Why is the WKBGTA proposing a bag limit of 1 elk or 1 moose not both in BC

[howa1500]

Can someone explain why the West Kootenay Big Game Trophy Association (WKBGTA) is making the following proposals:
1) Change provincial bag limit to 1 moose or 1 elk - "based on hunters don't need that much meat';
2)Cancel the 6 point GOS and open season LEH in the WK;
3)Shorten mule deer season to Sept 10 - Oct 31 - because "mule deer meat during the rut in't good for sustenance".

But increase the number of cats that can be taken...

http://www.ferniergc.com/documents/2018%20Regulation%20Change%20Proposals%20for%20KWH AC%20(2017-06-06).pdf

Who is the West Kootenay Big Game Association to say how much I need? Or how many people I support on a successful year of harvest.

Who is the WKBTA association to dictate that rutted mule deer meat isn't good for sustenance... I would suggest MANY a hunter would disagree.

You guys make me sick! Where is your logic or science coming from... Oh wait how many of your members just shot a critter for it's bone, but left the meat to go rot... I know a few... wouldn't even give it up for dog meat... but you sure did get a B&C ranking....

[Buckmeister]

1) REALLY??!!?? My family of 11 people doesn't need the much meat huh?? I'll take as much as can possibly get. Buying meat from a store just isn't an option these days as it is awfully expensive.

2) Why? What's their reasons?

3) Again, REALLY??!!?? I've harvested bucks in full rut, stinking to high heaven, and the meat was delicious. People like to believe in the old wives tale that a rutted animal doesn't taste good. B.S!!! That's what I call mind over matter, but in this case the mind thinks the meat will taste bad and then it believes it. Unless of course you mistreated the carcass during and after the kill, chasing it all the mountain, shooting it full of holes, dragging it through the mud, not properly skining it, not properly hanging it, not properly cutting the fat and cleaning it, etc etc.... yeah, it might then become unfit for sustenance, but then its your own fault isn't it???

I propose that hunters get proper education on how to perform a kill and then process game correctly once it hits the dirt.

[Rhyno]

Hunters are their own worst enemy.

[Sirloin]

Broken link fixed.

Document is HERE (http://www.ferniergc.com/documents/2018%20Regulation%20Change%20Proposals%20for%20KWH AC%20(2017-06-06).pdf)

[mooseknuckler]

.......
3)Shorten mule deer season to Sept 10 - Oct 31 - because "mule deer meat during the rut in't good for sustenance".........

I've shot a few Nov mulies with swollen necks and strongly smelled of rut. The meat was fine and I couldn't tell the difference from an October deer. I processed the meat myself and trimmed off all the fat.

[Wild one]

When hunters are watching game numbers decline and no effort to improve things get suggested out of desperation

There is a need for change but we need well thought out change but no one can agree on what that is

[Rattler]

1. Disagree. I would think it is very rare a hunter gets a moose and elk in one season. I have no problem with the odd hunter getting both animals. The meat won't go to waste!
2. Disagree. LEH system is broken and until a new system in place I can't support 6pt Leh hunt. I do support a shorter season though.
3. Completely disagree. Shot many big muleys that were rutted out and they were great to eat.

I do support shutting down wt doe season in WK and the leh cow season. Our predator numbers are at all time high and our ungulates are numbers are way down.

[Rackmastr]

#managingtozero

[Timbow]

I would guess the wildfire closure of the east kootenays last season had something to do to table this, causing more pressure on the west side. A knee jerk reaction to reduce hunting pressure, especially from non-local hunters.

Guide outfitter(s) displeased with a diminishing resource?

[Fisher-Dude]

Just more knuckledraggers that think hunting regulations to suit their fancy will better their own chances of success.

And hey, maybe they can strut their shit at their annual "trophy" banquet if they get a deer that you don't.

The downward spiral continues...

[HappyJack]

You have to be a special kind of stupid to suggest more LEH in place of GOS.....

[gcreek]

Until the screaming about predator numbers gets loud enough to be heard, expect more cuts. It is simpler for govt to implement such bs as this proposal than actually killing off a bunch of wolves and their damn sacred grizzlies. Not to mention black bears and cats.

[J_T]

Maybe this is a proposal submitted in the early spring of 2017? And through stakeholder engagement was removed from the list of recommendations going forward.

[kebes]

Can always count on the West Kootenay nimby’s to come up with this type of garbage.

[Bugle M In]

Just more knuckledraggers that think hunting regulations to suit their fancy will better their own chances of success.

And hey, maybe they can strut their shit at their annual "trophy" banquet if they get a deer that you don't.

The downward spiral continues...

"Big Game TROPHY Association"......well that says it all....doesn't it folks!!????
Just like the GO where I hunt...was all happy about the 6 point restriction coming into affect years ago!!!
He said "this would create LARGE BULL ELK...350 CLASS BULLS Again!!!
Well....I think he has only taken 2 or 3 Bulls in his past 4 seasons....and if they hit 280, he's lucky!.

The real story...and the only one here is.....
"who are the members that belong to this Association"??????
Names and Affiliations please!!!
That is the real story.....

[backcountry99]

This is a reaction to the ungulate numbers in the west kootenays. Right now our numbers are at an all time low. I would blame it on a hard winter and hitting the top of the predator cycle. Yes these suggestions are out of desperation and i dont support them but something needs to be done in the wk.

[northernguy]

So what, exactly, has the WKBGTA done for conservation...aside from calling for more restrictions on hunting? Any of their members on here wish to enlighten me?

...Oh, and the use of the term "Trophy" in their name does little to help the image of hunters in this province:roll:! JMO.

[backcountry99]

So what, exactly, has the WKBGTA done for conservation...aside from calling for more restrictions on hunting? Any of their members on here wish to enlighten me?

...Oh, and the use of the term "Trophy" in their name does little to help the image of hunters in this province:roll:! JMO.

i dont have any recent knowledge of what they are doing but the word trophy is in there name because of an annual trophy banquet they hold to raise money. Over the years they have done many things for conservation including, winter feeding programs, controlled burns when they could for wintering grounds, organized transplants, animal counts. This groups main concern is conservation. I have not been a member for years unfortunately do to life commitments but will once again when time permits. You guys are all dumping on a group that wants to help our animal numbers.

Rather then bashing, we should be coming up with more productive options to help the state of wildlife in areas like the wk that are hurting.

[The Hermit]

there is a group of toads in the EAST Koot trying to close or limit bowhunting for conservation concerns!!! LOL That is too funny. My response... how about we close the rifle season during the rut!

[northernguy]

Sounds like they do some really good, hands on work! Thanks for the info!

And not bashing...but in today's hyper sensitive "politically correct" atmosphere, the term "trophy" is seized upon by groups bent on stopping hunting and by unintended consequence, the work that groups like this do. It's not right but it's the reality. Might be time to "modernize" the name.

Thanks again for the info.

[Salty]

I'm not sure why you guys are worried about this small group with goofy ideas let them have their fantasy reality as always will rule any changes.

Strange around here this year its like everyone is looking for evidence that the hunting world as we know it is imploding and there's no game left or some deal. Special interest groups are going to make xyz changes and we're all ****ed. Take a deep breath this year's about like last year and next year will be about the same the sky isn't falling FFS. Always a few problems to attend to, the grizz hunt for sure, but too much bloody negative going on and mostly all about nothing.

[Sirloin]

WKBGTA - "Cancel 6-point GOS and openLEH - To "Increase WK elk population. Create ahigher quality hunt."

Anyone who has listened to any biologist for more than 5 minutes knows closing 6 point season will do nothing for the populations.

WKBGTA - "Open a GOS for senior hunters for 6-point or better bulls from Sept 1-9 Increase hunting opportunity forseniors. Provide a quality hunt with less competition in the field. Small percentage of senior hunters. Increase hunter retention."

Oh really? close GOS 6 elk for everyone else and open it for "senior hunters" wonder what the average age of a WKBGTA member is....?

WKBGTA "Province - Change bag limit to one elk or one moose One hunter doesn't need that much meat. "

WKBGTA - "Shorten mule deer buck season - Mule deer meat during rut isn't good for sustenance."

Hey West Kootenay Big Game Trophy Association, big ol trophy animals are all stinky, tough, stringy meat. Not good for sustenance. Better hang up the measuring tapes.

What a bunch of BS. Self serving demands at the expense of all BC residents and families. Shame on them.

[J_T]

Sirloin. These are the recommendations they put forward last Spring. The stakeholder engagement process has discussed each one of them and Gov has made a decision on which of the many recommendations from many stakeholders they will go forward with. Go forward does not mean change regulations. Go forward means which ideas and recommendations have sufficient science and justification to move on to the next round of discussions.
If I recall correctlt, none of these made it. Just a random wish list.
I believe we will see a change in the WK elk season though.

[HarryToolips]

^^^^this exactly, manage by social agenda rather than by science....I sure hope the regional biologists will stop any kind of regulation changes like this from happening...as for the elk, lets look at region 8 for example: heavy hunting pressure, yet elk are still increasing, if it's so bad in the WK it's safe to say lack of fires (good habitat creation) and preds are the main problems...and as for stinky mulies shot in the rut, well, my partner and I harvested a 4 pt muley in region 8 early November, it tastes fantastic..

[Sirloin]

i dont have any recent knowledge of what they are doing but the word trophy is in there name because of an annual trophy banquet

Dont buy it. Their logo literally has a measuring tape in it...

http://www.westkootenaybiggame.ca/28-2/

^They seem VERY concerned with big animals, and judging by these demands in the document, i'm betting very concerned with making big animals at the expense of every BC Residents hunting opportunities by destroying them.

It sounds like they have contributed a lot of good conservation work but these demands....I think they have been staring at their tape measures too long and lost perspective. time to reevaluate. These demands are not science based and completely transparent. They want the regulations changed in their favor to make few BIG animals, don't actually increase populations and come at the expense of every BC residents hunters opportunities.
http://www.westkootenaybiggame.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/cropped-logo1.jpg


I found this quote on their site.

“IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING TO PROTECT HUNTING,
THEN YOU ARE WORKING TO DESTROY IT”
-FRED BEAR

How does that look next to their quote? "WKBGTA - "Shorten mule deer buck season - Mule deer meat during rut isn't good for sustenance."

Guys common...what were you thinking?

[Sirloin]

Sirloin. These are the recommendations they put forward last Spring. The stakeholder engagement process has discussed each one of them and Gov has made a decision on which of the many recommendations from many stakeholders they will go forward with. Go forward does not mean change regulations. Go forward means which ideas and recommendations have sufficient science and justification to move on to the next round of discussions.
If I recall correctlt, none of these made it. Just a random wish list.
I believe we will see a change in the WK elk season though.

It doesn't comfort me to see people within our own hunting community working against the opportunities and rights of every average BC resident hunter, so they can score big animals, MAYBE.

