, and entire section that was removed...
the green stuff.
To me, that is the lesser of the problem....as far as I am concerned.....some good kindling has been left for the
next big fire to start.....don't know when....but I guarantee it will happen
The bigger issue has been the large areas that have been ripped down due to pine beetle/logging.
The roads....way too many now.
And, if you only do believe what you see....like me...
then I recommend anybody to look at google earth time lapse....
Move into the area above cache creek...to the north and east of that town....start in 1986....till now.....
It's quite something to see, and yet.....it all burned now....there was still lots of fuel laying there.
Like I said...I am not blaming the guys working out there, but I do believe those large swaths of open cutblock
country, and all those roads, have "not helped" wildlife flourish.....wolves yes.

[Dannybuoy]

Okay....when I am out there hunting, and I see the crews out working and they stop to talk...I ask questions.
If my information is wrong, it is only because those out in the field logging have passed along misinformation or
just plain bs.
So, my ears may hear wrong.....but my eyes don't lie.
I have seen some real changes to how things are removed from a cutblock, and what is not anymore....
especially since the mid 90's.
I do know I have seen hillsides that are half pine beetle killed, and other sections that are still green.
The green stuff is cut down, the dead stuff is still standing.....
I will take photos for all to see if anyone wishes to see....although the beetled killed trees are no longer
red.....grey/black.....but you can see them still standing....and just below, and entire section that was removed...
the green stuff.
To me, that is the lesser of the problem....as far as I am concerned.....some good kindling has been left for the
next big fire to start.....don't know when....but I guarantee it will happen
The bigger issue has been the large areas that have been ripped down due to pine beetle/logging.
The roads....way too many now.
And, if you only do believe what you see....like me...
then I recommend anybody to look at google earth time lapse....
Move into the area above cache creek...to the north and east of that town....start in 1986....till now.....
It's quite something to see, and yet.....it all burned now....there was still lots of fuel laying there.
Like I said...I am not blaming the guys working out there, but I do believe those large swaths of open cutblock
country, and all those roads, have "not helped" wildlife flourish.....wolves yes.
You have it right ,at least in the okanagan , Not sure about where Boner lives.

[Dannybuoy]

So what you're saying is that all the science on mule deer should be abandoned, and we should pour scarce resources into what hasn't worked elsewhere?

Why didn't mule deer respond to pred control in 95% of studies?

When asked what makes a difference in mule deer populations at a recent presentation in Kelowna, mule deer expert Dr Sophie Gilbert answered "Habitat, habitat, habitat." You can check her credentials here: http://www.gilbertresearch.org/dr-sophie-gilbert/

While I understand the importance of habitat , I struggle with the notion of lack of habitat , at least in the okanagan/WK regions that I frequent . Area's that used to hold hundreds of MD or WT now have a fraction of that population . The feed is knee deep , just no critters to eat it . The exception is some loss of winter range due to human expansion . Not sure sure how this fits with the habitat habitat theory ??

[Boner]

You have it right ,at least in the okanagan , Not sure about where Boner lives.

I'm still seeing load after load of beetle killed pine on Hwy 97 driving into PG. Are there pulp mills or chipping mills near where you fellows are seeing standing dead pine, or decks of pine logs? In fairness I did see decks of pulp wood three hours driving from a pulp mill in region 3...

[Bugle M In]

While I understand the importance of habitat , I struggle with the notion of lack of habitat , at least in the okanagan/WK regions that I frequent . Area's that used to hold hundreds of MD or WT now have a fraction of that population . The feed is knee deep , just no critters to eat it . The exception is some loss of winter range due to human expansion . Not sure sure how this fits with the habitat habitat theory ??
Winter range is critical, and its loss due to encroachment from expanding urbanization etc, is a major factor.
And I suspect some of the habitat enhancement....such as burns....should be happening in those winter ranges etc.
Don't forget, a lot of ranch/farmland exist in those same locations......as well as golf courses, wineries...etc etc.
The lack of snow, and resulting snow slides/avalanches, which don't happen either, are also not helping summer habitat
for critters such as elk.
Lots of things have changed since the 60's.
Just drove thru Duffey lake, an area my father hunted for years for deer and goat etc.
He hadn't been up there in years....and he hardly recognizes the area from what it once was.
Some of those peaks, just like in the EK show no signs of any recent slides etc.
Habitat is a top to bottom problem (summer to winter ranges).....

I know wonder if the proposed logging into the winter range of Cache Creek is going to happen now....after this fire...
I think it will.

[hawk-i]

So what you're saying is that all the science on mule deer should be abandoned, and we should pour scarce resources into what hasn't worked elsewhere?

Why didn't mule deer respond to pred control in 95% of studies?

When asked what makes a difference in mule deer populations at a recent presentation in Kelowna, mule deer expert Dr Sophie Gilbert answered "Habitat, habitat, habitat." You can check her credentials here: http://www.gilbertresearch.org/dr-sophie-gilbert/

So what you're saying is that once the wolves deplete the moose /elk population they will leave the deer alone....Bullderdash!

