anyone know when the cattle in Reg 3 have to be in by?

[Logan]

gettin annoyed with grazing leases and cows everywhere, does anyone know when the farmers are supposed to have their cows in by?

[wos]

I think Nov 1st but don't quote me on that. Also they need to be moved if the stubble length has been met to prevent over grazing

[wos]

You can call the range officer for your area and get some good info from him or her on how they expect the rancher to use that paticular range.

[elknut]

Where are you hunting?..If its region 3 or 5 ..Suck it up...After the fires cattle are scattered everywhere..Fences burned ...Give the ranchers a chance to find their lost animals..Dennis

[rocksteady]

Professional reliance... gov can not force anything..

[wos]

If he is talking about hunting yes suck it up.
I assumed it was around his property which can be a pain in the ass.

[Rob]

first weekish of October? my wife seems to recall.

[gcreek]

gettin annoyed with grazing leases and cows everywhere, does anyone know when the farmers are supposed to have their cows in by?


Anyone know when hunting season is over? Getting annoyed with trespassers and dickheads leaving my gates open. Does that sound as nice as your post?

[allan]

Anyone know when hunting season is over? Getting annoyed with trespassers and dickheads leaving my gates open. Does that sound as nice as your post?

I don't know you, but I like they way you think

[Survival Bill]

Nov 1st...

So if you see a cow are they not then a non-native invasive pest species just saying 8-)

[Dirty Steve]

Anyone know when hunting season is over? Getting annoyed with trespassers and dickheads leaving my gates open. Does that sound as nice as your post?

Ha ha, now thats funny! How many ranchers trying to make a living have lost cattle or horses to morons and dip shits...

[stinkyduck]

Survival Bill (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?417-Survival-Bill)
http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/statusicon/user-offline.png Junior Member


Join DateDec 2004
Posts
22


Re: anyone know when the cattle in Reg 3 have to be in by?
Nov 1st...

So if you see a cow are they not then a non-native invasive pest species just saying :cool:




REALLY. MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST STAY HOME!! just saying.

[RadHimself]

****in cattle... dont belong in the forest

[gcreek]

****in cattle... dont belong in the forest

I pay the govt. over $12,000 per year to use that grass. How much do you pay to leave ruts all over?

[Steve W]

Anyone know when hunting season is over? Getting annoyed with trespassers and dickheads leaving my gates open. Does that sound as nice as your post?


That right there is why we need a "Like" button on this forum!

[Timbow]

I'm sure if the ranchers had the power to close all leased land to the public they would.

If I had the power I would make sure all riparian areas inside the leased areas be fenced and free of cattle.

[gcreek]

That right there is why we need a "Like" button on this forum!


Thank you.

[gcreek]

I'm sure if the ranchers had the power to close all leased land to the public they would.

If I had the power I would make sure all riparian areas inside the leased areas be fenced and free of cattle.

It has been proven time and again that where cattle are not, the wildlife soon leaves also. It has to do with keeping plants young and fresh.

Some changes due to Forestry rules but it once meant ranchers could burn range in the spring to get rid of old grass and brush growth to make room for new but that hasn't happened much in the last 25 years or so. Part of the reason moose have left for the prairies? Part of the reason for the mega fires this year?

If cattle weren't in those areas I doubt you would be able to walk through them.

You entitled folk need to sit back and think about your comments before you put your comments in gear.

[Timbow]

It has been proven time and again that where cattle are not, the wildlife soon leaves also. It has to do with keeping plants young and fresh.

Some changes due to Forestry rules but it once meant ranchers could burn range in the spring to get rid of old grass and brush growth to make room for new but that hasn't happened much in the last 25 years or so. Part of the reason moose have left for the prairies? Part of the reason for the mega fires this year?

If cattle weren't in those areas I doubt you would be able to walk through them.

You entitled folk need to sit back and think about your comments before you put your comments in gear.

Can you produce scientific data to back this up or is this your observation? I'm discussing the riparian areas, not the entire land scape.

I guess I'm just as entitled as you, just a different scope.

[horshur]

Tim it is ridiculous to even imagine your suggestion..fencing riparian further fragments habitat and can you imagine the costs? As well current strategy with riparian is to leave timber as reserve..timber left next to creek in cutblock blows down..root wad tears up soil not unlike cattle leaving a mud hole which science suggest is good for creeks. Something that is ugly and messy is not necessarily bad and in an attempt to address one issue you end up smack into another .

[Sako 75]

Just my 2 cent worth, I think it great that cattles are in forest. Look at all the poo and pee the cattles release I am sure it provides good organic nutrition to plants and trees.

[twoSevenO]

If you ranchers could make gates that are easier to close you'd probably have way less left open.

I've seen some real sh** fences that have taken me 5 minutes of wrangling the high strung barbed wire to get it to close.

I can totally see why people would just say "fu** it" and drive off.

[Rupert Retired]

If you ranchers could make gates that are easier to close you'd probably have way less left open.

I've seen some real sh** fences that have taken me 5 minutes of wrangling the high strung barbed wire to get it to close.

I can totally see why people would just say "fu** it" and drive off.

No way. No-one should go through a gate and not re-attach it immediately after proceeding through. I am not
a rancher, but a hunter. 5 minutes is OK if needed, I know there are some real abortions out there regarding gates, wired, wrapped numerous times, etc. But, someone did that for a reason, and you should have the respect enough to return it to its original state, before you got there.

[twoSevenO]

^ and they should have the respect not to rape my precious away-from-work time by making a proper gate.

[Hunterguy]

What? Now we want the ranchers pissed off at hunters. I can see why all the old timers have left HBC. Some people on here are their own worst selfish enemies!

[gcreek]

^ and they should have the respect not to rape my precious away-from-work time by making a proper gate.

Most of mine are steel. Chain around the post and they actually swing. Some still don't have the time to close them. 4 rail barways in good condition seem to be troublesome also.

[rocksteady]

I pay the govt. over $12,000 per year to use that grass. How much do you pay to leave ruts all over?

It's called respect Dave... similar to common sense, it's becoming a super power.
.

Rather than thinking about protecting your investment people bitch cause of the inconvenience of having to open a gate....

3 ranch hands in a truck... who is the true cowboy???

The one in the middle.. don't need to drive and don't need to mess with gates.. :)

[Wild one]

Not a big fan of cattle in the bush but it's a legal right of the rancher just like its legal for us to be out hunting. You may not want to see cattle in the bush but there is people who don't want hunters in the bush either.

As for the gate issue if it was worth your effort to open the gate it's worth your effort to close it

Play nice people and share the sand box

[gcreek]

It's called respect Dave... similar to common sense, it's becoming a super power.
.

Rather than thinking about protecting your investment people bitch cause of the inconvenience of having to open a gate....

3 ranch hands in a truck... who is the true cowboy???

The one in the middle.. don't need to drive and don't need to mess with gates.. :)

True. Most who I come in contact with have both. As with ranchers, it is those without either attribute that make things difficult for the rest of us.

Two most common ideas are..

From the hunter side...... " Greedy Pr!$&s, they have all that land and won't let anyone on it."

From the rancher side. " I don't want any of those disrespectful idiots near anything that is mine."


Sad things have gotten this way but I do see both sides. Still going to stand on my side of the line until one from the other side proves different from the multitudes. Lots of you on here from both kinds.

[srthomas75]

I think that if someone has an issue closing a gate because it is too difficult to do, then they are pretty self centered. I can't imagine how much effort must be involved in opening some of these troublesome gates. In the future they should save themselves the headache and turn around and not bother dealing with the problem gate in the first place. good grief Charlie brown

[IslandWanderer]

My son and I pulled up to a gate in region 3 earlier this season. We mistakenly thought we weren't allowed to open it so we turned around and left. We've literally never seen a gate like that before on the island and weren't sure what the protocol was.

[twoSevenO]

Most of mine are steel. Chain around the post and they actually swing. Some still don't have the time to close them. 4 rail barways in good condition seem to be troublesome also.

That's awesome but there are some real atrocities out there people call "gates". Unfortunately, you'll always have those who won't close them ... just like we'll always have people who can't stop flinging beer cans out the window.

[moosinaround]

I have a bundle of hay wire in my truck, use it just like duct tape. I have a problem with a range gate, I bust out the leatherman, and I ensure it works before I leave it! Sure hate to see a rancher lose a cow out there, its a hard enough way to make a living. That being said, I sure don't get much cooperation when I knock on a door to ask for permission to hunt for an elk. Sure hate getting lumped with the dyckheads! Moosin

[rocksteady]

My son and I pulled up to a gate in region 3 earlier this season. We mistakenly thought we weren't allowed to open it so we turned around and left. We've literally never seen a gate like that before on the island and weren't sure what the protocol was.

If it's open leave it ops. If it's closed close it behind you.. if in doubt close it..

Most ranchers won't complain if you close a gate that they want open but Will if you leave a closed gate open..

[rocksteady]

I have a bundle of hay wire in my truck, use it just like duct tape. I have a problem with a range gate, I bust out the leatherman, and I ensure it works before I leave it! Sure hate to see a rancher lose a cow out there, its a hard enough way to make a living. That being said, I sure don't get much cooperation when I knock on a door to ask for permission to hunt for an elk. Sure hate getting lumped with the dyckheads! Moosin

Eventually karma will come to you Moosin.. a good deed never hurt anyone..

[boxhitch]

If you ranchers could make gates that are easier to close you'd probably have way less left open.
I've seen some real sh** fences that have taken me 5 minutes of wrangling the high strung barbed wire to get it to close.
I can totally see why people would just say "fu** it" and drive off.Yeah, some of those tight gates sure require some upper body strength to get the loop on the post

easily remedied with a short piece of rope

[huntcoop]

If the cows have to off the range land by a certain time, can/should the gates be left open?

[Logan]

Alright just to settle everyone's wadded up panties over my post.... I am just wondering because some areas I hunted for years just recently got "no hunting grazing lease" signs put up, and I did some research and found out that once there is no cattle on the lease the sign is void. I don't burn out on the grass, I don't move fences.... I park in one spot and walk down this buried fibre optic cable line that runs through the grazing lease.

[boxhitch]

h, If you find it open , leave it open
its not your decision whether to leave open any gate.

[J_T]

Anyone know when hunting season is over? Getting annoyed with trespassers and dickheads leaving my gates open. Does that sound as nice as your post? Where is the "like" button. Nice comeback.


If you ranchers could make gates that are easier to close you'd probably have way less left open.

I've seen some real sh** fences that have taken me 5 minutes of wrangling the high strung barbed wire to get it to close.

I can totally see why people would just say "fu** it" and drive off. Never ever ever ever. If it's closed and you struggle to open it, you struggle to close it. Every time.
Perhaps to help you out. I use a short length of rope with a pulley on one end of it. A quick throw around the post and gate post, feed the rope through the pulley and I have leverage. I you can't leave it as you found it, leave it alone.

[GoatGuy]

Alright just to settle everyone's wadded up panties over my post.... I am just wondering because some areas I hunted for years just recently got "no hunting grazing lease" signs put up, and I did some research and found out that once there is no cattle on the lease the sign is void. I don't burn out on the grass, I don't move fences.... I park in one spot and walk down this buried fibre optic cable line that runs through the grazing lease.

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/publications/legislation_policy/GrazingLeases_OffroadVehicleRecreation_FLNRO_Facts heet.pdf

[GoatGuy]

Tim it is ridiculous to even imagine your suggestion..fencing riparian further fragments habitat and can you imagine the costs? As well current strategy with riparian is to leave timber as reserve..timber left next to creek in cutblock blows down..root wad tears up soil not unlike cattle leaving a mud hole which science suggest is good for creeks. Something that is ugly and messy is not necessarily bad and in an attempt to address one issue you end up smack into another .