They need to give their heads a shake and think about the future hunting rights and opportunities we are passing, or NOT passing down to our children and grandchildren. They also need to consider not every BC hunter is just trying to get their name in a book. Their demands are ridiculous and should not be tabled in the first place.

[slowjo]

^^^^this exactly, manage by social agenda rather than by science....I sure hope the regional biologists will stop any kind of regulation changes like this from happening...as for the elk, lets look at region 8 for example: heavy hunting pressure, yet elk are still increasing, if it's so bad in the WK it's safe to say lack of fires (good habitat creation) and preds are the main problems...and as for stinky mulies shot in the rut, well, my partner and I harvested a 4 pt muley in region 8 early November, it tastes fantastic..

i would love to see a big effort in habitat creation for elk and deer in the wk. seems to have done wonders in places like 8-14 and 8-15. rocky mountain elk foundation was involved at some point in reg8 i think.

[boxhitch]

Sirloin. These are the recommendations they put forward last Spring. The stakeholder engagement process has discussed each one of them and Gov has made a decision on which of the many recommendations from many stakeholders they will go forward with. Go forward does not mean change regulations. Go forward means which ideas and recommendations have sufficient science and justification to move on to the next round of discussions.
If I recall correctlt, none of these made it. Just a random wish list.
I believe we will see a change in the WK elk season though.Thanks for the clarity, everyone needs to take a breath instead of getting their knikkers in a knot


It doesn't comfort me to see people within our own hunting community working against the opportunities and rights of every average BC resident hunter, so they can score big animals, MAYBE.

They need to give their heads a shake and think about the future hunting rights and opportunities we are passing, or NOT passing down to our children and grandchildren. They also need to consider not every BC hunter is just trying to get their name in a book. Their demands are ridiculous and should not be tabled in the first place.A Wish List like this isn't the first of its kind, and this certainly isn't unique to Region 4 as the same type of list has been started in Reg 8 in the past., and I am sure other regions also. Fortunately the process continues, the chaff gets thrown out and if something has merit it gets on the short list for discussion.

[Fisher-Dude]

Let's not forget that the NDP MLA in that area, who claims to be such a "friend" of hunters, tried to get the elk season shut down.

See the dovetail between the special interest groups, the closure of hunting opportunities for you, and the NDP?

[steepNdeep]

WTF are you talking about? Are you saying that you dont support wildlife conservation?

Based on wildlife surveys that WKBGA has been doing for DECADES ungulate numbers are down & predator numbers are UP. WKBGA members do the surveys, help collar animals, maintain & feed animals on the winter range, transplanted the elk, goats IN THE AREA in the first place. They do more work FOR the game populations in the WK than anyone else. What have YOU done??? lol

Many guys in the WK are passionate about hunting, spend a ton of time in the mountains & are good enough hunters to be successful harvesting & eating big, mature bucks & bulls. I would think that's the ultimate wish for most hunters.

It is unfortunate that the game levels are so hurting, that the regs have to regress back to what they were a decade+ ago... BUT if that's the case, their recommendations make sense. Muleys ending Oct. 31 has NOTHING to do with rutted up meat. It's simply protecting their numbers when they are most vulnerable. It used to be Oct. 31st when I started hunting them... Same with 1 elk OR moose & elk LEH. It's a big cycle, with wolves now making the big difference. Help do something about it...


Can someone explain why the West Kootenay Big Game Trophy Association (WKBGTA) is making the following proposals:
1) Change provincial bag limit to 1 moose or 1 elk - "based on hunters don't need that much meat';
2)Cancel the 6 point GOS and open season LEH in the WK;
3)Shorten mule deer season to Sept 10 - Oct 31 - because "mule deer meat during the rut in't good for sustenance".

But increase the number of cats that can be taken...

http://www.ferniergc.com/documents/2018%20Regulation%20Change%20Proposals%20for%20KWH AC%20(2017-06-06).pdf

Who is the West Kootenay Big Game Association to say how much I need? Or how many people I support on a successful year of harvest.

Who is the WKBTA association to dictate that rutted mule deer meat isn't good for sustenance... I would suggest MANY a hunter would disagree.

You guys make me sick! Where is your logic or science coming from... Oh wait how many of your members just shot a critter for it's bone, but left the meat to go rot... I know a few... wouldn't even give it up for dog meat... but you sure did get a B&C ranking....


Dont
How does that look next to their quote? "WKBGTA - "Shorten mule deer buck season - Mule deer meat during rut isn't good for sustenance."

Sirloin - do you not understand the concept of wildlife conservation???

[Sirloin]

WTF are you talking about? Are you saying that you dont support wildlife conservation?

Based on wildlife surveys that WKBGA has been doing for DECADES ungulate numbers are down & predator numbers are UP. WKBGA members do the surveys, transplanted the elk, goats IN THE AREA in the first place, AND monitor & support/control the game populations in the WK. What have YOU done???

Many guys in the WK are passionate about hunting, spend a ton of time in the mountains & are good enough to be successful harvesting & eating big, mature bucks & bulls. I would thunk thats the ultimate wish for most hunters. lol

It is unfortunate that the game levels are so hurting, that the regs have to regress back to what they were a decade+ ago... BUT their recommendations make sense. Muleys ending Oct. 31 has NOTHING to do with rutted up meat. Its protecting their numbers when they are most vulnerable. It used to be Oct. 31st when I started hunting them... Same with 1 elk OR moose & elk LEH. Its a big cycle with wolves making the big difference. Get used to it or help do something about it...


Thats GREAT! they are doing all that good conservation work, hope they continue to do more. I applaud them for it.

BUT

These particular regulation changes they are putting forth to our government, are nothing more than social agenda changes to further opportunities to harvest bigger animals, they do nothing for the population. They aren't science based and they aren't approaches that increase total populations.

Closing GOS elk for 6 point and opening a special GOS 6 point for seniors only? give me a break, that is not conservation that is purely a social agenda.

Closing mule deer during the rut because the "meat isn't good" is a total bs statement, it sounds like they want the rut closed so more guys and gals don't harvest the biggest bucks when they get silly during the rut.

These aren't based on sex ratios or known methods of increasing population. These are changes to stop your average hunter from getting a chance at harvesting mature animals.

Until we see the cows and does are not getting bred and not having fawns, we know these changes will do nothing for overall populations and destroy hunting opportunities for the average bc resident hunter.

HABITAT HABITAT HABITAT

I'm sure they are good people at the end of the day. From these particular demands they put forth, to me it seems like they have lost perspective in their pursuits to get their name in a book with bragging rights. They are doing so at the expense of every average hunters opportunities.

[steepNdeep]

Thats GREAT! they are doing all that good conservation work, hope they continue to do more. I applaud them for it.

BUT

These particular regulation changes they are putting forth aren't science based and they aren't approaches that increase total populations.


WKBGA's proposed regulation changes ARE SCIENCE BASED, designed to conserve wildlife populations.

WKBGA are the ones managing the animals & doing the annual game surveys, radio collaring predators, etc. on the winter range. They volunteer their $, time & energy to do this when there is no funding from the government. They know exactly what is going on. You don't.

What do YOU do to help, Sirloin???

[Sirloin]

WKBGA's proposed regulation changes ARE SCIENCE BASED, designed to conserve wildlife populations.

WKBGA are the ones managing the animals & doing the annual game surveys, radio collaring predators, etc. on the winter range. They volunteer their $, time & energy to do this when there is no funding from the government. They know exactly what is going on. You don't.

What do YOU do to help, Sirloin???

I DONT work against the BC Resident hunting community by trying to take away their hunting opportunities.

Please point me towards the science that says closing a 6 point GOS elk season and opening a special GOS 6 point elk season for seniors only will increase overall elk populations. I'd love to see that.

Please point me towards the science that says an elk and a moose is just too much meat for a family. I'd love to see that.

Please point me towards the science that says mule deer meat during the rut is not fit for consumption, i'd LOVE to see that one.

These are not science based and we all know it.

Pointing out all the good they do is not an argument in defense of WKBGA putting forth recommendations to away every average hunters opportunities. It also doesn't give them special status deciding how to regulate the wildlife of BC held in the PUBLIC trust of ALL tax paying BC Residents.

[mpotzold]

I've shot a few Nov mulies with swollen necks and strongly smelled of rut. The meat was fine and I couldn't tell the difference from an October deer. I processed the meat myself and trimmed off all the fat.

That is probably the reason!:)

[Stone Sheep Steve]

WTF are you talking about? Are you saying that you dont support wildlife conservation?

Based on wildlife surveys that WKBGA has been doing for DECADES ungulate numbers are down & predator numbers are UP. WKBGA members do the surveys, help collar animals, maintain & feed animals on the winter range, transplanted the elk, goats IN THE AREA in the first place. They do more work FOR the game populations in the WK than anyone else. What have YOU done??? lol

Many guys in the WK are passionate about hunting, spend a ton of time in the mountains & are good enough hunters to be successful harvesting & eating big, mature bucks & bulls. I would think that's the ultimate wish for most hunters.

It is unfortunate that the game levels are so hurting, that the regs have to regress back to what they were a decade+ ago... BUT if that's the case, their recommendations make sense. Muleys ending Oct. 31 has NOTHING to do with rutted up meat. It's simply protecting their numbers when they are most vulnerable. It used to be Oct. 31st when I started hunting them... Same with 1 elk OR moose & elk LEH. It's a big cycle, with wolves now making the big difference. Help do something about it...





Sirloin - do you not understand the concept of wildlife conservation???

Dean- Is the West Kootenay Big Game Association the same thing as the West Kootenay Big Game Trophy Association? My take is that it is NOT the same thing. These proposals don't come from the WKBGA but the spin off group WKBGTA and don't necessarily reflect the main club's viewpoint.

SSS

[HappyJack]

I DONT work against the BC Resident hunting community by trying to take away their hunting opportunities.

Please point me towards the science that says closing a 6 point GOS elk season and opening a special GOS 6 point elk season for seniors only will increase overall elk populations. I'd love to see that.

Please point me towards the science that says an elk and a moose is just too much meat for a family. I'd love to see that.

Please point me towards the science that says mule deer meat during the rut is not fit for consumption, i'd LOVE to see that one.

These are not science based and we all know it.

Pointing out all the good they do is not an argument in defense of WKBGA putting forth recommendations to away every average hunters opportunities. It also doesn't give them special status deciding how to regulate the wildlife of BC held in the PUBLIC trust of ALL tax paying BC Residents.

I read it the same way. Good for you speaking your mind like you've done.

[steepNdeep]

Dean- Is the West Kootenay Big Game Association the same thing as the West Kootenay Big Game Trophy Association? My take is that it is NOT the same thing. These proposals don't come from the WKBGA but the spin off group WKBGTA and don't necessarily reflect the main club's viewpoint.

SSS

Brent, Yes there are 2 organizations - the other is Trail Wildlife Association. Ive been a member of both. They have different agendas, but the same core members that do most of the conservation work.