[338win mag]

While I understand the importance of habitat , I struggle with the notion of lack of habitat , at least in the okanagan/WK regions that I frequent . Area's that used to hold hundreds of MD or WT now have a fraction of that population . The feed is knee deep , just no critters to eat it . The exception is some loss of winter range due to human expansion . Not sure sure how this fits with the habitat habitat theory ??

The knee deep feed you see is of poor quality unless a fire has passed through recently. A Mule deer doe will produce 1 scrawny fawn, quality feed will produce 2-3 healthy fawns. A fire near me brought the quality of feed for Mule deer increasing the Mule deer pop up 400% in just a few years, but the bucks were shot as the access wasn't curtailed in any way, the benefit of the fire is nil if access isn't dealt with.
No indians hunting this area so that aint it.

As for the WT pops....the goal of lowering the WT pops has been a success, just shoot as many females as you can and mission accomplished.

So many roads its hard to get more than a few hours from the road and theres another road.
When I started logging you could shoot across a logging block at a deer, now it takes 15-20 minutes to drive across the same logging block.

[Bugle M In]

The knee deep feed you see is of poor quality unless a fire has passed through recently. A Mule deer doe will produce 1 scrawny fawn, quality feed will produce 2-3 healthy fawns. A fire near me brought the quality of feed for Mule deer increasing the Mule deer pop up 400% in just a few years, but the bucks were shot as the access wasn't curtailed in any way, the benefit of the fire is nil if access isn't dealt with.
No indians hunting this area so that aint it.

As for the WT pops....the goal of lowering the WT pops has been a success, just shoot as many females as you can and mission accomplished.

So many roads its hard to get more than a few hours from the road and theres another road.
When I started logging you could shoot across a logging block at a deer, now it takes 15-20 minutes to drive across the same logging block.

your quote "When I started logging you could shoot across a logging block at a deer, now it takes 15-20 minutes to drive across the same logging block. "

made me laugh....so true...

[338win mag]

Unfortunatly true....

[Wild one]

I'm still seeing load after load of beetle killed pine on Hwy 97 driving into PG. Are there pulp mills or chipping mills near where you fellows are seeing standing dead pine, or decks of pine logs? In fairness I did see decks of pulp wood three hours driving from a pulp mill in region 3...

Yup in 6 and 7 bug kill is commonly logged and shipped to the mills

I would say over the last to years I was logging I skidded about 50% bug kill for the season if not more

[HarryToolips]

The fires right now have been the best thing to restore wildlife #'s.
I feel sorry for personnel property loss due to the fires that are going on right now....but....
if we are speaking strictly "create more wildlife" (disregarding human property loss etc)....I say burn baby burn!
There are some areas in the EK that need "huge 100,000 + hectare fires as well!
The only way that this type of "enhancement" will ever happen is from a "raging, uncontrollable wildfire"
Human prescribed burns couldn't even come close to this type of "wildlife/habitat enhancement" going on right
now.
And with fires, there are no roads ( or not many) being created to cause further concern about (over/easy access)
having more road deactivations.
Yes logging is necessary for families, and has created/given us hunters roads to access great hunting opportunities
that we all on this community should be thankful for....but, this "pine beetle fiasco" has created way too many roads,
as forestry companies try to cut down as much timber as possible before the beetle kills it.
And, from my understanding, because forestry companies have to pay a "stumpage fee", they are leaving the dead
timber (pine beetle killed) where it lies....just adding more fuel sources.
The change to the practice in the later 90's was not for the better IMO for anybody, especially wildlife.
They need to clean up those cut blocks better, and burn it all when they are done.
Oh, and I don't really want to get into the science factor, if we still have some groups who hunt in BC, but don't
have to give #'s to the ministry of what they "harvest".
How can we have science, if you can't "plug in" the correct #'s into the calculator???
Garbage in...garbage out...
Atv's should have to stay on the main roads....just like a truck....
They should not be allowed to "make new trails" throughout this province....
I don't necessarily blame the quad guys...it is more the "dirt bike clubs" who are creating these "new trails"...
The quad guys just find them....and off they go.
Ya...going to get some "heat" from the quad hunters from that last statement....but it is for the best to "help wildlife"
Sorry, but wildlife do need some areas where they are not continuously "hassled".
Habitat and access are probably the biggest factors.
Pred control is another issue.
Many in the ministry.... I think....feel that high pred #'s is just a short term problem that will rectify itself.....
which is true.....but it means the ungulate #'s will have to drop 1st.....then the preds die off naturally....
But, this thread is about making ungulate #'s flourish...so....you have to lower the high pred #'s we have right now.
Answer......poison.
Agree with all, especially ALL harvest by all groups being reported, and yes quads and any off road vehicle, including bikes, should only travel on existing roads and trails, not create new ones..