Fencing, leaving up natural barriers, off-stream watering, nosehole watering amongst other tools is happening in parts of the province due to habitat destruction (same as ORVs) and concerns around water quality.

The benefits of grazing were brought up a couple of years ago with regards to habitat management. The province wasn't able to produce one example where there were measured benefits (not that they don't happen). I think there are two pieces of litterature in NA supporting that. The community pastures in the peace were one of those 'intensive management' plans that should have had benefits, but the intensive part of the management was never applied. There were also a number of cases were over-grazing of bunchgrasses and over-grazing of deciduous plants were identified by provincial habitat biologists.

Would love to see the science you are referring to.

Grazing is one of those things like all others, works in moderation, not so much when it's overdone. Plenty of folks managing their range according to their rup, plenty that aren't as well.

[twoSevenO]

Yeah, some of those tight gates sure require some upper body strength to get the loop on the post

easily remedied with a short piece of rope

Then leave me the rope ... that's the whole point. Not leaving said rope is part of the reason why most of the gates are so sh**y! You want your gates closed more often ... make it as easy to close as possible. High strung wire needs a rope to tighten fence back? Put the damn rope on the fence!


And for the record I close all the gates ... im just saying I understand why some people don't. You say oh it's just an extra 5 minutes. I say if the farmer spent an extra 5 minutes none of us would have to. It would be a 10 second job on some of these crappy gates.

[rimfire]

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/publications/legislation_policy/GrazingLeases_OffroadVehicleRecreation_FLNRO_Facts heet.pdf


I don't know what everyone is complaining about. When you follow this link through and when you add the layers for the crown grazing leases that are included in iMap, there are very few spots in most areas that have grazing leases.

[horshur]

Fencing, leaving up natural barriers, off-stream watering, nosehole watering amongst other tools is happening in parts of the province due to habitat destruction (same as ORVs) and concerns around water quality.

The benefits of grazing were brought up a couple of years ago with regards to habitat management. The province wasn't able to produce one example where there were measured benefits (not that they don't happen). I think there are two pieces of litterature in NA supporting that. The community pastures in the peace were one of those 'intensive management' plans that should have had benefits, but the intensive part of the management was never applied. There were also a number of cases were over-grazing of bunchgrasses and over-grazing of deciduous plants were identified by provincial habitat biologists.

Would love to see the science you are referring to.

Grazing is one of those things like all others, works in moderation, not so much when it's overdone. Plenty of folks managing their range according to their rup, plenty that aren't as well.
Not hard to find literature on coarse woody debris in streams and its benefits. Do you know why they stopped the strawberry hill fire north of Kamloops? Poor range management practices.

[russm86]

Alright just to settle everyone's wadded up panties over my post.... I am just wondering because some areas I hunted for years just recently got "no hunting grazing lease" signs put up, and I did some research and found out that once there is no cattle on the lease the sign is void. I don't burn out on the grass, I don't move fences.... I park in one spot and walk down this buried fibre optic cable line that runs through the grazing lease.

If it is a true grazing lease and not a grazing permit it is to be treated exactly as PRIVATE land. You DO NOT have any rights or authorization to access/use said land without direct permission from the owner/lease holder (I would get written and signed). I'm assuming you are talking about the lower parts of Noble Lake and O'connor Lake FSRs. The first 8 - 9km of each is basically private property now. He can have his cattle there year round if he wants and even if no cattle are present it is to be considered private land for all intensive purposes. Now, in saying this, I believe the original lease holder sold the ranch etc and I was lead to believe the government would no longer allow leases so how the new owner still has the lease I'm not sure as I would have expected the lease to be rescinded when changing hands. All of this is based on what land titles office and COs have told me so don't beat me up if it's wrong. I thought the original rancher/leasee was a d*** the new ones even worse...

[rimfire]

If it is a true grazing lease and not a grazing permit it is to be treated exactly as PRIVATE land. You DO NOT have any rights or authorization to access/use said land without direct permission from the owner/lease holder (I would get written and signed). I'm assuming you are talking about the lower parts of Noble Lake and O'connor Lake FSRs. The first 8 - 9km of each is basically private property now. He can have his cattle there year round if he wants and even if no cattle are present it is to be considered private land for all intensive purposes. Now, in saying this, I believe the original lease holder sold the ranch etc and I was lead to believe the government would no longer allow leases so how the new owner still has the lease I'm not sure as I would have expected the lease to be rescinded when changing hands. At least this is what land titles office and COs have told me. I thought the original rancher/leasee was a d*** the new ones even worse...

The lease can be transferred to a new owner. The government isn't renewing any "new" leases; IE. They aren't allocating any more land to grazing leases at this time.

[RadHimself]

Anyone happen to give a crap about the damage the cattle are doing along all the drainages around douglas lake ranch?

there fences havnt been maintained in years around beak creek, stuart lake or anywhere up southfork/stuart/hudson bay/moose main, all along the fintry gorge... guess when it comes to cattle companies the rules dont apply

[RadHimself]

The "rancher" your talking about @ the bottom of noble canyon is Balcaen Logging

[Linksman313]

It has been proven time and again that where cattle are not, the wildlife soon leaves also. It has to do with keeping plants young and fresh.

Some changes due to Forestry rules but it once meant ranchers could burn range in the spring to get rid of old grass and brush growth to make room for new but that hasn't happened much in the last 25 years or so. Part of the reason moose have left for the prairies? Part of the reason for the mega fires this year?

If cattle weren't in those areas I doubt you would be able to walk through them.

You entitled folk need to sit back and think about your comments before you put your comments in gear.

I've been mulling over this comment for the last couple of days thinking about how to respond respectfully. Let me preface this by saying Gcreek, I do not know you personally but after reading your comments regarding the summer of fire in your area of the province and other topics I can reason that you are a hard working and conscientious Rancher and would love to buy you a big dozen for your troubles this summer. However, when I read that a member of the Canadian Beef industry dares to call someone in a very small minority group (hunters) entitled, I pretty much swallow my tongue and turn purple. IMO Big beef in Canada is the most entitled group (more than 1st nations) in the country, always being bent over to by all levels of government. Bailout packages, loss reimbursements and I'm sure more $$ coming their way after the devastating fires of this summer (not begrudging this). My family and I do not eat beef anymore, we simply cannot afford to pay the cost of the product which has tripled if not more in years past. That aside I would also like to know would a couple of healthy herds of Elk introduced on this same lease area benefit this environment in the same way a herd of cows would, why hasn't this option been explored if the scientific data you refer to is correct. I remember their was a push to reintroduce Elk in close to the same area of these devastating fires but was shot down by a certain almighty interest group.

[RadHimself]

Thankyou for piping up linksman

[TexasWalker]

It has been proven time and again that where cattle are not, the wildlife soon leaves also. It has to do with keeping plants young and fresh.

Some changes due to Forestry rules but it once meant ranchers could burn range in the spring to get rid of old grass and brush growth to make room for new but that hasn't happened much in the last 25 years or so. Part of the reason moose have left for the prairies? Part of the reason for the mega fires this year?

If cattle weren't in those areas I doubt you would be able to walk through them.

You entitled folk need to sit back and think about your comments before you put your comments in gear.

What a load of manure.

[rocksteady]

Getting some popcorn.. be right bad.. think I need a big bucket

[gcreek]

I've been mulling over this comment for the last couple of days thinking about how to respond respectfully. Let me preface this by saying Gcreek, I do not know you personally but after reading your comments regarding the summer of fire in your area of the province and other topics I can reason that you are a hard working and conscientious Rancher and would love to buy you a big dozen for your troubles this summer. However, when I read that a member of the Canadian Beef industry dares to call someone in a very small minority group (hunters) entitled, I pretty much swallow my tongue and turn purple. IMO Big beef in Canada is the most entitled group (more than 1st nations) in the country, always being bent over to by all levels of government. Bailout packages, loss reimbursements and I'm sure more $$ coming their way after the devastating fires of this summer (not begrudging this). My family and I do not eat beef anymore, we simply cannot afford to pay the cost of the product which has tripled if not more in years past. That aside I would also like to know would a couple of healthy herds of Elk introduced on this same lease area benefit this environment in the same way a herd of cows would, why hasn't this option been explored if the scientific data you refer to is correct. I remember their was a push to reintroduce Elk in close to the same area of these devastating fires but was shot down by a certain almighty interest group.

#1. It has been proven that land purchased by Nature Conservancy that has kept cattle off has had reduced wildlife populations over time. Not saying that prescribed burning or more wild ungulates wouldn't keep forage for all fresh and new but how would you keep elk or deer on this wildlife only land when there is a nice alfalfa crop growing next door? In almost every instance, Nature Conservancy has brought cattle back into the scenario for controlled lengths of time. Birds, deer and other wildlife followed the cows back.

#2. In answer to your statements about subsidies. During the years that cattle prices were low due to BSE, most cattlemen across the country received what I referred to as welfare cheques. It help a lot when calves were worth $400 and production costs for most are at least 150% of that figure. Anyone with irrigation pumps is closer to $800 production costs. We are enrolled in a program called Agristability. In 2009, we shipped 32 cull cows and 2 bulls to a sale. Gross cheque before freight and sale charges was $7700 and change. Is that a rich person's wage to you?

3. Thinking your elk likely would create the same environment cattle do over time. If they stayed put. If the wolves didn't drive them out or kill them all...... I think you will find that most ranchers don't want elk but actually can accept them WALKING to a new area. Just like they did over history. Ranchers also are the ONLY reason that wolves are being controlled to some extent. Did you think of that?

As far as you mentioning you can't afford beef, how much do you spend hunting for 400 lbs of moose and maybe 50 lbs of deer meat. Hamburger cows are only worth about 85 cents a lb right now for the best. A 1400 lb cow would put 500 lbs of stew and burger in your freezer. 1000 lb steer would cost you $1750 live. You could turn them loose and shoot them however you like.

I am also aware that some use there range or portions of it harder than they should, happens here too. I can show you a big part of the range in this country that doesn't see a cow. There is no more game there than where the cows are.

By "entitled" I am referring to those that feel they should be able to drive every road in the country, these same would never have ventured into the same area when the road wasn't there. Driving a vehicle or ORV down a road isn't hunting. It is being an opportunistic searcher of something to shoot at. Most road hunters I know can drive for miles and never see a track. I actually pay a sum for my entitlement on crown land. It also involves fence repair and construction, predator mitigation and lots of time checking and gathering cattle in the fall. The price is reasonable or we wouldn't be using crown. It is far from cheap.

I need to get out and be busy for a bit or my crew will know I'm lazy. Catch you in a few hours. Hope I answered your questions.

This year, my wife and I collected the big sum of $1732 each for our huge subsidy from Govt. WOW! There is 20 million announce to help with fires. It won't cover 10% of what has been lost.

[Ohwildwon]

#1. It has been proven that land purchased by Nature Conservancy that has kept cattle off has had reduced wildlife populations over time. Not saying that prescribed burning or more wild ungulates wouldn't keep forage for all fresh and new but how would you keep elk or deer on this wildlife only land when there is a nice alfalfa crop growing next door? In almost every instance, Nature Conservancy has brought cattle back into the scenario for controlled lengths of time. Birds, deer and other wildlife followed the cows back.