For instance, Rick F. is on both executives, has been instrumental transplantimg the goats, protecting & maintaining the winter range, game surveys, etc.. Not surprisingly, he's a hardcore hunter conistently shooting some of the oldest animals...

[Bugle M In]

I have a hard time with gun clubs recommendations at times.
I know many of them care, and each of them are located in different Regions, so each situation is different.
I am not opposed to trying some "new things" at times, but you have to remember, there past clubs who made
recommendations like road closures etc, that was supposed to make things better.
Then came along point restrictions, to make it all better.
Then LEH, to make it all better (don't get me wrong, some LEH needs to be in place, say for goats or sheep etc).
But in the end, a lot of these recommendations, thru support of these clubs, ended up being a big fail.
Worse off, these bad decisions never get dropped in favor of "new thoughts", just added on top of.
I don't think throwing more policy on top of old bad policy is going to make it better.
The truth is, lots of Regions are suffering from lack of one species or another since there "hey days".
The WK in my opinion, is no different.
Hunting is not wildlife's greatest danger, and I wish everyone would see that.....
If it was, the game should be abundant by now, but it is not.

[elknut]

I think the regulation proposal of one elk or one moose is one that I support..As it stands now in BC we can apply for every animal ..So we have many choices..From past recollections of abuse I have witnessed of a family having there wife purchase a hunting tag so the old man could shoot two moose or two elk ..Disgusting ..As for deer the limit of one doe and one buck was sufficent.Hunting I feel is like fishing ..10% of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish ..Hunters also tend to mirror similar results..With our game numbers falling due to 20 reasons we should be willing to support some pain for our support of Conservation ..How do the Americans change or manage their buck to doe ratios ...LEH..If we dont support some reductions in harvest we will get this poison pill rammed down our throats..There is middle ground but some on this Forum will fight tooth and nail against it ...Hopefully this is the start of some form of management as we have been lacking it for many years..I'm not endorsing the WKBGTA's proposals but the world is changing hopefully for the better...Dennis

[Blainer]

I think the regulation proposal of one elk or one moose is one that I support..As it stands now in BC we can apply for every animal ..So we have many choices..From past recollections of abuse I have witnessed of a family having there wife purchase a hunting tag so the old man could shoot two moose or two elk ..Disgusting ..As for deer the limit of one doe and one buck was sufficent.Hunting I feel is like fishing ..10% of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish ..Hunters also tend to mirror similar results..With our game numbers falling due to 20 reasons we should be willing to support some pain for our support of Conservation ..How do the Americans change or manage their buck to doe ratios ...LEH..If we dont support some reductions in harvest we will get this poison pill rammed down our throats..There is middle ground but some on this Forum will fight tooth and nail against it ...Hopefully this is the start of some form of management as we have been lacking it for many years..I'm not endorsing the WKBGTA's proposals but the world is changing hopefully for the better...Denniswe have to assume that a few men of the household are harvesting on wife's tag, or poaching the occasional deer off their sections, although still poaching and illegal, but it pales in comparison to the pit lamping and poaching from other groups that feel poaching is a God given right

[Blainer]

I DONT work against the BC Resident hunting community by trying to take away their hunting opportunities.

Please point me towards the science that says closing a 6 point GOS elk season and opening a special GOS 6 point elk season for seniors only will increase overall elk populations. I'd love to see that.

Please point me towards the science that says an elk and a moose is just too much meat for a family. I'd love to see that.

Please point me towards the science that says mule deer meat during the rut is not fit for consumption, i'd LOVE to see that one.

These are not science based and we all know it.

Pointing out all the good they do is not an argument in defense of WKBGA putting forth recommendations to away every average hunters opportunities. It also doesn't give them special status deciding how to regulate the wildlife of BC held in the PUBLIC trust of ALL tax paying BC Residents.
I'm sure they do some wonderful things for conservation and good on them, but I tend to agree with your valid questions, this is Not science based in my mind. I generally only hunt Nov, but they have decided what is palatable meat?? How about twice the meat of a two point, hamburger, sausage and the best cuts steak.
Its a better harvest regarding conservation in my mind if it's an old warrior upon his final days.
its also called hunting, not cruise the roads for an easy spike or two point, although Im not passing judgement, do what is best for you, health, age, time all play a role.

[HarryToolips]

Thats GREAT! they are doing all that good conservation work, hope they continue to do more. I applaud them for it.

BUT

These particular regulation changes they are putting forth to our government, are nothing more than social agenda changes to further opportunities to harvest bigger animals, they do nothing for the population. They aren't science based and they aren't approaches that increase total populations.

Closing GOS elk for 6 point and opening a special GOS 6 point for seniors only? give me a break, that is not conservation that is purely a social agenda.

Closing mule deer during the rut because the "meat isn't good" is a total bs statement, it sounds like they want the rut closed so more guys and gals don't harvest the biggest bucks when they get silly during the rut.

These aren't based on sex ratios or known methods of increasing population. These are changes to stop your average hunter from getting a chance at harvesting mature animals.

Until we see the cows and does are not getting bred and not having fawns, we know these changes will do nothing for overall populations and destroy hunting opportunities for the average bc resident hunter.

HABITAT HABITAT HABITAT

I'm sure they are good people at the end of the day. From these particular demands they put forth, to me it seems like they have lost perspective in their pursuits to get their name in a book with bragging rights. They are doing so at the expense of every average hunters opportunities.
This is the truth....and I too applaud their work for conservation...but don't take away hunting rights of residents, as we know the cause of decline of ungulates in the WK are more preds and habitat related, not sex ratio related..

[J_T]

Brent, Yes there are 2 organizations - the other is Trail Wildlife Association. Ive been a member of both. They have different agendas, but the same core members that do most of the conservation work.

For instance, Rick F. is on both executives, has been instrumental transplantimg the goats, protecting & maintaining the winter range, game surveys, etc.. Not surprisingly, he's a hardcore hunter conistently shooting some of the oldest animals... With the utmost respect, the difficulty for many that sit on committee know that Rick is on a personal agenda, that he is submitting recommendation without a lot of internal consultation and he's attempting to drive social agendas. When he was attending meetings, his agenda was divisive, and it affected the progress of good discussion.

[jacksondog]

WTF are you talking about? Are you saying that you dont support wildlife conservation?

Based on wildlife surveys that WKBGA has been doing for DECADES ungulate numbers are down & predator numbers are UP. WKBGA members do the surveys, help collar animals, maintain & feed animals on the winter range, transplanted the elk, goats IN THE AREA in the first place. They do more work FOR the game populations in the WK than anyone else. What have YOU done??? lol


Many guys in the WK are passionate about hunting, spend a ton of time in the mountains & are good enough hunters to be successful harvesting & eating big, mature bucks & bulls. I would think that's the ultimate wish for most hunters.

It is unfortunate that the game levels are so hurting, that the regs have to regress back to what they were a decade+ ago... BUT if that's the case, their recommendations make sense. Muleys ending Oct. 31 has NOTHING to do with rutted up meat. It's simply protecting their numbers when they are most vulnerable. It used to be Oct. 31st when I started hunting them... Same with 1 elk OR moose & elk LEH. It's a big cycle, with wolves now making the big difference. Help do something about it...





Sirloin - do you not understand the concept of wildlife conservation???
Hey Dean,I agree with most of what you are saying. The Elk numbers are way down and as much as people want to blame predators for the decline in numbers we know first hand that Bulls in WK were hammered in those first 4 to 5 years, local biologists and local CO's came up with a number of 400 bulls killed in the first year alone, that's a fact not something made up. This year Bull Elk success rate was dismal at best. Time to go back to LEH or shorten the GOS season.

I do agree with Sirloin on the closing of mule deer in November due to the meat tasting bad comment, come on seriously , what a ridiculous comment. I can buy closing the mule deer in November because the majority of the Mule Deer Buck harvest takes place in November and they believe closing the season on Oct-31st will build numbers, but they are making it sound like they are doing us a favor so we don't eat rutted up meat, I've never met an Italian sausage that can't hide the taste of a stinky old buck, my Avatar pic is proof of an old buck that I was more than happy to eat. Where in North America has any expert made the comment " shorten a season due to stinky meat". HAHAHA that comment still gets me.

Let's not forget that members of Trail Wildlife who are also part of WKBGTA very recently tried to close 3 of the most popular roads in our area because they claimed they spotted a rare bird, had no proof, no education about this but tried none the less, for anyone that was part of this there was some ugly town meetings on this and as a result this absurd closure has been put on the back burner so that Biologists can look further into it. Little off topic but I'm trying to show that for all the good our association does they do make some poor decision along the way.

I'm no longer a member of the Trail Wildlife because of the ugly mess they were apart of last year, and all though some of WKBGTA proposed changes are valid some of them are absurd, uneducated and to be honest not sure what they were thinking when the submitted them. I've been a member for 25 years and have never been invited to a meeting or know if they even take place, this will be my last year as a member.

Again Dean I agree with most of what your saying but you have to see some of what they have said is not accurate at all and is not based on science but personal ideas.

[Bugle M In]

I think the regulation proposal of one elk or one moose is one that I support..As it stands now in BC we can apply for every animal ..So we have many choices..From past recollections of abuse I have witnessed of a family having there wife purchase a hunting tag so the old man could shoot two moose or two elk ..Disgusting ..As for deer the limit of one doe and one buck was sufficent.Hunting I feel is like fishing ..10% of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish ..Hunters also tend to mirror similar results..With our game numbers falling due to 20 reasons we should be willing to support some pain for our support of Conservation ..How do the Americans change or manage their buck to doe ratios ...LEH..If we dont support some reductions in harvest we will get this poison pill rammed down our throats..There is middle ground but some on this Forum will fight tooth and nail against it ...Hopefully this is the start of some form of management as we have been lacking it for many years..I'm not endorsing the WKBGTA's proposals but the world is changing hopefully for the better...Dennis

Good comments there....yes, a small percentage of us hunters probably do take the "lions share of success" each year.
And I wonder if it some of these same ones who want to further limit others opportunities.
And then the comment about some using a family members tag.....so true it is sickening.
As for that though, that is not adding further restriction policies, but rather "more enforcement personal".
1 moose or 1 elk....okay I would bite....but like I have said, other policy restrictions that have shown to fail,
would need to be removed....I am just into adding further restrictions on top of failed ones.
It seems like every year, we as hunters are being pushed into tighter and tighter circles and are starting to trip
over ourselves, to the point where we blame each other for our lack of success....you know...dog eat dog scenario.
And then we sit here and wonder why in this area and that area, we don't see something overtime, when in
actuality, we are all forced to hunt an animal with one horn configuration, and restricted to only certain areas,
for a short time.
JT's comments seem to make the most sense, one person with a loud voice, setting an agenda for everyone else.

[Fisher-Dude]

WKBGA's proposed regulation changes ARE SCIENCE BASED, designed to conserve wildlife populations.