[Greenthumbed]

The fires right now have been the best thing to restore wildlife #'s.
I feel sorry for personnel property loss due to the fires that are going on right now....but....
if we are speaking strictly "create more wildlife" (disregarding human property loss etc)....I say burn baby burn!
There are some areas in the EK that need "huge 100,000 + hectare fires as well!
The only way that this type of "enhancement" will ever happen is from a "raging, uncontrollable wildfire"
Human prescribed burns couldn't even come close to this type of "wildlife/habitat enhancement" going on right
now.
And with fires, there are no roads ( or not many) being created to cause further concern about (over/easy access)
having more road deactivations.
Yes logging is necessary for families, and has created/given us hunters roads to access great hunting opportunities
that we all on this community should be thankful for....but, this "pine beetle fiasco" has created way too many roads,
as forestry companies try to cut down as much timber as possible before the beetle kills it.
And, from my understanding, because forestry companies have to pay a "stumpage fee", they are leaving the dead
timber (pine beetle killed) where it lies....just adding more fuel sources.
The change to the practice in the later 90's was not for the better IMO for anybody, especially wildlife.
They need to clean up those cut blocks better, and burn it all when they are done.
Oh, and I don't really want to get into the science factor, if we still have some groups who hunt in BC, but don't
have to give #'s to the ministry of what they "harvest".
How can we have science, if you can't "plug in" the correct #'s into the calculator???
Garbage in...garbage out...
Atv's should have to stay on the main roads....just like a truck....
They should not be allowed to "make new trails" throughout this province....
I don't necessarily blame the quad guys...it is more the "dirt bike clubs" who are creating these "new trails"...
The quad guys just find them....and off they go.
Ya...going to get some "heat" from the quad hunters from that last statement....but it is for the best to "help wildlife"
Sorry, but wildlife do need some areas where they are not continuously "hassled".
Habitat and access are probably the biggest factors.
Pred control is another issue.
Many in the ministry.... I think....feel that high pred #'s is just a short term problem that will rectify itself.....
which is true.....but it means the ungulate #'s will have to drop 1st.....then the preds die off naturally....
But, this thread is about making ungulate #'s flourish...so....you have to lower the high pred #'s we have right now.
Answer......poison.
I agree with almost all of you comment, Bugle. I do not agree l, though with your answer to the "predator problem". I think that using poison as a control measure is cruel and unethical. It is an indescriminate killer of many more species of wildlife than just predators. Any animal that feeds on carrion will suffer from this awful death. Not only that, but history has proven that poison control is ineffective. During the early 1900's the US gov't waged a full scale war on predators using poison. After three or four decades and millions of animals killed they finally had to admit defeat. The wolf population succumbed quickly, but all the poison the US gov't could make could not beat the coyote. In fact it's range only grew with the elimination of the wolf.
This is a subject I have been reading about recently. A book written by Dan Flores called American Serengeti is a very good read if anyone is interested in North America's charismatic megafauna from the passed and present.
I don't know what the answers are to rebuild wildlife populations here in BC. I do think though that you can't "manage" some species and not others. You can't just hunt the ungulates without hunting the predators. I have a black bear tag that I hope to fill this fall. Maybe I should get a wolf tag too. If I don't get to fill that tag at least I will have contributed a little bit of money back into conservation.
These are just some of my thoughts on this very interesting topic.

Chad

[Fisher-Dude]

So what you're saying is that once the wolves deplete the moose /elk population they will leave the deer alone....Bullderdash!

Wolves move on. Their territories are huge.

Witness many of the Kinbasket wolves, which, when faced with a deliberate reduction of moose numbers, moved to the North Thompson and Okanagan in search of better eats.

Predators and prey have evolved together. Cats like mule deer, wolves like moose...not to say they won't make an incidental kill if they come across other prey, but they key on specific species for their long term survival.

[Arctic Lake]

Hi to All !

A lot of you have raised some very good points in this thread and hope that some of them can be implemented . We need more CO's for sure and laws that can be upheld in the courts . On the road deactivation issue ,this needs to be carefully thought out . Myself I can't afford to jet boat up into places that have less hunter activity , can't afford horses , can't afford an ATV at present . I do however have a canoe and can drift a river provided I have access to putting in and pulling out ,so I would not like to see roads deactivated that would prohibit me from doing this. I have a 4x4 so that I can access FSR roads set up camp and still hunt spur roads from there .
Just a couple of thoughts !
Arctic Lake

[HarryToolips]

^^^^appreciate your thoughts...just remember: it's good to balance what you want vs. what's good for wildlife in this situation...we have far more access now compared to the good old days, those days when BC had 180,000+ hunters and still long muley seasons for any buck, a 3 point or better bull elk season, and much more liberal moose seasons...in those areas where those that hunt year round are hammering ungulate pops, particularly moose, how else can we limit their harvest? No amount of CO's or access restrictions will work on them , we know that...there are certain parts of region 8 where they are speculating mule deer buck:doe ratios are low, and access is a huge reason why - I'm an advocate of the any buck season, and our forest fires should help, but we have to be careful...

Maybe instead of having the ability to access 85% of the countryside by vehicle, we should have the ability to access 65% or something like that?? BC has a tonne of crown land, take for example Washington below us is 1/5 the size and has twice as many hunters...maybe we should be content with less access, and know that we are then creating wildlife sanctuaries that are very beneficial to ungulates...because face it, if we don't cut back our access, in the future we could see even more restrictive hunting seasons....so do you want more access, or more liberal hunting seasons??