#2. In answer to your statements about subsidies. During the years that cattle prices were low due to BSE, most cattlemen across the country received what I referred to as welfare cheques. It help a lot when calves were worth $400 and production costs for most are at least 150% of that figure. Anyone with irrigation pumps is closer to $800 production costs. We are enrolled in a program called Agristability. In 2009, we shipped 32 cull cows and 2 bulls to a sale. Gross cheque before freight and sale charges was $7700 and change. Is that a rich person's wage to you?

3. Thinking your elk likely would create the same environment cattle do over time. If they stayed put. If the wolves didn't drive them out or kill them all...... I think you will find that most ranchers don't want elk but actually can accept them WALKING to a new area. Just like they did over history. Ranchers also are the ONLY reason that wolves are being controlled to some extent. Did you think of that?

As far as you mentioning you can't afford beef, how much do you spend hunting for 400 lbs of moose and maybe 50 lbs of deer meat. Hamburger cows are only worth about 85 cents a lb right now for the best. A 1400 lb cow would put 500 lbs of stew and burger in your freezer. 1000 lb steer would cost you $1750 live. You could turn them loose and shoot them however you like.

I am also aware that some use there range or portions of it harder than they should, happens here too. I can show you a big part of the range in this country that doesn't see a cow. There is no more game there than where the cows are.

By "entitled" I am referring to those that feel they should be able to drive every road in the country, these same would never have ventured into the same area when the road wasn't there. Driving a vehicle or ORV down a road isn't hunting. It is being an opportunistic searcher of something to shoot at. Most road hunters I know can drive for miles and never see a track. I actually pay a sum for my entitlement on crown land. It also involves fence repair and construction, predator mitigation and lots of time checking and gathering cattle in the fall. The price is reasonable or we wouldn't be using crown. It is far from cheap.

I need to get out and be busy for a bit or my crew will know I'm lazy. Catch you in a few hours. Hope I answered your questions.

This year, my wife and I collected the big sum of $1732 each for our huge subsidy from Govt. WOW! There is 20 million announce to help with fires. It won't cover 10% of what has been lost.

Thx for this info..

Bearvalley or anyone else care to back this?...

[GoatGuy]

#1. It has been proven that land purchased by Nature Conservancy that has kept cattle off has had reduced wildlife populations over time. Not saying that prescribed burning or more wild ungulates wouldn't keep forage for all fresh and new but how would you keep elk or deer on this wildlife only land when there is a nice alfalfa crop growing next door? In almost every instance, Nature Conservancy has brought cattle back into the scenario for controlled lengths of time. Birds, deer and other wildlife followed the cows back.

#2. In answer to your statements about subsidies. During the years that cattle prices were low due to BSE, most cattlemen across the country received what I referred to as welfare cheques. It help a lot when calves were worth $400 and production costs for most are at least 150% of that figure. Anyone with irrigation pumps is closer to $800 production costs. We are enrolled in a program called Agristability. In 2009, we shipped 32 cull cows and 2 bulls to a sale. Gross cheque before freight and sale charges was $7700 and change. Is that a rich person's wage to you?

3. Thinking your elk likely would create the same environment cattle do over time. If they stayed put. If the wolves didn't drive them out or kill them all...... I think you will find that most ranchers don't want elk but actually can accept them WALKING to a new area. Just like they did over history. Ranchers also are the ONLY reason that wolves are being controlled to some extent. Did you think of that?

As far as you mentioning you can't afford beef, how much do you spend hunting for 400 lbs of moose and maybe 50 lbs of deer meat. Hamburger cows are only worth about 85 cents a lb right now for the best. A 1400 lb cow would put 500 lbs of stew and burger in your freezer. 1000 lb steer would cost you $1750 live. You could turn them loose and shoot them however you like.

I am also aware that some use there range or portions of it harder than they should, happens here too. I can show you a big part of the range in this country that doesn't see a cow. There is no more game there than where the cows are.

By "entitled" I am referring to those that feel they should be able to drive every road in the country, these same would never have ventured into the same area when the road wasn't there. Driving a vehicle or ORV down a road isn't hunting. It is being an opportunistic searcher of something to shoot at. Most road hunters I know can drive for miles and never see a track. I actually pay a sum for my entitlement on crown land. It also involves fence repair and construction, predator mitigation and lots of time checking and gathering cattle in the fall. The price is reasonable or we wouldn't be using crown. It is far from cheap.

I need to get out and be busy for a bit or my crew will know I'm lazy. Catch you in a few hours. Hope I answered your questions.

This year, my wife and I collected the big sum of $1732 each for our huge subsidy from Govt. WOW! There is 20 million announce to help with fires. It won't cover 10% of what has been lost.

We've been spending time, money and energy fencing cattle out of Nature Conservancy and The Nature Trust properties in the Cariboo, Kootenay and the Okanagan due to over-grazing, riparian habitat destruction from over-grazing/cattle. The White Lake biodiversity ranch in the Okanagan is an exception and is the only 'graze' property I'm aware of that has received federal approval. The way it is managed is nothing like anything else we have going in BC.

I don't think your first point is supported by reality.

As said in moderation everything can work together. When there's no moderation, and range use plans aren't being followed the theory doesn't hold water. Right now on conservation properties in BC, we have some major issues with weeds/over-grazing/riparian area damage.

[GoatGuy]

I don't know what everyone is complaining about. When you follow this link through and when you add the layers for the crown grazing leases that are included in iMap, there are very few spots in most areas that have grazing leases.

There are currently 491 grazing leases in BC which cover around 160,000 hectares. They are generally in super productive habitat. There are treated like private property. It's an archaic form of tenure that probably isn't consistent with the public interest.

There's not much give and a lot of take.

[firebird]

Anyone know when hunting season is over? Getting annoyed with trespassers and dickheads leaving my gates open. Does that sound as nice as your post?

LMAO!!!

Right back at you, good one!

[GoatGuy]

Not hard to find literature on coarse woody debris in streams and its benefits. Do you know why they stopped the strawberry hill fire north of Kamloops? Poor range management practices.

You said fencing is 'hard to imagine' due to costs and habitat fragmentation - it is happening because of habitat destruction (over-grazing and riaparian) and concerns around water quality.

You suggested that cows produce mud holes which is good for creeks. I haven't seen any science to support that theory hence the remark that I would love to see the science. While cows might produce 'mud holes' they don't carry coarse woody debris into streams and those mud holes (areas of extremely high use) are usually accompanied by riparian habitat destruction which causes erosion, damages spawning habitat, increases siltation and has long-term negative impacts on habitat. I can say the areas with high use by cattle are usually nuked on either side of the stream. There's a reason DFO has spent so much time, and money working with landowners to pay for fences to keep cows out of fish bearing streams.

Habitat destruction, turbidity, crypto spore disturbance, issues with water quality, weed transfer, over-grazing are real. That is cow and ORV related.

I think your suggestions and assertions are a stretch and some of the claims are not supported by what we are doing in BC, or the science. Having said that if you can produce some data/science that says cows over-grazing and standing in creeks creating 'mud pits' is good for habitat and fish I would be more than happy to read it. All of what we are currently doing and seeing is the opposite of what you are saying.

Again, not an 'anti-cow' guy - everything in moderation and done consistent with range use plans works.

[horshur]

There are dozens of scientific articles stating the effects of fencing and habitat fragmentation.They are also traps contributing to predation. Focus on one problem create another.

[gcreek]

We've been spending time, money and energy fencing cattle out of Nature Conservancy and The Nature Trust properties in the Cariboo, Kootenay and the Okanagan due to over-grazing, riparian habitat destruction from over-grazing/cattle. The White Lake biodiversity ranch in the Okanagan is an exception and is the only 'graze' property I'm aware of that has received federal approval. The way it is managed is nothing like anything else we have going in BC.

I don't think your first point is supported by reality.

As said in moderation everything can work together. When there's no moderation, and range use plans aren't being followed the theory doesn't hold water. Right now on conservation properties in BC, we have some major issues with weeds/over-grazing/riparian area damage.

Try the old Circle X Ranch at Tatlayoko, Try Pine Butte Ranch at Cranbrook. Try several properties in the flatlands. You should do more research for your $500 a day Jesse.

[GoatGuy]

Try the old Circle X Ranch at Tatlayoko, Try Pine Butte Ranch at Cranbrook. Try several properties in the flatlands. You should do more research for your $500 a day Jesse.

None of those have Federal endorsement - while grazing exists it's not "proven that wildlife will dissappear without grazing" as you assert.

Unfortunately that is not what we are seeing in other conservation properties in BC. We are building cattle exclusion fences on a number of conservation properties & on crown land to mitigate the negative effects of cattle (and quads) on sensitive and over-grazed habitat.

As said three times now, grazing in moderation works. Not an 'anti-cow' guy, just think we should stick to reality.

As said we went through this exercise two years ago to find one example where grazing increased wildlife values/habitat. There was not one example provided- not one, and that issue traveled the province with habitat and range staff. The research we have indicates the opposite. There is significant concern from habitat ecologists around livestock/habitat and in particular mule deer interaction in BC. Some of the research sites have shown significant over-grazing, including deciduous shrubs (deer food) being grazed to 'ground zero' every summer.

Finally, if grazing were such a positive net benefit land conservancy organizations would be purchasing properties while ensuring cattle grazing remains in perpituity. Most of the agreements are grand-fathered whereby once the current 'family' passes on the cows are removed, OR grazing is not permitted on these properties at all. There are always exceptions, but the "rule" is not to allow grazing on conservation lands over the long-term.

This seems to be more of a beliefs based argument. Basing your argument on beliefs while ignoring the science doesn't really make for a compelling case.

[GoatGuy]

There are dozens of scientific articles stating the effects of fencing and habitat fragmentation.They are also traps contributing to predation. Focus on one problem create another.

And yet we are doing it - weighing the trade-offs and choosing that the benefits of riparian/stream protection outweigh the economic and environmental costs of fencing. That should indicate the magnitude of the issue/concern.

Most of these issues are site specific and due to a lack of adherence to range use plans.

Anyways if you ever come up with some litt to support the earlier assertions please post. Always keen to learn.

[604redneck]

I pay the govt. over $12,000 per year to use that grass. How much do you pay to leave ruts all over?
Nobody gives 2 shits how much you pay. Still dont belong there.

[rocksteady]

Nobody gives 2 shits how much you pay. Still dont belong there.

Popcorn reload time...

[TexasWalker]

Nobody gives 2 shits how much you pay. Still dont belong there.


Couldn't agree more, just a grumpy old rancher feeding from the trough.

He is as entitled as they come.

[TexasWalker]

If you want to farm cattle, buy some land and do it.
I hope the government realizes how antiquated the current policies are and they kick all these free loading farmers off our land.

[MattW]

Not so much in response to the OP but to the anti-cow sentiment. Perhaps you are overlooking the necessity of these cattle? There are a lot of people to feed in this province, it's not sustainable if all of them go hunting. Those cattle could get raised in feedlots I guess but people don't seem to like that either and it would mean a lot more land getting put into crops.
Put another way, if each of those cows were taken off the range and replaced with another hunter (or two) do you think the hunting situation would be better?

[rimfire]

If you want to farm cattle, buy some land and do it.
I hope the government realizes how antiquated the current policies are and they kick all these free loading farmers off our land.

What is the difference between him paying for grazing rights and a forester paying a stumpage fee? Both are using a resource of the province and paying the "fair market value". Sure, there should be more oversight on habitat destruction but the same can be said for forestry.

[GoatGuy]

What is the difference between him paying for grazing rights and a forester paying a stumpage fee? Both are using a resource of the province and paying the "fair market value". Sure, there should be more oversight on habitat destruction but the same can be said for forestry.