No they aren't.

They are social-based. And they will harm long term productivity of the deer and elk herds - that's the science.

[LBM]

Region 4 use to be a bag limit of 1 moose or 1 elk and should have stayed that way, I have no issue with it being changed back to that.

[canucks6]

Hey. As a long time west kootenay resident and someone who has put alot of animals in the freezer, I m beyond concerned. Sorry to say but things are to far gone. They opened everything up for a few years, there isnt the winter range to support large herds, the predator numbers are high, the last winter was rough, and the hunting pressure has been high. Things will come back eventually and no miracle regulation change is going to help. 10 years ago i never saw a wolf track, the last couple years more than anything else. Poor stupid mule deer don't have a chance.
I would say that I would do more fishing for the next few years but that is in the toilet also. So so sad. Most beautiful area in the world, with no animals or fish.

Science and social based hunters or fisherman are out there more than so called scientists. A degree and a pie chart don' mean sh*t in my world. Time in the bush and time on the lake speaks volumes.

U S draws tags and licenses for a non resident aren' that expensive anyways. Bc sucks.

We got one leader sucking a green d*ck and another sucking a native c*ck. What a joke. Trump doesn't look so bad.

[markomoose]

This is all hearsay.My cousins brothers uncle works for the Government blah blah blah.You guys watch when the new Synopsis comes out next year.Status quo!!I'll bet money on it?Very few changes .You guys do know who's running the shitshow in Victoria???

[HarryToolips]

Hey Dean,I agree with most of what you are saying. The Elk numbers are way down and as much as people want to blame predators for the decline in numbers we know first hand that Bulls in WK were hammered in those first 4 to 5 years, local biologists and local CO's came up with a number of 400 bulls killed in the first year alone, that's a fact not something made up. This year Bull Elk success rate was dismal at best. Time to go back to LEH or shorten the GOS season.

I do agree with Sirloin on the closing of mule deer in November due to the meat tasting bad comment, come on seriously , what a ridiculous comment. I can buy closing the mule deer in November because the majority of the Mule Deer Buck harvest takes place in November and they believe closing the season on Oct-31st will build numbers, but they are making it sound like they are doing us a favor so we don't eat rutted up meat, I've never met an Italian sausage that can't hide the taste of a stinky old buck, my Avatar pic is proof of an old buck that I was more than happy to eat. Where in North America has any expert made the comment " shorten a season due to stinky meat". HAHAHA that comment still gets me.

Let's not forget that members of Trail Wildlife who are also part of WKBGTA very recently tried to close 3 of the most popular roads in our area because they claimed they spotted a rare bird, had no proof, no education about this but tried none the less, for anyone that was part of this there was some ugly town meetings on this and as a result this absurd closure has been put on the back burner so that Biologists can look further into it. Little off topic but I'm trying to show that for all the good our association does they do make some poor decision along the way.

I'm no longer a member of the Trail Wildlife becauseverall of the ugly mess they were apart of last year, and all though some of WKBGTA proposed changes are valid some of them are absurd, uneducated and to be honest not sure what they were thinking when the submitted them. I've been a member for 25 years and have never been invited to a meeting or know if they even take place, this will be my last year as a member.

Again Dean I agree with most of what your saying but you have to see some of what they have said is not accurate at all and is not based on science but personal ideas.
Again, region 8 has the highest resident hunter density, the highest FSR density, and yet our elk herds are still increasing, and we have the same elk season as the WK (excluding the any bull bow only), I'm guessing the drop in elk numbers in the WK is not hunting related...it would make sense that when the initial GOS opened, the elk weren't used to the pressure and a bunch of bulls were taken, but was sperm supply the issue for the numbers overall decreasing? BTW, in a heavily pressured area of the WK this past season my partner and I got multiple bulls, mostly 6 pt +, on our t cam we had setup there...

[bownut]

Wheres the science? boy if we had a dollar for every time some uses that reply we would have enough funding to solve all our problems.
Take a look at what we have done to with our hunting seasons in the last 10 to 15 years all in the name of Recruitment and Hunting opportunity.
Increased bag limits, longer seasons, opening does, increasing the age definition for youths, very few road restrictions and so on.
Were these all science based decisions? How could they be when all we hear is that there isn't any money for proper data.
Time to start managing thing back to a conservative way of thinking for a while and sort out the drivers that we all know have caused the
declines that management is dealing with.
God forbid we have to give something up for a while in hopes that things can improve.

[Fisher-Dude]

It's quite laughable that some people want to ignore the fact that we used to have any bull moose, 3 point bull elk, whitetail and mule doe GOS, any buck from September to December, twice the number of hunters, and healthy game herds.

But hey, let's manage to zero by restricting game seasons down to a dribble and wonder why populations don't respond positively.

Reduce seasons again, reduce hunter numbers again, reduce money from hunting again, reduce political voice of hunters again, reduce relevance and importance of hunting again, watch game populations react negatively, and see what happens in the back rooms of the Legislature.

Can't believe that some are so blind to the outcome of their grand schemes.

[HighCountryBC]

It's quite laughable that some people want to ignore the fact that we used to have any bull moose, 3 point bull elk, whitetail and mule doe GOS, any buck from September to December, twice the number of hunters, and healthy game herds.

But hey, let's manage to zero by restricting game seasons down to a dribble and wonder why populations don't respond positively.

Reduce seasons again, reduce hunter numbers again, reduce money from hunting again, reduce political voice of hunters again, reduce relevance and importance of hunting again, watch game populations react negatively, and see what happens in the back rooms of the Legislature.

Can't believe that some are so blind to the outcome of their grand schemes.

There is something in the WK water. That’s for sure...

[bownut]

It's quite laughable that some people want to ignore the fact that we used to have any bull moose, 3 point bull elk, whitetail and mule doe GOS, any buck from September to December, twice the number of hunters, and healthy game herds.

But hey, let's manage to zero by restricting game seasons down to a dribble and wonder why populations don't respond positively.

Reduce seasons again, reduce hunter numbers again, reduce money from hunting again, reduce political voice of hunters again, reduce relevance and importance of hunting again, watch game populations react negatively, and see what happens in the back rooms of the Legislature.

Can't believe that some are so blind to the outcome of their grand schemes.


I think the key statement is Healthy Game Herds, so who is the blind one?
Laughable for sure.

[HappyJack]

It's quite laughable that some people want to ignore the fact that we used to have any bull moose, 3 point bull elk, whitetail and mule doe GOS, any buck from September to December, twice the number of hunters, and healthy game herds.

But hey, let's manage to zero by restricting game seasons down to a dribble and wonder why populations don't respond positively.

Reduce seasons again, reduce hunter numbers again, reduce money from hunting again, reduce political voice of hunters again, reduce relevance and importance of hunting again, watch game populations react negatively, and see what happens in the back rooms of the Legislature.

Can't believe that some are so blind to the outcome of their grand schemes.

Well said FD!!

[backcountry99]

It's quite laughable that some people want to ignore the fact that we used to have any bull moose, 3 point bull elk, whitetail and mule doe GOS, any buck from September to December, twice the number of hunters, and healthy game herds.

But hey, let's manage to zero by restricting game seasons down to a dribble and wonder why populations don't respond positively.

Reduce seasons again, reduce hunter numbers again, reduce money from hunting again, reduce political voice of hunters again, reduce relevance and importance of hunting again, watch game populations react negatively, and see what happens in the back rooms of the Legislature.

Can't believe that some are so blind to the outcome of their grand schemes.

i think your missing the point, there grand scheme is to eleviate some pressure on already repressed animal numbers. I fail to see how harvesting more animals in a predator rich environment will increase animal numbers but maybe you could enlighten me fd?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I think all of us support changes that will increase wildlife populations and increase male to female ratios where they are below target minimums.

The only differences we are seeing here is what changes will yield results.

SSS

[backcountry99]

I think all of us support changes that will increase wildlife populations and increase male to female ratios where they are below target minimums.

The only differences we are seeing here is what changes will yield results.

SSS


Exactly right

[Bugle M In]

I think some of you are missing FD's point...??
It's not that we don't know there is a lack of game.....they are down....everyone agrees, almost 100%...right?
And yes, it is hard to think that removing "restrictions" is of any benefit, especially when these #'s are down.
But, the fact that many of these restrictions have been in place for a "long, long time now", should be proof
enough to all of us, that most of these restrictions are "not helping".
So, I ask, why would imposing "more restrictions" help now???
What would make it different now?, why would the results change...now??
IF you look at it from FD's or my point, you may realize that the issues are not because hunters have been
"overharvesting" for the past 30 years, during this time of many of these restrictions.
Other factors have been the "real cause" for this decline.
We can debate whether it's Preds, and many have seen that the wolves have moved in to many of these areas, and
to our eyes and mind would tell us that this is the biggest change.
But point restriction won't fix that....will it folks?
Beetle Kill and Windfall as a result, which has "Clogged up" or literally destroyed "hang out areas" and "wallows, and
worse, "moving corridors", and to me, is another thing my eyes see.....a big big change from 30 years ago...big time!
Will more Road Closures help that problem????
Then the flooding that occurred, really took the dead trees, and boulders, and further clogged moving corridors".
Condos and Golf Courses, and whatever else have been built, that have been placed right on "prime wintering grounds".
Will limiting/restricting what you harvest change that???
Not one of these Restrictions will help "any of those problems"....how can it?....how, by placing those restrictions
will it help the above problems....directly????...it can't...it won't.
Like putting a bandage on a deep wound....it may look like it may help, but the truth is, it needs to be sutured.
And if you don't treat it properly....it festers....gets worse.
Seems just like what has happened, we keep telling ourselves these "band aids" will help...
instead, all we got is a "very sickly" habitat and ungulate population.
Time to treat with the "right medication" guys and gals.
If you folks really want it to be fixed......then stop fighting amongst ourselves in this community.
IF game numbers are down...well heck...so is hunter success.
Cars hits probably outnumber hunter's kills at this point in some areas.

Get together, stop beating yourselves up, work together, look at the big factors first, and have the Ministry and
your government address those....first!
And, if there needs to be some "fine tuning"...then you implement some "restrictions" if need be.
You may all be surprised at the results if thing were done right, and at how "few restrictions" we may all
end up with.
Then you can all hunt the way you want, based on personal preference.
You can choose "bow hunting", or "meat bucks/bulls" or go look for that "elusive wall hanger" and choose
whether you do it from "truck or on foot".
Useless band aids is all that this is.....and then for good measure, kick yourselves in the head continuously.
How is that going to help?

[steepNdeep]

I DONT work against the BC Resident hunting community by trying to take away their hunting opportunities.

Please point me towards the science that says closing a 6 point GOS elk season and opening a special GOS 6 point elk season for seniors only will increase overall elk populations. I'd love to see that.

Please point me towards the science that says an elk and a moose is just too much meat for a family. I'd love to see that.

Please point me towards the science that says mule deer meat during the rut is not fit for consumption, i'd LOVE to see that one.

These are not science based and we all know it.

Pointing out all the good they do is not an argument in defense of WKBGA putting forth recommendations to away every average hunters opportunities. It also doesn't give them special status deciding how to regulate the wildlife of BC held in the PUBLIC trust of ALL tax paying BC Residents.

SIGH... Here are some facts:

Please point me towards the science that says closing a 6 point GOS elk season and opening a special GOS 6 point elk season for seniors only will increase overall elk populations. I'd love to see that.

Seniors don't have time to wait for draws, have limited mobility & take few animals, so their impact would be minimal. I don't have a problem with this.

The fact that the herd was built on a closed GOS elk season is scientific evidence that it increased overall elk populations & can be verified by wildlife biologists. PROVEN.


Please point me towards the science that says an elk and a moose is just too much meat for a family. I'd love to see that.

I believe that most would agree that BC's open seasons with generous bag limits with for 3 deer, elk or moose, goats, sheep, birds, rabbits, fish, etc. are more than enough to feed any family. If relatives want more meat get them off the couch, licensed & out there helping.

With almost all of the WK on LEH for moose, their populations are not strong & I'm sure most would agree that it's fair to limit to 1 elk or moose. If people are not greedy or selfish and look at it from a conservation perspective, our bag limits are still more than fair with 1 elk or moose.


Please point me towards the science that says mule deer meat during the rut is not fit for consumption, i'd LOVE to see that one. These are not science based and we all know it.

Agreed - rut meat tasting bad is ridiculous. Where is that printed? I can't believe they would say that & it should be retracted if they did.

However, if mule deer populations are weak, limiting hunting pressure in November will help rebuild populations. It was done in the past & worked. FACT.


"I DONT"
It seems you type more than you hunt & have trouble finding a deer. It seems unlikely that you have ever taken an elk & moose in the same season...

A recurring joke... Did you hear about the keyboard hunter that admits he does not help with conservation, but thinks he knows better than the conservationists (that put in the $$$, time & energy to create the hunting opportunities) & the wildlife biologists. Welcome to the internet... :lol:


Pointing out all the good they do is not an argument in defense of WKBGA putting forth recommendations to away every average hunters opportunities. It also doesn't give them special status deciding how to regulate the wildlife of BC held in the PUBLIC trust of ALL tax paying BC Residents.

WKBGA members are the ones that transplanted, established & worked with CO's & wildlife biologists to create & manage a huntable elk herd & other species in WK. It is absolutely fair that they have input into their management.

I'm going hunting... 8)

[steepNdeep]

Hey Dean,I agree with most of what you are saying. The Elk numbers are way down and as much as people want to blame predators for the decline in numbers we know first hand that Bulls in WK were hammered in those first 4 to 5 years, local biologists and local CO's came up with a number of 400 bulls killed in the first year alone, that's a fact not something made up. This year Bull Elk success rate was dismal at best. Time to go back to LEH or shorten the GOS season.
on the closing of mule deer in November due to the meat tasting bad comment, come on seriously , what a ridiculous comment.

Hey Gord, I agree & as I said above "Muleys ending Oct. 31 has NOTHING to do with rutted up meat. Its protecting their numbers when they are most vulnerable." I didn't believe they actually said it had to do with bad tasting meat - that's ~all I eat & it's ridiculous if they did say it.



With the utmost respect, the difficulty for many that sit on committee know that Rick is on a personal agenda, that he is submitting recommendation without a lot of internal consultation and he's attempting to drive social agendas. When he was attending meetings, his agenda was divisive, and it affected the progress of good discussion.

Committees are difficult, but I'm sure things politics will work themselves out. Rick has done a lot more than most people to help the wildlife in the area and definitely earned the right to comment.



Hey. As a long time west kootenay resident and someone who has put alot of animals in the freezer, I m beyond concerned. Sorry to say but things are to far gone. They opened everything up for a few years, there isnt the winter range to support large herds, the predator numbers are high, the last winter was rough, and the hunting pressure has been high. Things will come back eventually and no miracle regulation change is going to help. 10 years ago i never saw a wolf track, the last couple years more than anything else. Poor stupid mule deer don't have a chance.

I fully agree Canucks6



Region 4 use to be a bag limit of 1 moose or 1 elk and should have stayed that way, I have no issue with it being changed back to that.

I agree LBM


Ungulate populations are under growing pressure from all sides. Habitat fragmentation, FSR road networks aiding predators & urban development of wintering grounds being some of the biggies. However, the biggest change that we've seen in the last couple of decades is the re-introduction of wolves.

The Kootenays has higher elevations with deeper snowpacks & large winter kill incidents that other areas like the Okanagan don't experience. Therefore, our management practices must differ & adjust for this. We have also had wolves for longer than the Okanagan. I have a feeling once the wolves move heavily there from Region 3 & 4, they will be singing a different tune...

I was shifting my focus out of hunting just when the wolves were starting to come into southern BC. With their reintroduction in Yellowstone & Idaho, I remember hearing about the wolves as they swept through regions in the states north & westward & how they seriously affected hunters. I gave up my favourite elk hunting spot in the East Kootenay, after we were greeted by wolves in camp & our only bugle responses were their howling. The trapper took 25 out of that valley the following winter & said there were just as many left with more coming north to replace them. Almost no elk tracks in there the next year...

I also vividly remember bowhunting near the border in the WK & seeing my first wolf face-to-face at ~70m. It is a cool experience to have their wildness as part of our ecosystem, but they are experts at what they do & would change hunting in an area for generations if left alone...

Our wildlife management is going to have to adjust & adapt to the new reality. We should do all that we can to help ease the pressure & protect our wildlife resources...

[Fisher-Dude]

However, if mule deer populations are weak, limiting hunting pressure in November will help rebuild populations. It was done in the past & worked. FACT.


Not a FACT at all. Capital letters (shouting) doesn't make it a FACT either.

Shooting every single 4 point every single year wouldn't change the size of mule deer populations. And what we do take now is insignificant in terms of maintaining sex ratios.

A few years ago your ilk was screaming at the top of its lungs that closing the short any buck season would save 4W mule deer populations, so we closed that down in favour of 4 point only seasons. And, lo and behold, mule deer didn't rebound, the population kept declining, and now you're back screaming for more of the same.

FACT - the bios knew it wouldn't change outcomes, but they gave you guys what you wanted, because you insisted (loudly) this was what would work.

Time you read a book or two, or attended a presentation on mule deer. It might help you guys understand what needs to be done.

[Weatherby Fan]

i think your missing the point, there grand scheme is to eleviate some pressure on already repressed animal numbers. I fail to see how harvesting more animals in a predator rich environment will increase animal numbers but maybe you could enlighten me fd?

He's just making the point you can change/reduce the seasons all you want it's not going to make a huge difference, its been done already from when you had very liberal seasons to now !
I believe he saying........with a little FD tongue and cheek added habitat restoration is your answer....maybe throw in a little predator control to aid in that and we'll be looking good !

[Bugle M In]

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvgdaq_th.gif.................................... ..............http://www.pic4ever.com/images/Ghelyon.gif

[Ourea]

Funding model boys.
Get behind it.
Dollars back to wildlife and habitat.
That's the fix.

There is no hunting of interior caribou yet their numbers continue to implode.
There are few LEH tags for MD does yet MD numbers contract.
I can go on.

Ban all hunting.....it will not fix the problem.
Regulation is not the driving force to fix our shrinking resource.
Regulation affects age but not numbers.

Wake up folks.

[Fisher-Dude]

Region 4 use to be a bag limit of 1 moose or 1 elk and should have stayed that way, I have no issue with it being changed back to that.

That regulation was in place when elk were 3 point or better and moose were GOS any bull larger than a spike, with longer seasons too.

That regression to yesteryear's restrictions under today's 6 point elk and spike/fork moose seasons won't change harvest more than a rounding error on a decimal. It's unnecessary and not science-based.

[HarryToolips]

Not a FACT at all. Capital letters (shouting) doesn't make it a FACT either.

Shooting every single 4 point every single year wouldn't change the size of mule deer populations. And what we do take now is insignificant in terms of maintaining sex ratios.

A few years ago your ilk was screaming at the top of its lungs that closing the short any buck season would save 4W mule deer populations, so we closed that down in favour of 4 point only seasons. And, lo and behold, mule deer didn't rebound, the population kept declining, and now you're back screaming for more of the same.

FACT - the bios knew it wouldn't change outcomes, but they gave you guys what you wanted, because you insisted (loudly) this was what would work.

Time you read a book or two, or attended a presentation on mule deer. It might help you guys understand what needs to be done.
These are the facts...we can tell your a dedicated hunter and concerned conservationist SteepNdeep, but the truth is, it's habitat and preds, not hunting, everyone needs to educate themselves on this topic..

[303savage]

WKBGTA

Why are they even sticking their oar in the water?

[wideopenthrottle]

here are some of my thoughts to consider:
Beetle kill/logging beetle kill and the "bycatch" is responsible for 1)reducing mature forest habitat 2)increasing road access for human and 4 legged preds. 3) increasing sight lines/ease of kill....if most logging roads are deactivated by actually planting trees on them, we will see these 3 issues be a temporary situation.

The huge areas burned by fire and the regrowth of the beetle kill areas will bring a huge level of habitat improvements...couple that with a few milder winters and suddenly numbers will pop....

as others note: It is all about the habitat

[wideopenthrottle]

here are some of my thoughts to consider:
Beetle kill/logging beetle kill and the "bycatch" is responsible for 1)reducing mature forest habitat 2)increasing road access for human and 4 legged preds. 3) increasing sight lines/ease of kill....if most logging roads are deactivated by actually planting trees on them, we will see these 3 issues be a temporary situation.

The huge areas burned by fire and the regrowth of the beetle kill areas will bring a huge level of habitat improvements...couple that with a few milder winters and suddenly numbers will pop....

as others note: It is all about the habitat especially wintering grounds

[Brambles]

1. Disagree. I would think it is very rare a hunter gets a moose and elk in one season. I have no problem with the odd hunter getting both animals. The meat won't go to waste!
2. Disagree. LEH system is broken and until a new system in place I can't support 6pt Leh hunt. I do support a shorter season though.
3. Completely disagree. Shot many big muleys that were rutted out and they were great to eat.

I do support shutting down wt doe season in WK and the leh cow season. Our predator numbers are at all time high and our ungulates are numbers are way down.

Who ever this guy is..
..
I Agree with him...

[jacksondog]

SIGH... Here are some facts:

Please point me towards the science that says closing a 6 point GOS elk season and opening a special GOS 6 point elk season for seniors only will increase overall elk populations. I'd love to see that.

Seniors don't have time to wait for draws, have limited mobility & take few animals, so their impact would be minimal. I don't have a problem with this.