Agree on the approach.

Economists probably wouldn't support the 'fair market value' concept. Generally speaking we are all subsidized in one way or another when it comes to public land.

[338win mag]

I dont have a problem with cattle ranging on crown land, I have a problem with cattle ranging in critical mule deer wintering habitat, and shouldn't be there, simple.
I would rather have no cattle ranging but, we all gotta get along.

[IslandWanderer]

Nobody gives 2 shits how much you pay. Still dont belong there.

Nice! 12,000 is puppy piss.

[Logan]

If it is a true grazing lease and not a grazing permit it is to be treated exactly as PRIVATE land. You DO NOT have any rights or authorization to access/use said land without direct permission from the owner/lease holder (I would get written and signed). I'm assuming you are talking about the lower parts of Noble Lake and O'connor Lake FSRs. The first 8 - 9km of each is basically private property now. He can have his cattle there year round if he wants and even if no cattle are present it is to be considered private land for all intensive purposes. Now, in saying this, I believe the original lease holder sold the ranch etc and I was lead to believe the government would no longer allow leases so how the new owner still has the lease I'm not sure as I would have expected the lease to be rescinded when changing hands. All of this is based on what land titles office and COs have told me so don't beat me up if it's wrong. I thought the original rancher/leasee was a d*** the new ones even worse...

Ya that's exactly where I'm talking about. Thanks for the info, I'm still gonna hunt there that rancher IS a dickhead I met him once when I wasn't even hunting. If he finds me he can suck a poop and go whine about it cuz that dumb fat **** will never catch an athletic hunter lol.

[gcreek]

Ya that's exactly where I'm talking about. Thanks for the info, I'm still gonna hunt there that rancher IS a dickhead I met him once when I wasn't even hunting. If he finds me he can suck a poop and go whine about it cuz that dumb fat **** will never catch an athletic hunter lol.


It is attitudes like yours that screw it for every hunter.

[gcreek]

None of those have Federal endorsement - while grazing exists it's not "proven that wildlife will dissappear without grazing" as you assert.

Unfortunately that is not what we are seeing in other conservation properties in BC. We are building cattle exclusion fences on a number of conservation properties & on crown land to mitigate the negative effects of cattle (and quads) on sensitive and over-grazed habitat.

As said three times now, grazing in moderation works. Not an 'anti-cow' guy, just think we should stick to reality.

As said we went through this exercise two years ago to find one example where grazing increased wildlife values/habitat. There was not one example provided- not one, and that issue traveled the province with habitat and range staff. The research we have indicates the opposite. There is significant concern from habitat ecologists around livestock/habitat and in particular mule deer interaction in BC. Some of the research sites have shown significant over-grazing, including deciduous shrubs (deer food) being grazed to 'ground zero' every summer.

Finally, if grazing were such a positive net benefit land conservancy organizations would be purchasing properties while ensuring cattle grazing remains in perpituity. Most of the agreements are grand-fathered whereby once the current 'family' passes on the cows are removed, OR grazing is not permitted on these properties at all. There are always exceptions, but the "rule" is not to allow grazing on conservation lands over the long-term.

This seems to be more of a beliefs based argument. Basing your argument on beliefs while ignoring the science doesn't really make for a compelling case.


They are owned by Nature Conservancy Canada. Don't believe I mentioned the Feds at all.

I also mentioned controlled grazing, not the kind some ranches seem to get away with. I would rather have my calves grow every day, not spend the last weeks out licking the 3rd crop of moss off the rocks.

Been here almost 40 years, yes, observations become knowledge, knowledge becomes belief. Something 6 or 7 years in a class room and more years behind a desk won't give you.

[gcreek]

Nice! 12,000 is puppy piss.

How much do you make on welfare?

[gcreek]

Nobody gives 2 shits how much you pay. Still dont belong there.


Most of us could give 2 shits what you think either. If it weren't for logging roads you would be a vegetarian.

[gcreek]

Popcorn reload time...

LOL, did you restock?

Funny how the good ones show themselves and the turds eventually sink and flush.

When you come for coffee, bring Big Lew, horshur and a couple others. My treat with the whiskey. Don't think most of these twits have let the milk diet go yet. LOL

[Steve W]

Ya that's exactly where I'm talking about. Thanks for the info, I'm still gonna hunt there that rancher IS a dickhead I met him once when I wasn't even hunting. If he finds me he can suck a poop and go whine about it cuz that dumb fat **** will never catch an athletic hunter lol.

He doesn't have to catch you. He'll call the COS and they'll have to waste time following up... and there's a couple of them that'll give you a run for your money.

[Frank grimes]

Ya that's exactly where I'm talking about. Thanks for the info, I'm still gonna hunt there that rancher IS a dickhead I met him once when I wasn't even hunting. If he finds me he can suck a poop and go whine about it cuz that dumb fat **** will never catch an athletic hunter lol.

Why not just go outside the grazing lease? Same area, same deer. Why would you want to hunt, knowing it could cause more problems. The guy can be a dick because he deals with s**theads all the time. Iv met him too, seemed like a reasonable guy.
Close gates and respect property and leases, it's more fun when everyone gets along.

[Bear Brawler]

I always close the gates after I go through em, usually with my own 4-5' of chain and heavy duty lock(cows can't break em). It's way quicker than dealing with a piece of sh&^ gate and I don't waste my hunting time. I always collect my chain and lock and the end of the day and after hunting I have a few more minutes to try and close the gate with the original set up that was there in the morning. Lol

[Timbow]

Not so much in response to the OP but to the anti-cow sentiment. Perhaps you are overlooking the necessity of these cattle? There are a lot of people to feed in this province, it's not sustainable if all of them go hunting. Those cattle could get raised in feedlots I guess but people don't seem to like that either and it would mean a lot more land getting put into crops.
Put another way, if each of those cows were taken off the range and replaced with another hunter (or two) do you think the hunting situation would be better?

You're absolutely right about the necessity of cattle to feed the masses and I'm not against the industry. I have family and friends that are ranchers, I even called one a farmer and I'm still alive. I just believe there should be some type of regulation with open range cattle around riparian areas on leased lands. That's my opinion in what I have experienced in the field located in cattle leased areas.

IMO, it's no different than the salmon farming industry. I do believe they have a place in today's society as the wild stocks cannot be sustained to feed the masses. I do believe they should be farmed inland instead of the ocean. Will it happen, I doubt it as open water farming is big business as is the cattle ranching as is oil and gas as in forestry and the list continues.

[Whonnock Boy]

I don't know what Jesse makes for a wage, but I do know that he took a significant wage cut to come and work for the fed, and I also know that at $500 a day or whatever it is, doesn't matter, BCWF members are getting a hell of a deal. There are very few people that question his pay cheque, and those that do are some of the most ignorant folks on the planet. Your comment would suggest that you fall into that category as well.




Try the old Circle X Ranch at Tatlayoko, Try Pine Butte Ranch at Cranbrook. Try several properties in the flatlands. You should do more research for your $500 a day Jesse.

[gcreek]

I don't know what Jesse makes for a wage, but I do know that he took a significant wage cut to come and work for the fed, and I also know that at $500 a day or whatever it is, doesn't matter, BCWF members are getting a hell of a deal. There are very few people that question his pay cheque, and those that do are some of the most ignorant folks on the planet. Your comment would suggest that you fall into that category as well.

I will play by the same sandbox rules as the other fellow dictates. You call me a liar and I will bite back. Same as most would.

Some don't care to look at all the facts, only the ones that push their agenda.

[boxhitch]

Touchy or what? No one implied you were lying, just questioning where your point of view came from
You stated so-called facts without giving any support


Been here almost 40 years, yes, observations become knowledge, knowledge becomes belief. Something 6 or 7 years in a class room and more years behind a desk won't give you.The rest of us can be thankful of that

[gcreek]

Touchy or what? No one implied you were lying, just questioning where your point of view came from
You stated so-called facts without giving any support

The rest of us can be thankful of that

Touchy yes.

Mr. Zeeman has called me a lier a couple times. I'm not in awe of his position, education or connections like some are. As stated, I have observed and experienced a fair amount by being here. His desk job doesn't allow the same kind of experience.

Interesting how many "experts" refuse to acknowledge "anecdotal" evidence. Preferring to believe other "experts" with brief encounters in the wild and biased viws of how things should be. Contrary to what most think of me, everyone has a right as long as we play by the rules.

[Whonnock Boy]

Pretty funny..... There is a difference between being "in awe", and just having a ton of respect for somebody. Have you even met the man, or are you just basing your thoughts on information fed to you from Gilson and Glaicar?

"Biased views of how things should be"? Like more wildlife and better habitat? How are things working out for our Province currently?


Touchy yes.

Mr. Zeeman has called me a lier a couple times. I'm not in awe of his position, education or connections like some are. As stated, I have observed and experienced a fair amount by being here. His desk job doesn't allow the same kind of experience.

Interesting how many "experts" refuse to acknowledge "anecdotal" evidence. Preferring to believe other "experts" with brief encounters in the wild and biased viws of how things should be. Contrary to what most think of me, everyone has a right as long as we play by the rules.

[RadHimself]

Another area that needs looking at, the top of Taylor creek... How big is that authorized grazy lease? The Chambers got cattle up in the alpine up there as well

i find it hilarious that all these back country grazing leases in the interior are all held by big money families and companies... The "Ol Boys Club" needs a kick in the ass

[GoatGuy]

They are owned by Nature Conservancy Canada. Don't believe I mentioned the Feds at all.

I also mentioned controlled grazing, not the kind some ranches seem to get away with. I would rather have my calves grow every day, not spend the last weeks out licking the 3rd crop of moss off the rocks.

Been here almost 40 years, yes, observations become knowledge, knowledge becomes belief. Something 6 or 7 years in a class room and more years behind a desk won't give you.

Anecdotal is great, empirical slightly better.

If grazing was a great things land acquisition conservation orgs would have grazing as part of their purchase agreement - they don't. Most have agreements that don't allow grazing, others grandfather it out, and some keep it.

Anecdotal evidence is great, empirical is better.

When the ecologists are saying that nearly all of the highly quality forage in their study areas is gone after august due to cattle I would say we have an issue.

You assertion is when cattle goes so does wildlife with the implication cattle was good for 'deer food'. There isn't much evidence to support that.

[gcreek]

Pretty funny..... There is a difference between being "in awe", and just having a ton of respect for somebody. Have you even met the man, or are you just basing your thoughts on information fed to you from Gilson and Glaicar?

"Biased views of how things should be"? Like more wildlife and better habitat? How are things working out for our Province currently?


Have you not noticed I make my own assumptions and opinions? Don't need any help.

I do respect what those with passion do in their work, I don't always have to agree with it but do respect. Just as I do Joe Alphonse.

I find it interesting that those in power and those with influence do everything for habitat and hunting restrictions in the book and continually refuse to act on the predator issue. BC Cattlemen's Asso. is the only group ACTIVELY making an attempt to deal with problem wolves and other predators.

Why does BCFW not pick up the ball and join in? Are you trying to save them too?

[gcreek]

Anecdotal is great, empirical slightly better.

If grazing was a great things land acquisition conservation orgs would have grazing as part of their purchase agreement - they don't. Most have agreements that don't allow grazing, others grandfather it out, and some keep it.

Anecdotal evidence is great, empirical is better.

When the ecologists are saying that nearly all of the highly quality forage in their study areas is gone after august due to cattle I would say we have an issue.

You assertion is when cattle goes so does wildlife with the implication cattle was good for 'deer food'. There isn't much evidence to support that.


Your tunnel vision is getting the best of you Jesse.

If you don't get a bunch of wolves and bears dealt with your habitat just as well be cow feed. At least Cattlemen are dealing with that problem. Is BCFW helping foot that bill at all? Maybe adding a voice? Or are you protecting them also?

[Whonnock Boy]

Shakes head, and walks away.......

[gcreek]

Shakes head, and walks away.......


Touchy or what? Did I strike a little too close to the truth?

[338win mag]

gcreek
As stated previously by myself....I dont have a problem with cattle ranging, I have a problem with cattle ranging in critical mule deer wintering habitat. Now I have a problem with a cattlemans air of entitlement.
I dont know goatguy, I'm not a member of the BCWF, never was nor will be, so its not that. My observations are that goatguy has always made himself available and promply provided facts and has pointed enquiring minds in the right direction to research for themselves, throwing no stones in the process.
Interesting how cattle are helping game pops, cattle ranchers contribute about as much to wildlife initiatives as do forest companies, which is FA.
I get my info from different sources and draw my own conclusions, cows shit and piss in the watersheds all over this province, spread invasive weeds, overgraze wintering area's, and give back nothing to the common man and do nothing for game and I doubt very much any r.p.biologist would encourage cattle ranging freely on crown land, especially wintering area's.
Alot of folks will point out that is what Alberta and Saskatchewan is for.

[RadHimself]

The cattleman are only protecting the problem immediately effecting their herd, not actively seeking out wolves. If i see a wolf, it gets dealt with. Same same, wheres my badge of honor geek?

[Ohwildwon]

I heard Roche Lake Provincial Park, is being renamed to, Cow Pie...:wink:

[gcreek]

The cattleman are only protecting the problem immediately effecting their herd, not actively seeking out wolves. If i see a wolf, it gets dealt with. Same same, wheres my badge of honor geek?

When you get to over 100 let me know, you will be starting to catch up with my incidental kills. Are you thinking the whole packs cattle/predation mitigators are removing aren't eating moose?

Hoping also your name spelling was a misprint.

[Dannybuoy]

Right on gcreek ! Most on here don't have a clue ..... not sure how all this whining came from a question about when cattle should be off their summer leases ?

[gcreek]

Right on gcreek ! Most on here don't have a clue ..... not sure how all this whining came from a question about when cattle should be off their summer leases ?


Thank you sir.

[bearvalley]

This thread is quite the shit show.
What started out with an OP thrown out by someone that either doesn't understand or respect rights that are tied to a grazing lease turns into tears over hard to open gates, cows in creeks and cattle eradicating deer winter range.
We even have Troy Halliday, the BCWF ex access committee chair throwing out allegations that Glaicar and myself are conspiring with gcreek. Good one Troy, you must be drinking the same hallucination liquid that Spy gets into.
Jesse, while your digging thru your paper pile...post the results of the water contamination complaint filed on Coldstream Ranch a few years ago. Didn't cows get initially blamed for that and further testing results found it to be canine, ungulate and human feces that were the culprits.
Now let's take a look at deer winter range.
A good example is Empire Valley, historically on of BC's greatest mule deer areas.
Deer populations remained high while Empire Valley Ranch maintained a cow herd that was 10 times what it is today.
The government stepped in, bought the ranch.
Part of it became protected grasslands, the cow numbers were lowered to a fraction and hard core management practices were one of the lease stipulation to the present operator.
What happened to the increase in deer we should have seen?
Lets see the science.
Remember Jesse, as I have told you, science is only as good as who compiled it....we see that every day with the steady stream of propaganda fed by the anti hunting groups thru their pretend scientists.
Keep burning bridges boys.....you've pissed off the guides...you aren't gaining many points with FN's...and now you're feeding a rift towards cattle producers...one day the smoke will clear and some of your support team will see thru the BS.

[Whonnock Boy]

How does Gcreek know what the BCWF pays Jesse? I've spoken with Jesse countless times, and for that matter, numerous people at the office and Prov. executives and I still don't know what Jesse's wage is. How would he know.......



We even have Troy Halliday, the BCWF ex access committee chair throwing out allegations that Glaicar and myself are conspiring with gcreek. Good one Troy, you must be drinking the same hallucination liquid that Spy gets into.

[gcreek]

How does Gcreek know what the BCWF pays Jesse? I've spoken with Jesse countless times, and for that matter, numerous people at the office and Prov. executives and I still don't know what Jesse's wage is. How would he know.......

Do your homework.

[Whonnock Boy]

To the best of my knowledge, it all falls under the confidentiality agreement that every executive has signed. If his wage has been published, and is public knowledge, I will humbly apologize. Please direct me to where I can find it.
Do your homework.

[Rob Chipman]

Why the **** does anyone really care how much Jesse gets paid by the Fed? There is no way in hell that his pay is a) public business and b) any sort of pressing problem.

This will come as a newsflash to everyone who's lived in BC for a long time: there are cows on the landscape and there are cattle ranchers who sometimes combine thin skins and poor social skills, there are non-ranchers who go into cow country and aren't aware of the expected protocols and piss off the people who live there, and there's some people who don't like cows (and probably don't like ranchers) and there's some people who don't like city people.

How that is worthy of discussion escapes me. None of it is news.

Here's what does interest me: what benefit or damage do cattle do to public property? Is there science to back it up? Are there links to that science? Can any actual conclusions be drawn?

We're communicating on the friggin' internet for God's sake. There's a little icon over the reply box that looks like a globe with a piece of chain. Next time you're inclined to tell someone to do some research or look here or there, consider trying something a bit different. Find the information, and link to it. That'll help everyone pick the flyshit out of the pepper.

[Whonnock Boy]

Sorry Rob. I’m just pissing inside their tent. ;)


Why the **** does anyone really care how much Jesse gets paid by the Fed? There is no way in hell that his pay is a) public business and b) any sort of pressing problem.

This will come as a newsflash to everyone who's lived in BC for a long time: there are cows on the landscape and there are cattle ranchers who sometimes combine thin skins and poor social skills, there are non-ranchers who go into cow country and aren't aware of the expected protocols and piss off the people who live there, and there's some people who don't like cows (and probably don't like ranchers) and there's some people who don't like city people.

How that is worthy of discussion escapes me. None of it is news.

Here's what does interest me: what benefit or damage do cattle do to public property? Is there science to back it up? Are there links to that science? Can any actual conclusions be drawn?

We're communicating on the friggin' internet for God's sake. There's a little icon over the reply box that looks like a globe with a piece of chain. Next time you're inclined to tell someone to do some research or look here or there, consider trying something a bit different. Find the information, and link to it. That'll help everyone pick the flyshit out of the pepper.

[bearvalley]

Sorry Rob. I’m just pissing inside their tent. ;)
Their tent Troy, or your own.
It looks to me like you're pissing on your own leg.
I would think that the salary of a "paid lobbyist" working for a non charitable organization would be released to the general membership if they so asked.
Otherwise what's the secret?
No matter how you slice it, an executive is working for the members, or should be.

[gcreek]

Why the **** does anyone really care how much Jesse gets paid by the Fed? There is no way in hell that his pay is a) public business and b) any sort of pressing problem.

This will come as a newsflash to everyone who's lived in BC for a long time: there are cows on the landscape and there are cattle ranchers who sometimes combine thin skins and poor social skills, there are non-ranchers who go into cow country and aren't aware of the expected protocols and piss off the people who live there, and there's some people who don't like cows (and probably don't like ranchers) and there's some people who don't like city people.

How that is worthy of discussion escapes me. None of it is news.

Here's what does interest me: what benefit or damage do cattle do to public property? Is there science to back it up? Are there links to that science? Can any actual conclusions be drawn?

We're communicating on the friggin' internet for God's sake. There's a little icon over the reply box that looks like a globe with a piece of chain. Next time you're inclined to tell someone to do some research or look here or there, consider trying something a bit different. Find the information, and link to it. That'll help everyone pick the flyshit out of the pepper.

Try using a little imagination Rob. There have been grass eaters and browsers on this continent for how many 10,000 years? Cattle have taken the place of most of the grass eaters. ( I'm thinking elk in BC in recent history, bison on the prairies) The big difference is cattle don't migrate.

Have you noticed how short the elk can get the grass in Jasper Park? Just some random thoughts for you to ponder.

I have faith in science only as much as the credibility of the person giving the evidence. (IE Al Gore) otherwise, it's science fiction.

[gcreek]

Sorry Rob. I’m just pissing inside their tent. ;)

You're giving fine examples of your single minded ineptness, keep it coming.

[Ohwildwon]

Yes, a bit of a shit show...

Also an important topic that needs to be discussed?

Lots of interesting info for sure...

[wideopenthrottle]

heheh....finally read the rest of this thread after reading the first page when it started....when I kept seeing this thread up top of the list I had a feeling it had gone a little sideways....

[gcreek]

Your tunnel vision is getting the best of you Jesse.

If you don't get a bunch of wolves and bears dealt with your habitat just as well be cow feed. At least Cattlemen are dealing with that problem. Is BCFW helping foot that bill at all? Maybe adding a voice? Or are you protecting them also?


Jesse? Any papers on this issue?

[Whonnock Boy]

I've asked around. Jesse's wage is not public knowledge, and that reverts back to where you're both getting the information from. You're being fed it by someone, and that information, as of right now, is confidential. Who's breaking the agreement, most likely an agreement that I would guess was cooked up by themselves?

This isn't a question of what should be public knowledge and what shouldn't, but since you've brought it up, I've had that discussion with the current operations manager, and current executives. As of right now, Prov. board minutes are available for viewing by the membership, but the Prov. board executive minutes are not. Those are the minutes of the meetings between the President, VP's, and treasurer. It seems there is some resistance with those, so much resistance in fact, that I was reported to WorkSafe BC as a safety threat by Brenton Froehlich after I visited the office to ask about the minutes. I was so scary, the office was put on lock down, for what I'm told, a few days. To go one step further, now nobody, including Mr. Froehlich wishes to explain or report on his actions. Are they hiding the most recent executive minutes, or those of the previous executive, which includes your friend?

Regardless, in my mind, agreeing with you, there should be open transparency, be it Mr. Zeman's wage, or executive meeting minutes, and there should be nothing to hide, especially considering the BCWF is a volunteer based, non-profit society. Now if you two could carry on without making snide comments like the one directed at Jesse's and his wages, maybe you all could have a decent discussion on cattle and how they impact wildlife. Maybe you two could actually post up some literature that supports your statement, be it biased material, or non-biased.

One final note. Mr. Zeman is worth every penny that he makes, is offered double it on a consistent basis, works 7 days a week, and deals with people like you two regularly. Every penny.

Have a good one. Hope I didn't stink up your tent too badly....


Their tent Troy, or your own.
It looks to me like you're pissing on your own leg.
I would think that the salary of a "paid lobbyist" working for a non charitable organization would be released to the general membership if they so asked.
Otherwise what's the secret?
No matter how you slice it, an executive is working for the members, or should be.

[bearvalley]

Troy, you seem to have missed where I stayed out of this shit show until Glaicar and my name got pulled into it by you.
Keep it up, you're closing doors.
Then again fire away, I'm pretty sure if you keep pissing in enough tents you'll eventually be dribbling down your leg.
By the way, when you were visiting with Brenton did you ask how his trip up north went?

[Rob Chipman]

Gcreek:

"Try using a little imagination Rob."

:-) I'm asking for science and you're saying "imagination and anecdotal evidence is better than science, because science is, like, Al Gore".