The fact that the herd was built on a closed GOS elk season is scientific evidence that it increased overall elk populations & can be verified by wildlife biologists. PROVEN.


Please point me towards the science that says an elk and a moose is just too much meat for a family. I'd love to see that.

I believe that most would agree that BC's open seasons with generous bag limits with for 3 deer, elk or moose, goats, sheep, birds, rabbits, fish, etc. are more than enough to feed any family. If relatives want more meat get them off the couch, licensed & out there helping.

With almost all of the WK on LEH for moose, their populations are not strong & I'm sure most would agree that it's fair to limit to one elk or moose.

If people are not greedy or selfish and look at it from a conservation perspective, our bag limits are still more than fair with 1 elk or moose.


Please point me towards the science that says mule deer meat during the rut is not fit for consumption, i'd LOVE to see that one. These are not science based and we all know it.

Agreed - rut meat tasting bad is ridiculous. Where is that printed? I can't believe they would say that & it should be retracted if they did.

However, if mule deer populations are weak, limiting hunting pressure in November will help rebuild populations. It was done in the past & worked. FACT.


"I DONT"
It seems you type more than you hunt & have trouble finding a deer. It seems unlikely that you have ever taken an elk & moose in the same season...

A recurring joke... Did you hear about the keyboard hunter that admits he DO NOT HELP WITH CONSERVATION, but thinks he knows better than the conservationists that put in the $$$ time & energy to create the hunting opportunities & the wildlife biologists. Welcome to the internet... :lol:


Pointing out all the good they do is not an argument in defense of WKBGA putting forth recommendations to away every average hunters opportunities. It also doesn't give them special status deciding how to regulate the wildlife of BC held in the PUBLIC trust of ALL tax paying BC Residents.

WKBGA members are the ones that transplanted, established & worked with CO's & wildlife biologists to create & manage a huntable elk herd & other species in WK. It is absolutely fair that they have input into their management.

I'm going hunting... 8)
HAHA good luck Dean.

[bownut]

I just sat in at the Mule Deer Strategy Meeting at UBC two weeks ago and Goat guys guest speaker explained how the Summer Range Quality and a early Winter Start up play a huge roll in
the survival rate of the mule deer in the spring.
The respected Head Bio explained how a dry summer and a possible hard early winter could effect the population by up to 30%.
.
My question was "Would you then be looking at a more conservative season to follow", his reply was absolutely.
Try to back up a season in BC and you get all the stories on this site, even when the so called professionals are giving us the facts.
Where is the science? Oh hold on THERE IT IS!

[Sirloin]

"I DONT"
It seems you type more than you hunt & have trouble finding a deer. It seems unlikely that you have ever taken an elk & moose in the same season...

A recurring joke... Did you hear about the keyboard hunter that admits he DO NOT HELP WITH CONSERVATION, but thinks he knows better than the conservationists that put in the $$$ time & energy to create the hunting opportunities & the wildlife biologists. Welcome to the internet... :lol:


Pointing out all the good they do is not an argument in defense of WKBGA putting forth recommendations to away every average hunters opportunities. It also doesn't give them special status deciding how to regulate the wildlife of BC held in the PUBLIC trust of ALL tax paying BC Residents.

WKBGA members are the ones that transplanted, established & worked with CO's & wildlife biologists to create & manage a huntable elk herd & other species in WK. It is absolutely fair that they have input into their management.

I'm going hunting... 8)

Haha! Don't blow a gasket steepNdeep.

Shall we break out the WKBGTA measuring tapes and start measuring our D$%*S now?
I see where you get that trophy banquet competition mentality, and why you push further pointless regulations on the average bc resident hunter that do nothing to increase overall populations. Bad regulation on top of bad regulation will take away opportunity and only make a few bigger bucks and bulls here and there. You can shoot your big boy and strut your stuff at the annual trophy banquet while the overall populations continue to dwindle.

Fact is, if does and cows are still getting bread....and if fawns still aren't making it, habitat continues to degrade, predators continue to prey, the populations continue to shrink, even with your crappy regulation, the does and cows get bred all the same, and the overall population shrink all the same. Less seasons on bucks and bulls is going to do nothing substantial.

Be honest with the people. These are social agenda, cosmetic, surface level, do nothing regulations with the purpose of making a few extra big trophy bucks and bulls here and there to take to the banquet. which is why they want that extra seniors only season in place of a 6 point GOS ;)

If the doe and cows aren't getting bred, if the sex ratios are way off, if the science is behind it I can get behind changes. But not this crap.

I'm going to go eat some of this 4 point muley steak:lol:
Good luck hunting steepndeep :lol:
(isn't this one of the seasons you wanted closed? close the rut? you should cut that out, for conservation. meat during the rut isn't good either, right)

[Sirloin]

Regulation affects age but not numbers.

Wake up folks.

That says it all.



Think stuff like this might affect populations some?
https://i.imgur.com/yfnU4cZ.jpg

[Ourea]

That says it all.



Think stuff like this might affect populations some?
https://i.imgur.com/yfnU4cZ.jpg

Habitat fragmentation is a HUGE factor affecting wildlife numbers.
Thats a given.
Handicapping hunting thru regulation will not fix the obvious.

Sirloin, you seem on it.
Whats your play.
How would you fix it.

[LBM]

That regulation was in place when elk were 3 point or better and moose were GOS any bull larger than a spike, with longer seasons too.

That regression to yesteryear's restrictions under today's 6 point elk and spike/fork moose seasons won't change harvest more than a rounding error on a decimal. It's unnecessary and not science-based.
A quick look at some of the regs from the 80s shows that the moose season is now longer, so your info is a bit wrong. The problem with a lot of your science based thoughts is it is all ready to late so other measures must be used. Should have been using your science based theroys 30 years ago instead of worrying about opportunity.

[Fisher-Dude]

A quick look at some of the regs from the 80s shows that the moose season is now longer, so your info is a bit wrong. The problem with a lot of your science based thoughts is it is all ready to late so other measures must be used. Should have been using your science based theroys 30 years ago instead of worrying about opportunity.

We should close cat hunting forever. Pursuit too.

You know, because it's too late.

You might want to look for allies in this fight with this government - do you think your cat hunting will survive Horgan's attack? You'd be drunk if you did.

Fact remains, the aggregate bag limit for elk and moose was established when GOS was liberal and long in the Kootenays, and when we had 174,000 hunters instead of 100,000 hunters.

FYI - 1980/81 regs for region 4 Kootenays:

Moose - Sep 10 - Oct 5 for moose with at least one branched antler. Some areas ran to Oct 31. Some areas had GOS cows in October, some areas were GOS bulls until Nov 20
Elk - Sep 10 - Oct 31 or Nov 5 for elk with at least 3 points on one antler
Bag limit - aggregate bag limit for elk and moose is one

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r22560/BCHunt-Reg-1981_1300284387179_1c3c376c6de48faef6de4479800672d a80a562aa6b1cb9a0da1974a6df6c2851.pdf

[Sirloin]

Habitat fragmentation is a HUGE factor affecting wildlife numbers.
Thats a given.
Handicapping hunting thru regulation will not fix the obvious.

Sirloin, you seem on it.
Whats your play.
How would you fix it.


That's a big question!
I think we need to be funding more studies and listening to the biologists both here and in the states.
There are a lot of factors for major impacts on mule deer herds to look at.

Just throwing things out there..

We need to look closely at migration corridors and habitat fragmentation from forestry, roads, development and energy. How are these things and cutblocks effecting migrations?

Other studies in the U.S. are showing spring migration back to summer range, known as surfing the green wave, or following spring greenup has become less and less efficient with fewer days greenup and farther in between, leading to a weaker nutritional start to the summer. They are finding poorer forage quality and a decline in ability to track spring greenup.

We need to pinpoint the major factors that regulate population performance in BC. look at things like fat reserves, fat is survival and reproduction. How is this connected to the habitats they are using, quality and quantity of forage. Fat reserves and wintwr survival. How does this habitat quality and fat reserve effect fawn health and survival. What are the pregnancy rates? Recruitment?

Cause specific mortality studies on fawns.
One study area in Wyoming saw a high fetal rate with most does pregnant with twins and high recruitment with most does bringing back fawns, and the following year saw 99% fawn mortality with 56% death during the summer and 43% winter mortalities.
Then March of 2017 saw adult does with the lowest body fat they have ever seen along with a decrease in fetal development. Plus fawns born with lower body fat/weight are much more susceptible to predation.

How is development influencing ability to track spring greenup if they are avoiding development while still having high fidelity to their migration routes.

How is increasing cattle herds/competing white tail/elk on their range effecting forage quality/quantity?

Cause specific mortality studies will be huge.

It's shown deer and elk love aspen, especially for fawns. It plays a role in fawn survival. Aspen stands have been disappearing from a lot of ranges. How is spraying cutblocks with her baci de to kill off deciduous growth effecting this?

What are the resource limitations on nutrition, a primary factor for ungulate survival and reproduction in their habitats. Nutritions influence on fawn survival and recruitment. Predation, malnutrition and disease are huge factors for fawn/calf mortality. Now they are finding the likelyhood of survival is primarily determined by birth characteristics of the fawn/calf like birth weight date of birth and litter size <--- all determined by the nutritional condition of the mother, is she able to allocate enough resources to rear her young. Females in better nutritional condition give birth to more robust young. Poor nutritional condition leads to weaker offspring exposed to more predation and disease. HABITAT HABITAT Habitat.

Studies show some diets of mule deer herds on winter range consist almost entirely of mature (100+ year old) Douglas fir litter fall. How much mature Douglas fir has been logged in theses areas and replaced with pine?

More summer and winter range improvement initiatives. Habitat manipulations to boost nutrition for a population.

I think it would be interesting to see some more interaction between hunters and biologists funding projects and studies. Our tags and licenses need to be going into this no more gov BS. Something like a gofundme or Kickstarter model outlining exactly what the study is, cost of the study, materials and track how much has been raised and how much is left to go. I'm sure lots of hunters would be on board with that. Especially if seeing results.

Someone mentioned on here forestry industry funding more research, I'm not sure if or how much they currently put into it.

[okas]

welcome to the USA , :roll:a as we follow behind them . I am wondering if the wild life got 25% of our tax dollar like our first nations if it would help thing:roll:

[Ourea]

That's a big question!
I think we need to be funding more studies and listening to the biologists both here and in the states.
There are a lot of factors for major impacts on mule deer herds to look at.

Just throwing things out there..

We need to look closely at migration corridors and habitat fragmentation from forestry, roads, development and energy. How are these things and cutblocks effecting migrations?

Other studies in the U.S. are showing spring migration back to summer range, known as surfing the green wave, or following spring greenup has become less and less efficient with fewer days greenup and farther in between, leading to a weaker nutritional start to the summer. They are finding poorer forage quality and a decline in ability to track spring greenup.