Stop digging. Al Gore isn't anymore science than Miley Cyrus. They're both imagination and anecdote. Line up with them if you like, but I'll stick with science.

Remember that you can always say "I've heard it said and believe it to be true, and my anecdotal experience seems to confirm it, that cattle on the range, in controlled circumstances, are beneficial to wildlife, but I don't have any scientific studies to back me up". That saves you from trying to argue that science is bullshit or arguing with people that like science the your opinion is more valuable. It may well be that range practices in BC are beneficial to wildlife. It is incontrovertible that range practices in many parts of the world have (in some cases irreparably) destroyed habitat.

I did what I asked you to do. I googled "do cattle damage wildlife habitat scientific articles". First thing I found?

"We found more negative (n = 86) than positive (n = 34) ungulate responses overall, however, most studies have been on browsers and mixed feeders, namely deer and elk,..." (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003)

To be fair, the same piece also said "Grazing by livestock generally reduces quantity, but sometimes improves quality of vegetation by removing old forage and stimulating new growth (Georgiadis et al 1989 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003#erlaa4720bib27)). Therefore, the effect of livestock grazing on native herbivores can be negative, through exploitative competition, or positive, as a result of facilitation. Wild herbivores of differing body sizes are predicted to respond differently to this tradeoff between forage quantity, quality, and predation (Hopcraft et al 2010 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003#erlaa4720bib39), 2012 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003#erlaa4720bib38))."

From another source: "Anderson (1989) (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742416300768#bb0020) points out that removal of livestock grazing can also have substantially negative impacts on some wildlife populations." (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742416300768" ; The same source also says:

"Trampling of sensitive plants, pegging of wet ground, slumping of streambanks, impacts on aquatic flora and fauna, and changes to hydrology and stream channel morphology may be quite negative (Belsky et al., 1999; Fleischner, 1994; George et al., 2004 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742416300768#bb0060)) if livestock presence is not well managed (Bush and Ptak, 2006 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742416300768#bb0125))."

"However,application of controlled livestock grazinghas the potential to provide a management tool that canenhancehabitat for a wide array of wildlife (SeversonandUrness 1994). We simply need to explore the possibilitiesrather than reiterate the negatives of livestock grazing." (https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/download/.../10578).

It's not too tough to find the stuff. The conclusion is a little more complex than you might like, of course, but it's a little more convincing than "it's been proven that removing cattle from the range reduces wildlife populations. Use your imagination". Point being, if you're the guy making the claim, and making it stridently, back it up or be prepared to face reasonable pushback. It seems clear that grazing, when managed well, can deliver net benefits. It can also damage habitat. We aren't exactly the best habitat protectors in BC, in case you didn't notice.

Troy:

"there should be open transparency, be it Mr. Zeman's wage, or executive meeting minutes, and there should be nothing to hide,..."

I think it's pretty well established that what employees of organizations get paid is not generally public knowledge, and while our desire to know and our idea about justice may make that tough to swallow I think that what a man is paid by his employer is not something that should be open to the whole world. Most people don't advertise their wage nor do most people require that everyone disclose their wage. The man deserves a certain degree of privacy. If you think the employee of a non-profit volunteer organization is over-paid take that into account when you elect the executive.

There should be plenty of transparency with minutes however.

Bearvalley:

It's pretty common that salaries paid to employees in member driven organizations are not public information nor available to to the members. Wage costs turn up in fanatical statements which should be available to members. That doesn't mean that the information's secret. It means that it's private.

[Whonnock Boy]

The doors are closed, most of them purposefully closed by me, and I intend to keep it that way, for good reason.

No, I didn't ask Brenton about his trip up north. What are you driving at?

Back to the original comments, and the conspiring. Who's feeding you confidential information, information that only Prov. executive BCWF members are, and as it stands right now, should be privy to?




Troy, you seem to have missed where I stayed out of this shit show until Glaicar and my name got pulled into it by you.
Keep it up, you're closing doors.
Then again fire away, I'm pretty sure if you keep pissing in enough tents you'll eventually be dribbling down your leg.
By the way, when you were visiting with Brenton did you ask how his trip up north went?

[Whonnock Boy]

Those are some good points Rob.



Troy:

"there should be open transparency, be it Mr. Zeman's wage, or executive meeting minutes, and there should be nothing to hide,..."

I think it's pretty well established that what employees of organizations get paid is not generally public knowledge, and while our desire to know and our idea about justice may make that tough to swallow I think that what a man is paid by his employer is not something that should be open to the whole world. Most people don't advertise their wage nor do most people require that everyone disclose their wage. The man deserves a certain degree of privacy. If you think the employee of a non-profit volunteer organization is over-paid take that into account when you elect the executive.

There should be plenty of transparency with minutes however.

Bearvalley:

It's pretty common that salaries paid to employees in member driven organizations are not public information nor available to to the members. Wage costs turn up in fanatical statements which should be available to members. That doesn't mean that the information's secret. It means that it's private.

[Fisher-Dude]

I would think that the salary of a "paid lobbyist" working for a non charitable organization would be released to the general membership if they so asked.
Otherwise what's the secret?
No matter how you slice it, an executive is working for the members, or should be.

You gonna post up how much Kevin Boon makes?

It's none of our business. Nor yours, for that matter.

[bearvalley]

The doors are closed, most of them purposefully closed by me, and I intend to keep it that way, for good reason.

No, I didn't ask Brenton about his trip up north. What are you driving at?

Back to the original comments, and the conspiring. Who's feeding you confidential information, information that only Prov. executive BCWF members are, and as it stands right now, should be privy to?

Troy, I'm not being fed anything but you're doing a super job of airing dirty laundry.
By the way, being a member of the BCWF, if I really wanted to know Fed business I'm probably as entitled to it on a par with you.
Maybe I need to start asking the executive what's going on that's such a secret from the membership.
But then I forgot, you got the doors closed....did you lock the back one too...?

[bearvalley]

You gonna post up how much Kevin Boon makes?

It's none of our business. Nor yours, for that matter.
It sure looks like a nerve got struck.

[Spy]

This thread is quite the shit show.
What started out with an OP thrown out by someone that either doesn't understand or respect rights that are tied to a grazing lease turns into tears over hard to open gates, cows in creeks and cattle eradicating deer winter range.
We even have Troy Halliday, the BCWF ex access committee chair throwing out allegations that Glaicar and myself are conspiring with gcreek. Good one Troy, you must be drinking the same hallucination liquid that Spy gets into.
Jesse, while your digging thru your paper pile...post the results of the water contamination complaint filed on Coldstream Ranch a few years ago. Didn't cows get initially blamed for that and further testing results found it to be canine, ungulate and human feces that were the culprits.
Now let's take a look at deer winter range.
A good example is Empire Valley, historically on of BC's greatest mule deer areas.
Deer populations remained high while Empire Valley Ranch maintained a cow herd that was 10 times what it is today.
The government stepped in, bought the ranch.
Part of it became protected grasslands, the cow numbers were lowered to a fraction and hard core management practices were one of the lease stipulation to the present operator.
What happened to the increase in deer we should have seen?
Lets see the science.
Remember Jesse, as I have told you, science is only as good as who compiled it....we see that every day with the steady stream of propaganda fed by the anti hunting groups thru their pretend scientists.
Keep burning bridges boys.....you've pissed off the guides...you aren't gaining many points with FN's...and now you're feeding a rift towards cattle producers...one day the smoke will clear and some of your support team will see thru the BS.
I was not going to post as i have NO skin in the game but then you had to bring me into it so I suppose i will give my 25c worth...
Bet you own cattle ;-) & you and the GOABC burnt the bridge with Resident Hunters! I could care less if the guides go out of business they are the ones that got the Grizzly bear hunt shut down its their clients that are the big bad Trophy hunters, hope they go the same way the Liberals did.. Hell I might join up with the antis to help them shut you down.. Keep on burning the bridges there are not many left and then you are gone and good riddens...

As for cattle on the land if they are doing damage then get them off & hunters should close gates behind them......

Its nobodies business what someone makes in there job and I think you crossed the line so childish...

[bearvalley]

Spy, pull your head out of the toilet.
FYI, I wrote you of as being in the same class as the antis a long time ago.
As for any reference to you in this thread I might have made, it was only in relationship to conspiracy theories, something you seem to have a phobia for.
I believe Troy was the guy that started down the conspiracy road in this thread when Jesse was questioned on his salary.
Spin it man, spin it.

[Spy]

Spy, pull your head out of the toilet.
FYI, I wrote you of as being in the same class as the antis a long time ago.
As for any reference to you in this thread I might have made, it was only in relationship to conspiracy theories, something you seem to have a phobia for.
I believe Troy was the guy that started down the conspiracy road in this thread when Jesse was questioned on his salary.
Spin it man, spin it.
Looks like I touched a nerve ;/) You do know that if you guides had not stolen from Resident Hunters we would not have had our protest and Weaver and Horigan would not have wanted to shut you down ;-) But hey like I said before keep on blowing up the bridges it looks good on you :-)

[horshur]

Cattle ranges .....not innocent but not ****ed either......

[bearvalley]

Looks like I touched a nerve ;/) You do know that if you guides had not stolen from Resident Hunters we would not have had our protest and Weaver and Horigan would not have wanted to shut you down ;-) But hey like I said before keep on blowing up the bridges it looks good on you :-)
LMAO, Spy you don't have a clue what goes on in wildlife politics. ��

[Ohwildwon]

LMAO, Spy you don't have a clue what goes on in wildlife politics. ��

Fair enough, are you willing to fill us in? (as in the general pop of this forum)

Hmmm, probably not?... #circlingyourwagons

[Mitchellfried]

What a shit show

[gcreek]

Gcreek:

"Try using a little imagination Rob."

:-) I'm asking for science and you're saying "imagination and anecdotal evidence is better than science, because science is, like, Al Gore".

Stop digging. Al Gore isn't anymore science than Miley Cyrus. They're both imagination and anecdote. Line up with them if you like, but I'll stick with science.

Remember that you can always say "I've heard it said and believe it to be true, and my anecdotal experience seems to confirm it, that cattle on the range, in controlled circumstances, are beneficial to wildlife, but I don't have any scientific studies to back me up". That saves you from trying to argue that science is bullshit or arguing with people that like science the your opinion is more valuable. It may well be that range practices in BC are beneficial to wildlife. It is incontrovertible that range practices in many parts of the world have (in some cases irreparably) destroyed habitat.

I did what I asked you to do. I googled "do cattle damage wildlife habitat scientific articles". First thing I found?

"We found more negative (n = 86) than positive (n = 34) ungulate responses overall, however, most studies have been on browsers and mixed feeders, namely deer and elk,..." (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003)

To be fair, the same piece also said "Grazing by livestock generally reduces quantity, but sometimes improves quality of vegetation by removing old forage and stimulating new growth (Georgiadis et al1989 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003#erlaa4720bib27)). Therefore, the effect of livestock grazing on native herbivores can be negative, through exploitative competition, or positive, as a result of facilitation. Wild herbivores of differing body sizes are predicted to respond differently to this tradeoff between forage quantity, quality, and predation (Hopcraft et al2010 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003#erlaa4720bib39), 2012 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003#erlaa4720bib38))."

From another source: "Anderson (1989) (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742416300768#bb0020) points out that removal of livestock grazing can also have substantially negative impacts on some wildlife populations." (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742416300768" ; The same source also says:

"Trampling of sensitive plants, pegging of wet ground, slumping of streambanks, impacts on aquatic flora and fauna, and changes to hydrology and stream channel morphology may be quite negative (Belsky et al., 1999; Fleischner, 1994; George et al., 2004 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742416300768#bb0060)) if livestock presence is not well managed (Bush and Ptak, 2006 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742416300768#bb0125))."

"However,application of controlled livestock grazinghas the potential to provide a management tool that canenhancehabitat for a wide array of wildlife (SeversonandUrness 1994). We simply need to explore the possibilitiesrather than reiterate the negatives of livestock grazing." (https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/download/.../10578).

It's not too tough to find the stuff. The conclusion is a little more complex than you might like, of course, but it's a little more convincing than "it's been proven that removing cattle from the range reduces wildlife populations. Use your imagination". Point being, if you're the guy making the claim, and making it stridently, back it up or be prepared to face reasonable pushback. It seems clear that grazing, when managed well, can deliver net benefits. It can also damage habitat. We aren't exactly the best habitat protectors in BC, in case you didn't notice.



If you go back through my posts on this thread I think you will find most of my anecdotal statements pretty much in agreeance with most of your links.

I did give Al Gore as an example as even science can be skewed to agree with some researchers opinions. Some, not all.

Why would I have to search this out when I have been living, observing and dealing with the consequences of this kind of thing my entire life?

When I used the term "it's been proven" I was referring to several instances that I have been told of that were used as experimental by those in charge and are still being used today. Sorry if you can't take my word for it.

Have you Googled Nature Conservancy for any info? I haven't the time or inclination to do it.

FWIW, I think you are one of the calmer truth seekers on here and respect that.

[gcreek]

Looks like I touched a nerve ;/) You do know that if you guides had not stolen from Resident Hunters we would not have had our protest and Weaver and Horigan would not have wanted to shut you down ;-) But hey like I said before keep on blowing up the bridges it looks good on you :-)

May I have this statement clarified? My reading of this gives me the assumption that BCWF supported the grizzly hunt ban.....................

If you didn't mean it that way, please explain.

[Ohwildwon]

What a shit show

What a, "shit show", is also, and can be? "extremely important"....

[gcreek]

What a, "shit show", is also, and can be? "extremely important"....


Yup, you pegged it right on the money. Amazing what comes out of pockets in the wash cycle.

[gcreek]

Jesse? Spy?

Someone turn the lights off at the office?

[Mitchellfried]

I just feel the thread has gone from what should be an important conversation to bashing hence the shit show.

[bacon_overlord]

OMFG get a new thread where you can engage in your personal battles. Leave the poor wandering cows in Region 3 alone.
Classic HBC. Starts out as a fairly legitimate thread about one issue, descends into the usual sniping over something unrelated.
Maddening.

[Mitchellfried]

Agreed. Went hunting in region 3 last year. Didn't find the cattle an issue at all.

[bacon_overlord]

Agreed. Went hunting in region 3 last year. Didn't find the cattle an issue at all.

Same here, went out several times last few weeks, just work around the cows. It's not rocket surgery. I like how they tend to make nice trails to follow into cover areas that would otherwise be impassable. Also cover your boots in cowpoop makes a good free cover scent.

[Spy]

May I have this statement clarified? My reading of this gives me the assumption that BCWF supported the grizzly hunt ban.....................

If you didn't mean it that way, please explain.
Nope not what I was getting at but you can add it to the guides list of accomplishments thanks for bringing it up... My statement is as it reads ;-)

[Rackmastr]

Wow, may be because its late and I'm grumpy being up all night, or just the fact that after 2-3 years of utter BS I'm actually getting completely sick of this BS that continues to plague "us".

In any case, this thread is a glaring example of how truly screwed we all are moving forward.

[labguy]

Cattle on the range have varying degrees of affect. When they are moved before the grass/browse gets so low it will support nothing, that's a reasonable use of the land.

When they are left to the point that every single piece of edible vegetation is denuded so that nothing could survive......then that's not so reasonable.

Ive backpacked into the headwaters of Juniper creek in the Ashnola after sheep where there was no place to even lay your sleeping bag down for all the cow crap. The beautiful, clean looking, rushing creek was befouled with shit and piss making it impossible to drink.

The headwaters/marshland where the creek begins was stomped into oblivion by thousands of cattle hoofprints.......nothing left of the riparian buffer but mud and cow shit.

The grass and browse was so low it wouldn't support a gopher. The cowboys had left garbage all over the place.

If ranchers want support from the hunting community they need to be better stewards of the land and show some respect for the what ultimately belongs to everybody.

To the ranchers that do a good job of managing the range....thank you.

[gcreek]

Cattle on the range have varying degrees of affect. When they are moved before the grass/browse gets so low it will support nothing, that's a reasonable use of the land.

When they are left to the point that every single piece of edible vegetation is denuded so that nothing could survive......then that's not so reasonable.

Ive backpacked into the headwaters of Juniper creek in the Ashnola after sheep where there was no place to even lay your sleeping bag down for all the cow crap. The beautiful, clean looking, rushing creek was befouled with shit and piss making it impossible to drink.

The headwaters/marshland where the creek begins was stomped into oblivion by thousands of cattle hoofprints.......nothing left of the riparian buffer but mud and cow shit.

The grass and browse was so low it wouldn't support a gopher. The cowboys had left garbage all over the place.

If ranchers want support from the hunting community they need to be better stewards of the land and show some respect for the what ultimately belongs to everybody.

To the ranchers that do a good job of managing the range....thank you.


Well said, some seem to think that if there is a blade of grass left they haven't gotten their money's worth.

Curious with your particular statements in your examples. Was this observed on a particularly dry year or is it an annual happening?

We have areas of "sacrifice" on our range area. Look like hell IMO but the areas are minute in comparison with total sq. kms. One side of a meadow can be grazed and the other side untouched. It has been our observation that if cattle don't graze these swamps fairly well, next year's old bottom will force them to eat less of the plant. This progresses until they won't touch the area at all. We are have had such onerous restrictions from spring burning to essentially achieve the same effect as overgrazing the previous year and deal with brush encroachment that things look significantly different than they did 30 years ago.

Garbage left behind by anyone just raises the hair on the back of my neck, we have sure progressed as a species hey?

Your second last line has two interchangeable words. It works both ways Sir.

Regards.

[Cyrus]

Wow, may be because its late and I'm grumpy being up all night, or just the fact that after 2-3 years of utter BS I'm actually getting completely sick of this BS that continues to plague "us".

In any case, this thread is a glaring example of how truly screwed we all are moving forward.

Hunters will NEVER be unified...pipe dream for those that think its possible. It will always be about me, myself, and I...Threads like this show reason why the anti's will always have a leg up and a better cooperative approach in getting their agenda across to those in power. Look at the arguments cows in the bush cause...imagine a discussion of shutting down moose, goat or sheep?

[labguy]

Well said, some seem to think that if there is a blade of grass left they haven't gotten their money's worth.

Curious with your particular statements in your examples. Was this observed on a particularly dry year or is it an annual happening?

We have areas of "sacrifice" on our range area. Look like hell IMO but the areas are minute in comparison with total sq. kms. One side of a meadow can be grazed and the other side untouched. It has been our observation that if cattle don't graze these swamps fairly well, next year's old bottom will force them to eat less of the plant. This progresses until they won't touch the area at all. We are have had such onerous restrictions from spring burning to essentially achieve the same effect as overgrazing the previous year and deal with brush encroachment that things look significantly different than they did 30 years ago.

Garbage left behind by anyone just raises the hair on the back of my neck, we have sure progressed as a species hey?

Your second last line has two interchangeable words. It works both ways Sir.

Regards.

It does indeed......or at least should......work both ways. I've seen way too many examples of slovenly hunters too.

[horshur]

Cattle on the range have varying degrees of affect. When they are moved before the grass/browse gets so low it will support nothing, that's a reasonable use of the land.

When they are left to the point that every single piece of edible vegetation is denuded so that nothing could survive......then that's not so reasonable.

Ive backpacked into the headwaters of Juniper creek in the Ashnola after sheep where there was no place to even lay your sleeping bag down for all the cow crap. The beautiful, clean looking, rushing creek was befouled with shit and piss making it impossible to drink.

The headwaters/marshland where the creek begins was stomped into oblivion by thousands of cattle hoofprints.......nothing left of the riparian buffer but mud and cow shit.

The grass and browse was so low it wouldn't support a gopher. The cowboys had left garbage all over the place.

If ranchers want support from the hunting community they need to be better stewards of the land and show some respect for the what ultimately belongs to everybody.

To the ranchers that do a good job of managing the range....thank you.
Cows been there more then a hundred and fifty years and you can still hunt sheep..think about that.

[boxhitch]

Wow, may be because its late and I'm grumpy being up all night, or just the fact that after 2-3 years of utter BS I'm actually getting completely sick of this BS that continues to plague "us".

In any case, this thread is a glaring example of how truly screwed we all are moving forward.fortunately its only a small portion that are keeping this running downhill in this thread, gotta keep that in mind
The watchers are just shaking our/their heads

[Ryo]

Lots of info out there if you're willing to look:
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1166&context=usupress_pubs
skip to chapter six for a level-headed summary of the relationship between mule deer and livestock. I have academic library privileges, so if anybody would like me to dig up the citations that the author draws on, I'm happy to do that.

Austin's discussion of the relationship between mule deer and elk, and mule deer and whitetail deer, later in the same chapter, are also worth reading, since those discussions come up periodically too.

[gcreek]

Lots of info out there if you're willing to look:
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1166&context=usupress_pubs
skip to chapter six for a level-headed summary of the relationship between mule deer and livestock. I have academic library privileges, so if anybody would like me to dig up the citations that the author draws on, I'm happy to do that.

Austin's discussion of the relationship between mule deer and elk, and mule deer and whitetail deer, later in the same chapter, are also worth reading, since those discussions come up periodically too.


Pretty much common sense. I will admit I just skimmed it. Is there a part pertaining to complete removal of livestock? Utah also has a wild horse issue in the Sheeprock Mtn . area. Just some quick comments for the time I have.

[Ryo]

Gcreek, Yes, he describes a few scenarios where grazing is removed. The result differ based on a few factors according to the author. This passage outlines one of the more interesting scenarios: (take notes that pdfs do not like to be copy-pasted - lots of typos - better to refer to the original)

"On areas protected from livestock grazing, the in uence of deerbrowsing on plant community changes is also observable. For example,in one of the earliest grazing research experiments, range professor ArtSmith at Utah State University compared adjacent ranges at the lower elevation of the mountain brush zone used by mule deer during winter innorthern Utah (Smith 1949). One range was heavily grazed by livestockin spring and summer, while the second had been protected from live-stock during the previous 11 years. Perennial forbs and grasses were moreabundant on the range protected from livestock, but shrubs, primarilybig sagebrush, were much less abundant due to heavy deer browsing. etrend of decreasing shrubs on the range protected from livestock grazingcontinued through 1982 (Austin and Urness 1998), and as observed in2000 the range protected from livestock grazing was devoid of all shrubs.In about 60 years a highly productive deer winter range was reduced toone of very limited value for big game simply because of the lack of live-stock grazing. Research in Colorado and other states reported similarresults (Riodan 1970; omas 1970; McKean and Bartmann 1971). " p.65-66

[gcreek]

Gcreek, Yes, he describes a few scenarios where grazing is removed. The result differ based on a few factors according to the author. This passage outlines one of the more interesting scenarios: (take notes that pdfs do not like to be copy-pasted - lots of typos - better to refer to the original)

"On areas protected from livestock grazing, the in uence of deerbrowsing on plant community changes is also observable. For example,in one of the earliest grazing research experiments, range professor ArtSmith at Utah State University compared adjacent ranges at the lower elevation of the mountain brush zone used by mule deer during winter innorthern Utah (Smith 1949). One range was heavily grazed by livestockin spring and summer, while the second had been protected from live-stock during the previous 11 years. Perennial forbs and grasses were moreabundant on the range protected from livestock, but shrubs, primarilybig sagebrush, were much less abundant due to heavy deer browsing. etrend of decreasing shrubs on the range protected from livestock grazingcontinued through 1982 (Austin and Urness 1998), and as observed in2000 the range protected from livestock grazing was devoid of all shrubs.In about 60 years a highly productive deer winter range was reduced toone of very limited value for big game simply because of the lack of live-stock grazing. Research in Colorado and other states reported similarresults (Riodan 1970; omas 1970; McKean and Bartmann 1971). " p.65-66




Almost exactly what my anecdotal meandering stated.