We need to pinpoint the major factors that regulate population performance in BC. look at things like fat reserves, fat is survival and reproduction. How is this connected to the habitats they are using, quality and quantity of forage. Fat reserves and wintwr survival. How does this habitat quality and fat reserve effect fawn health and survival. What are the pregnancy rates? Recruitment?

Cause specific mortality studies on fawns.
One study area in Wyoming saw a high fetal rate with most does pregnant with twins and high recruitment with most does bringing back fawns, and the following year saw 99% fawn mortality with 56% death during the summer and 43% winter mortalities.
Then March of 2017 saw adult does with the lowest body fat they have ever seen along with a decrease in fetal development. Plus fawns born with lower body fat/weight are much more susceptible to predation.

How is development influencing ability to track spring greenup if they are avoiding development while still having high fidelity to their migration routes.

How is increasing cattle herds/competing white tail/elk on their range effecting forage quality/quantity?

Cause specific mortality studies will be huge.

It's shown deer and elk love aspen, especially for fawns. It plays a role in fawn survival. Aspen stands have been disappearing from a lot of ranges. How is spraying cutblocks with her baci de to kill off deciduous growth effecting this?

What are the resource limitations on nutrition, a primary factor for ungulate survival and reproduction in their habitats. Nutritions influence on fawn survival and recruitment. Predation, malnutrition and disease are huge factors for fawn/calf mortality. Now they are finding the likelyhood of survival is primarily determined by birth characteristics of the fawn/calf like birth weight date of birth and litter size <--- all determined by the nutritional condition of the mother, is she able to allocate enough resources to rear her young. Females in better nutritional condition give birth to more robust young. Poor nutritional condition leads to weaker offspring exposed to more predation and disease. HABITAT HABITAT Habitat.

Studies show some diets of mule deer herds on winter range consist almost entirely of mature (100+ year old) Douglas fir litter fall. How much mature Douglas fir has been logged in theses areas and replaced with pine?

More summer and winter range improvement initiatives. Habitat manipulations to boost nutrition for a population.

I think it would be interesting to see some more interaction between hunters and biologists funding projects and studies. Our tags and licenses need to be going into this no more gov BS. Something like a gofundme or Kickstarter model outlining exactly what the study is, cost of the study, materials and track how much has been raised and how much is left to go. I'm sure lots of hunters would be on board with that. Especially if seeing results.

Someone mentioned on here forestry industry funding more research, I'm not sure if or how much they currently put into it.

My question was baited LOL.
Most know what the concerns are that are shrinking wildlife.
Those in the know realize there is no plan.
More importantly.....there is no funding to fix it.

Having a plan to help wildlife, without a solid platform, that generates annual revenue (which is protected from Gov pick pocketing) is the solution.

Having a plan to deactivate roads, protect winter range from development, educate SOME FN more about being more conservation minded (the list is endless)....is useless without someone that can pay the bill.

Having a wildlife plan without funding is nothing more than a big ladder with no steps on said ladder.......

Funding model for Wildlife.
Some are working hard on this.

[Bugle M In]

My question was baited LOL.
Most know what the concerns are that are shrinking wildlife.
Those in the know realize there is no plan.
More importantly.....there is no funding to fix it.

Having a plan to help wildlife, without a solid platform, that generates annual revenue (which is protected from Gov pick pocketing) is the solution.

Having a plan to deactivate roads, protect winter range from development, educate SOME FN more about being more conservation minded (the list is endless)....is useless without someone that can pay the bill.

Having a wildlife plan without funding is nothing more than a big ladder with no steps on said ladder.......

Funding model for Wildlife.
Some are working hard on this.

That Folks...should be the "Slogan" right there!!!!
That is what is causing this.....without that what was said above...no one here is going to fix S**T!!!
And that's why throwing more "restrictions" on wont work.....
Find and Fix Funding, then Implement with "boots on the ground".....
No need for F***** Rod and Gun Club Meetings...why...too busy having fun hunting!

[Sirloin]

My question was baited LOL.
Most know what the concerns are that are shrinking wildlife.
Those in the know realize there is no plan.
More importantly.....there is no funding to fix it.

Having a plan to help wildlife, without a solid platform, that generates annual revenue (which is protected from Gov pick pocketing) is the solution.

Having a plan to deactivate roads, protect winter range from development, educate SOME FN more about being more conservation minded (the list is endless)....is useless without someone that can pay the bill.

Having a wildlife plan without funding is nothing more than a big ladder with no steps on said ladder.......

Funding model for Wildlife.
Some are working hard on this.

You got me :shock:

What's happening on the front lines of the funding model fight?

[Ourea]

You got me :shock:

What's happening on the front lines of the funding model fight?

Better question is how can hunters help.
How can none hunters help.
How can we make wildlife a priority.......collectively.

Answer-
A solid plan and funding.

[Fisher-Dude]

I just sat in at the Mule Deer Strategy Meeting at UBC two weeks ago and Goat guys guest speaker explained how the Summer Range Quality and a early Winter Start up play a huge roll in
the survival rate of the mule deer in the spring.
The respected Head Bio explained how a dry summer and a possible hard early winter could effect the population by up to 30%.
.
My question was "Would you then be looking at a more conservative season to follow", his reply was absolutely.
Try to back up a season in BC and you get all the stories on this site, even when the so called professionals are giving us the facts.
Where is the science? Oh hold on THERE IT IS!


Shockingly, you sat through the presentation and then came out still looking to hunting regulations as a panacea.

Through 99% of the presentation, this must have been you.


https://media1.tenor.com/images/ceef3b984e9cb3a000fdc6c65b8723db/tenor.gif?itemid=9375594

[Bugle M In]

You got me :shock:

What's happening on the front lines of the funding model fight?

Not much...I don't think.
There was talk about "all hunting license money" going back to, I think, Habitat Fund....all of it.
Similar to all Fresh Water Fishing Licenses Money going to the Freshwater Society for Projects/Restacking etc.
But, haven't heard what the NDP are doing, or if it will still happen.

I understand Rod N Gun Clubs frustrations with all the issues, just like the rest of us hunters here, and feeling
like there is little to no hope, of finding a fix to these ever increasing problems.
So, they do the little they feel is possible, where they still think they have some control, or better said, input,
which then always ends up being "this club supports these new restrictions" or this club " supports these
restriction proposals"...because, otherwise, there is nothing much to talk about or to do....
And no one wants to feel helpless, but, in the end, they aren't helping the situation.
If every Rod and Gun Club, just took what Ourea said above, and made it there discussion day in and day out,
and used that as the "only means of fixing the situation", and stopped trying to be "restriction police"...
Then we might start going in the right direction.
Every club, the same chat, the same voice, the same opinion thru out the province....the same opinion!!
Then we may get the ball rolling..
Then maybe someone like BCWF can also be more effective.
But, not with this club doing this and that one off saying something else....never going to get there that way.
Time for all the Chapters to have 1 leader, 1 voice.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

You got me :shock:

What's happening on the front lines of the funding model fight?

The dedicated funding model recently received support in the budget for 2018.
This is a huge step forward since all parties agreed to this BEFORE the provincial election.

Moving forward in the right direction.

SSS

[Ourea]

Not much...I don't think.
There was talk about "all hunting license money" going back to, I think, Habitat Fund....all of it.
Similar to all Fresh Water Fishing Licenses Money going to the Freshwater Society for Projects/Restacking etc.
But, haven't heard what the NDP are doing, or if it will still happen.

I understand Rod N Gun Clubs frustrations with all the issues, just like the rest of us hunters here, and feeling
like there is little to no hope, of finding a fix to these ever increasing problems.
So, they do the little they feel is possible, where they still think they have some control, or better said, input,
which then always ends up being "this club supports these new restrictions" or this club " supports these
restriction proposals"...because, otherwise, there is nothing much to talk about or to do....
And no one wants to feel helpless, but, in the end, they aren't helping the situation.
If every Rod and Gun Club, just took what Ourea said above, and made it there discussion day in and day out,
and used that as the "only means of fixing the situation", and stopped trying to be "restriction police"...
Then we might start going in the right direction.
Every club, the same chat, the same voice, the same opinion thru out the province....the same opinion!!
Then we may get the ball rolling..
Then maybe someone like BCWF can also be more effective.
But, not with this club doing this and that one off saying something else....never going to get there that way.
Time for all the Chapters to have 1 leader, 1 voice.

Have faith.
There is a lot of ignorance and enthusiasm within the hunting community.
Despite that, progress is being made.

[Bugle M In]

Have faith.
There is a lot of ignorance and enthusiasm within the hunting community.
Despite that, progress is being made.

I hope so....
Obviously we care, even if some opinions are off base.....but, care we all do.
I'm just getting old, body is breaking down, and starting to think I will never see those "actual hey dey story" times.
Most of my real hunting began in the 80's (carrying my own rifle), and to be honest, having seen nothing
but one restriction after another, and it's 2017, and I really cant say it's helped????
The Gun Clubs are good....when people get together to aid with volunteers etc.....that's great...it is.
And I understand that each Region has it's own set of issues, and is worth discussion at times....to fine tune.
But, the guys who really are "in deep" with the situation, who probably have the best understanding,
all say the same thing.....Habitat....and you just don't get that with out "money".
The rally cry in every corner should be really simple.....
"Money for Habitat".....(keep repeating)

[bownut]

I felt that there were many good points brought to everyones attention, and I am not sure how long it took you to upload your caption but what ever floats your boat Pat.

Habitat loss should be front and center along with road density and proper monitoring of wildlife. Pushing for adequate funding is the only way to start the ball rolling.
Continued abuse of wildlife without any conservative thinking will not aid a thing, and if you think it will keep the hunter numbers up, good luck. Resident hunters are getting
tired of spending money on tag soup.

It is so amazing how not so long ago your little group had everyone believing that our wildlife populations were holding there own and then all of a sudden the cry for funding fires up.
The only ones who have there ears plugged are you guys, hunters have been telling the story for some time, but I think back then you called it Coffee Shop Talk.

If anyone should be accused of Data Mining, it's you guys, but carry on living the dream.

[Ourea]

I felt that there were many good points brought to everyones attention, and I am not sure how long it took you to upload your caption but what ever floats your boat Pat.

Habitat loss should be front and center along with road density and proper monitoring of wildlife. Pushing for adequate funding is the only way to start the ball rolling.
Continued abuse of wildlife without any conservative thinking will not aid a thing, and if you think it will keep the hunter numbers up, good luck. Resident hunters are getting
tired of spending money on tag soup.

It is so amazing how not so long ago your little group had everyone believing that our wildlife populations were holding there own and then all of a sudden the cry for funding fires up.
The only ones who have there ears plugged are you guys, hunters have been telling the story for some time, but I think back then you called it Coffee Shop Talk.

If anyone should be accused of Data Mining, it's you guys, but carry on living the dream.

What's the solution bownut?
Bitching online?

Tell me your plan and how you would pay for it.
Everyone has endless ignorant and biased opinions.