[bearvalley]

Quite the thread....



Fair enough, are you willing to fill us in? (as in the general pop of this forum)

Hmmm, probably not?... #circlingyourwagons

I don't have time to write a book on wildlife politics, but if and when I ever do I guarantee some smug faces today won't be smiling.
There's a lot of make believe being portrayed to the public under the pretense of bettering wildlife.
I learned a long time ago that bullshit doesn't buy whiskey.
A few very manipulative people have gained themselves a following and with the backing of the sheep these manipulators are on a mission to carry through with either personal or career agendas using a delivery message vessel that was designed for another cause.
This statement is directed at more than one organization.
I will leave it at that for now.



Gcreek, Yes, he describes a few scenarios where grazing is removed. The result differ based on a few factors according to the author. This passage outlines one of the more interesting scenarios: (take notes that pdfs do not like to be copy-pasted - lots of typos - better to refer to the original)

"On areas protected from livestock grazing, the in uence of deerbrowsing on plant community changes is also observable. For example,in one of the earliest grazing research experiments, range professor ArtSmith at Utah State University compared adjacent ranges at the lower elevation of the mountain brush zone used by mule deer during winter innorthern Utah (Smith 1949). One range was heavily grazed by livestockin spring and summer, while the second had been protected from live-stock during the previous 11 years. Perennial forbs and grasses were moreabundant on the range protected from livestock, but shrubs, primarilybig sagebrush, were much less abundant due to heavy deer browsing. etrend of decreasing shrubs on the range protected from livestock grazingcontinued through 1982 (Austin and Urness 1998), and as observed in2000 the range protected from livestock grazing was devoid of all shrubs.In about 60 years a highly productive deer winter range was reduced toone of very limited value for big game simply because of the lack of live-stock grazing. Research in Colorado and other states reported similarresults (Riodan 1970; omas 1970; McKean and Bartmann 1971). " p.65-66




Interesting study Ryo, unless my intellectual level is too low to absorb this information I would jump to the conclusion that with a complete shut down of livestock grazing on ungulate winter range the area eventually loses its value to winter ungulates.
If this is true some conservation groups better take a look at what they are doing.
Some fence removal might very well be warranted.

[gcreek]

Quite the thread....




I don't have time to write a book on wildlife politics, but if and when I ever do I guarantee some smug faces today won't be smiling.
There's a lot of make believe being portrayed to the public under the pretense of bettering wildlife.
I learned a long time ago that bullshit doesn't buy whiskey.
A few very manipulative people have gained themselves a following and with the backing of the sheep these manipulators are on a mission to carry through with either personal or career agendas using a delivery message vessel that was designed for another cause.
This statement is directed at more than one organization.
I will leave it at that for now.




Interesting study Ryo, unless my intellectual level is too low to absorb this information I would jump to the conclusion that with a complete shut down of livestock grazing on ungulate winter range the area eventually loses its value to winter ungulates.
If this is true some conservation groups better take a look at what they are doing.
Some fence removal might very well be warranted.


A few few deer in the headlights read this one Mike. Lol

[GoatGuy]

Gcreek, Yes, he describes a few scenarios where grazing is removed. The result differ based on a few factors according to the author. This passage outlines one of the more interesting scenarios: (take notes that pdfs do not like to be copy-pasted - lots of typos - better to refer to the original)

"On areas protected from livestock grazing, the in uence of deerbrowsing on plant community changes is also observable. For example,in one of the earliest grazing research experiments, range professor ArtSmith at Utah State University compared adjacent ranges at the lower elevation of the mountain brush zone used by mule deer during winter innorthern Utah (Smith 1949). One range was heavily grazed by livestockin spring and summer, while the second had been protected from live-stock during the previous 11 years. Perennial forbs and grasses were moreabundant on the range protected from livestock, but shrubs, primarilybig sagebrush, were much less abundant due to heavy deer browsing. etrend of decreasing shrubs on the range protected from livestock grazingcontinued through 1982 (Austin and Urness 1998), and as observed in2000 the range protected from livestock grazing was devoid of all shrubs.In about 60 years a highly productive deer winter range was reduced toone of very limited value for big game simply because of the lack of live-stock grazing. Research in Colorado and other states reported similarresults (Riodan 1970; omas 1970; McKean and Bartmann 1971). " p.65-66




Effects also depend on ecosystem/grassland type. Some of the grasslands didn't evolve with heavy grazing pressure which can have an effect right through to soil quality over time. Others are held at succession stages which eliminate the production of shrubs.

Not sure if you have access to gov DB as well. Don Gayton one of the best grassland ecologists in BC, used to work @ FORREX. If you do check monitoring plots and exclosures by both range and habitat ecologists for more BC based primary data. There have also been cases of overgrazing (per land use man plan) by elk (EK trench review by FPB).

Generally speaking the litt says, just like everything else, moderation is the key. Using science to direct land use practices continues to be the best outlet, but sometimes decision-based evidence making is the preferred choice when evidence gets in the way of beliefs.

[GoatGuy]

Cows been there more then a hundred and fifty years and you can still hunt sheep..think about that.

Like everything else, there isn't one 'silver bullet' - pile of stresses on wildlife and sheep including psoroptes. Over-grazing up top is a known issue.

The fencing exclosures and plots are the best places to check if interested - not sure if they're even being monitored now. You could call the range or parks branch.

Alternatively you can compare the grass on either side of the fence above south slopes, or ask the outfitter (he packs feed in), or cut a horse loose up top and see if you can find 'em in the AM if you're into the anecdotal.

Again, evidence is probably the best thing for discussion.

So far as "Cows been there more then a hundred and fifty years and you can still hunt sheep..think about that." There will likely be two tags in the whole ashnola (both snowy and crater combined) next year. Wouldn't at all be surprised if it was closed. Certainly isn't all about grazing, pile of stresses on sheep in that country, grazing is but one.

[GoatGuy]

Your tunnel vision is getting the best of you Jesse.

If you don't get a bunch of wolves and bears dealt with your habitat just as well be cow feed. At least Cattlemen are dealing with that problem. Is BCFW helping foot that bill at all? Maybe adding a voice? Or are you protecting them also?

Yep, predators play a huge role with habitat alienation, no doubt. Definitely good discussion for another thread.


Pretty sure the BCWF has been working with the Cattlemen on the issue, among others like wild salmon habitat staff and post fire habitat restoration and will continue doing so. Nobody likes over-grazing, slob hunters, or bad land use management - generally speaking we all see eye to eye on that stuff. Nice thing is we work well with the folks doing the science, gives us a good starting place to make informed decisions.

[horshur]

Like everything else, there isn't one 'silver bullet' - pile of stresses on wildlife and sheep including psoroptes. Over-grazing up top is a known issue.

The fencing exclosures and plots are the best places to check if interested - not sure if they're even being monitored now. You could call the range or parks branch.

Alternatively you can compare the grass on either side of the fence above south slopes, or ask the outfitter (he packs feed in), or cut a horse loose up top and see if you can find 'em in the AM if you're into the anecdotal.

Again, evidence is probably the best thing for discussion.

So far as "Cows been there more then a hundred and fifty years and you can still hunt sheep..think about that." There will likely be two tags in the whole ashnola (both snowy and crater combined) next year. Wouldn't at all be surprised if it was closed. Certainly isn't all about grazing, pile of stresses on sheep in that country, grazing is but one.

so Jessie what you are saying is that they are giving out the tags they should have been finely!!!!...maybe they will get with the program on the moose too..Wells Grey..Adams ect Ad fineum

[kevan]

Anyone know when hunting season is over? Getting annoyed with trespassers and dickheads leaving my gates open. Does that sound as nice as your post?

Speaking as a former cattle farmer I couldn't agree more.
Gcreek you are welcome at my campfire anytime...

[labguy]

Cows been there more then a hundred and fifty years and you can still hunt sheep..think about that.

Im not sure what this comment is supposed to mean.

Being happy that there are still a few places left to hunt, where there is a wild animal or two left on the landscape is basically giving up.

You're content to let this continual downhill slide in game populations and hunting opportunities continue?

Attitudes like that do nothing to foster the energy and resolve needed to enhance and improve game management and hunting opportunities in this province......think about that.

[338win mag]

Im not sure what this comment is supposed to mean.

Being happy that there are still a few places left to hunt, where there is a wild animal or two left on the landscape is basically giving up.

You're content to let this continual downhill slide in game populations and hunting opportunities continue?

Attitudes like that do nothing to foster the energy and resolve needed to enhance and improve game management and hunting opportunities in this province......think about that.
Exactly....the sheep were here for thousands of years before the bovine, did anyone think about that??

Up in one of our hunting area's I see that water level is the worst I have ever seen it, real scarce. Every watering hole, creek, swamp had a group of cows hanging around, ruining the water, unfit for a dog to drink and were supposed to be ok with that?

Just waiting for the ungulate population to come down with some kind of disease while sharing a contaminated watering hole with these cows.

[gcreek]

Exactly....the sheep were here for thousands of years before the bovine, did anyone think about that??

Up in one of our hunting area's I see that water level is the worst I have ever seen it, real scarce. Every watering hole, creek, swamp had a group of cows hanging around, ruining the water, unfit for a dog to drink and were supposed to be ok with that?

Just waiting for the ungulate population to come down with some kind of disease while sharing a contaminated watering hole with these cows.

That is a very similar mindset to the bunny huggers when they refer to people living in bear country.

[guest]

Got to love the terracing too, looks so natural, and found every where the bovine invades, easy to walk on too.

Brutal.

[Swamp mule]

gettin annoyed with grazing leases and cows everywhere, does anyone know when the farmers are supposed to have their cows in by?
If they are grazing leases then you should not be on their hunting until the cows are off the land. However if they are on crown range then you are allowed to hunt while they are on range. Grazing licenses and Grazing Leases are two entirely different entities of tenures. One has the rights to forage (licenses) while the other (leases) there is more rights to the land as the leassee pays taxes. Licenses always start with "RAN" followed with a number whereas, a lease is always just a number.

[GoatGuy]

so Jessie what you are saying is that they are giving out the tags they should have been finely!!!!...maybe they will get with the program on the moose too..Wells Grey..Adams ect Ad fineum

No, that's not what was said at all.

What was said was: "There will likely be two tags in the whole ashnola (both snowy and crater combined) next year. Wouldn't at all be surprised if it was closed. "

Managers and ecologists recognize closing it will have no effect on recovery, but it's part of the management procedure. Either way not a big deal.

Think the challenge here is beliefs-based systems making decisions in isolation of science. Not restricted to HBC, see it on Raincoast's social media as well. Beliefs first, science when it suits. Part of the post-truth era.