Things are in the shitter.
What's the plan?
How do we pay for it?
All ears......

[Ourea]

[QUOTE=Ourea;1954877]What's the solution bownut?
Bitching online?

Tell me your plan and how you would pay for it.
Everyone has endless ignorant and biased opinions.
(no ill will with that comment, we are all partners in this deal.)

Things are in the shitter.
What's the plan?
How do we pay for it?
All ears......

I say that with respect.
WE ARE ALL concerned about wildlife.
Management/regulation will fix f*ck all.
We need $$$ and public support, both hunters and none hunters.

FYI....
I am with no organization or group.
I just try and make a difference knowing how to play the game at high level.

OUR messaging and voice is getting ears.
Support the message.
Keep it consistent.

Wildlife funding.
Wildlife funding.
Wildlife funding.
Wildlife funding.

Get behind it.

[LBM]

We should close cat hunting forever. Pursuit too.

You know, because it's too late.

You might want to look for allies in this fight with this government - do you think your cat hunting will survive Horgan's attack? You'd be drunk if you did.

Fact remains, the aggregate bag limit for elk and moose was established when GOS was liberal and long in the Kootenays, and when we had 174,000 hunters instead of 100,000 hunters.

FYI - 1980/81 regs for region 4 Kootenays:

Moose - Sep 10 - Oct 5 for moose with at least one branched antler. Some areas ran to Oct 31. Some areas had GOS cows in October, some areas were GOS bulls until Nov 20
Elk - Sep 10 - Oct 31 or Nov 5 for elk with at least 3 points on one antler
Bag limit - aggregate bag limit for elk and moose is one

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r22560/BCHunt-Reg-1981_1300284387179_1c3c376c6de48faef6de4479800672d a80a562aa6b1cb9a0da1974a6df6c2851.pdf

Wow you sure get off track maybe trying to distract from the point that moose season is now longer with many MUs from sept 1st to nov 15.
Looking through the old regs been lots of season changes, so were any of them science based, when they went from 1 moose or elk to 1 of each was that a science based decision.

[LBM]

[QUOTE=Ourea;1954877]What's the solution bownut?
Bitching online?

Tell me your plan and how you would pay for it.
Everyone has endless ignorant and biased opinions.
(no ill will with that comment, we are all partners in this deal.)

Things are in the shitter.
What's the plan?
How do we pay for it?
All ears......

I say that with respect.
WE ARE ALL concerned about wildlife.
Management/regulation will fix f*ck all.
We need $$$ and public support, both hunters and none hunters.

FYI....
I am with no organization or group.
I just try and make a difference knowing how to play the game at high level.

OUR messaging and voice is getting ears.
Support the message.
Keep it consistent.

Wildlife funding.
Wildlife funding.
Wildlife funding.
Wildlife funding.

Get behind it.

You keep saying this and yes we need wildlife funding, and maybe you have said it some where else and I missed it,
but when you say our message and voice is getting ears, which groups are you taking about. How can one support or
get behind it if one does not who your talking about. Is there some secret group that is doing this or is it being kept
quit.

[bownut]

You must be reading me wrong, I am all for the funding. The States are getting the funding from somewhere maybe we should try to push some of their ideas?
Rec. Taxes going straight into our projects would be a good start.
Canada is in a crisis at this time with all the drugs on the streets and the lime light isn't pointing in our direction right now and I can't see it in the near future.
Too bad because I feel there is some good ideas brewing, and I am worried that the burn out rate will soon over take the groups on the front lines.

A quality outside Wildlife Manager should shoulder up with us and look at it from outside the box. The cost may go down in the long run.
Being conservative until we get the wheels in motion can't hurt.

I guess I will have to start a bottle drive.

I am working on some shit as we speak.

[HarryToolips]

The dedicated funding model recently received support in the budget for 2018.
This is a huge step forward since all parties agreed to this BEFORE the provincial election.

Moving forward in the right direction.

SSS
Very good news.....finally we may see this thing turn around..

[Ourea]

[QUOTE=Ourea;1954885]

You keep saying this and yes we need wildlife funding, and maybe you have said it some where else and I missed it,
but when you say our message and voice is getting ears, which groups are you taking about. How can one support or
get behind it if one does not who your talking about. Is there some secret group that is doing this or is it being kept
quit.

Thus the problem.
Ignorance.

Many have the ear of Gov and wildlife management.
A fix is in play.
Hopefully it works out.

[Bugle M In]

One thing is for sure...it shouldn't just be hunters coughing up all the funding.
Yup, hikers and mountain bikers, dirt bikers and snow mobilers, and campers (not just for the rec site itself).
Everyone is contributing to the issues out there in the woods.....
Heck, maybe those fancy Resorts and Golf Courses on historic winter grounds should pay annual dues for
Restoration Projects.....price for doing business....and damage.

On a separate issue for enhancement.....
I understand and more importantly, accept that the government, will continue to allow the forestry Companies
harvest wood in "big lot sizes" for the foreseeable future, all in the name of beetle kill, and getting the good stuff
out before it gets bad etc....
But we need to have these Companies do a little bit more after the cutting is done, and do a better cleanup...
meaning, somehow create a post "manmade" forest fire for the area that was cut....not just piddly slash burns.
Then replant with some diversity, not all the same one species.
I know logging has been around a long time...but I am sure there are ways of still improving it, so that there is
some more Natural Feel to the end results and regrowth....IMO.

[LBM]

[QUOTE=LBM;1954914]

Thus the problem.
Ignorance.

Many have the ear of Gov and wildlife management.
A fix is in play.
Hopefully it works out.

Interesting, calling people names doesn't really seem to help get them on board.
But sounds like I thought, its a group that wants things there way similar maybe to back door dealings of the past.
You sure don't seem to want to let out much about it just that some thing is happening.
Hopefully it works out for you.

[peaceriver]

One thing is for sure...it shouldn't just be hunters coughing up all the funding.
Yup, hikers and mountain bikers, dirt bikers and snow mobilers, and campers (not just for the rec site itself).
Everyone is contributing to the issues out there in the woods.....
Heck, maybe those fancy Resorts and Golf Courses on historic winter grounds should pay annual dues for
Restoration Projects.....price for doing business....and damage.


Completely agree with you on this aspect. That is the approach they have in a lot of states down south(Idaho and Montana come to mind), any outdoor recreation is subject to a tax which is then invested solely in conservation, to the point where Idaho has a budget tens of millions above what BC's is, with a lower population and less area to cover. This tax would be an easy fix for the funding situation.

I also think that companies that actively benefit from using the land (forestry, mining, oil and gas) should have to pay a conservation tax as well that is completely devoted to the environment. They get to make millions a year off this Province and contribute relatively little in keeping the environment stable and nourishing for our local species.

But the biggest thing we all need to think about and do, is not keep our complaints and ideas on some internet forum. This place is good for fostering discussion but what really makes a difference is calling and writing your local MLA's and MP's. This problem can only be fixed at the level of government and if our elected representatives don't hear from us, their constituents, on a near-constant basis they don't have the incentive to change things. It's amazing what just 30 or so phone calls can do. I've started writing my local MLA this year and have gotten responses and further information rather easily, while being able to stress how important conservation is to me. If we all group together and do this one simple task that doesn't take very long it can make a big difference regardless of which party currently holds power.

If there are enough people on this forum interested in writing a letter to their MLA and MP I would be happy to write up a draft letter that can be used so it takes people even less time. There is a way to do conservation and have generous bag limits but it requires the funding and political will to do so, and if we want to live in a democracy we have to take matters into our own hands at some point and demand action from our elected representatives.

[Ourea]

[QUOTE=Ourea;1954946]

Interesting, calling people names doesn't really seem to help get them on board.
But sounds like I thought, its a group that wants things there way similar maybe to back door dealings of the past.
You sure don't seem to want to let out much about it just that some thing is happening.
Hopefully it works out for you.

The message is loud and clear.

All license revenue goes back to the resource.
That's step 1.

Step 2.
A tax is implemented on all goods, services and industry that derive revenue from the outdoors.
Insulate the funding.

Pretty simple stuff.

The challenge is how will that revenue be poured back into the resource.
Who makes the decisions.
Who is the conduit.

That administrative arm needs to be removed from any one user group and highly qualified.
All user groups would report up to what their needs/wants are for wildlife.

Reality is, there will never be a kumbya moment when all user groups hold hands.
They will always fight in the sand box.

Let them keep fighting over a growing resource rather than a shrinking one.

Funding and a plan.

Push your political contacts on step 1 and 2.

[HarryToolips]

Completely agree with you on this aspect. That is the approach they have in a lot of states down south(Idaho and Montana come to mind), any outdoor recreation is subject to a tax which is then invested solely in conservation, to the point where Idaho has a budget tens of millions above what BC's is, with a lower population and less area to cover. This tax would be an easy fix for the funding situation.

I also think that companies that actively benefit from using the land (forestry, mining, oil and gas) should have to pay a conservation tax as well that is completely devoted to the environment. They get to make millions a year off this Province and contribute relatively little in keeping the environment stable and nourishing for our local species.

But the biggest thing we all need to think about and do, is not keep our complaints and ideas on some internet forum. This place is good for fostering discussion but what really makes a difference is calling and writing your local MLA's and MP's. This problem can only be fixed at the level of government and if our elected representatives don't hear from us, their constituents, on a near-constant basis they don't have the incentive to change things. It's amazing what just 30 or so phone calls can do. I've started writing my local MLA this year and have gotten responses and further information rather easily, while being able to stress how important conservation is to me. If we all group together and do this one simple task that doesn't take very long it can make a big difference regardless of which party currently holds power.

If there are enough people on this forum interested in writing a letter to their MLA and MP I would be happy to write up a draft letter that can be used so it takes people even less time. There is a way to do conservation and have generous bag limits but it requires the funding and political will to do so, and if we want to live in a democracy we have to take matters into our own hands at some point and demand action from our elected representatives.
This is the truth right here....I think a draft letter is a great idea..

[bownut]

Ignorance you say, well thats calling the kettle black.
I have been more open to all he drivers that have caused the declines, and yet many still can't face the fact that we need to back up our pressure on the wildlife.
People talk about the science and when I bring up quotes for the so called Bio Masters that are saying things relating to a more conservative changes, readers
try to distract and divert the topic.
Mark my words, if we continue with our seasons that run from Sept1- Dec 20th, the changes will be drastic. I can already smell the LEH system
coming down the pipe.
Funding is and will always be problem,
As a long time director and a avid fund raiser I can tell you that the battle is not over. The BCWF and many other passionate
groups have hit the funding wall for so many years that the outcome is so predictable.
But once again "IN The Meantime We Need To Move Forward With A More Conservative Approach"
Or continue with the IGNORANCE!

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Ignorance you say, well thats calling the kettle black.
I have been more open to all he drivers that have caused the declines, and yet many still can't face the fact that we need to back up our pressure on the wildlife.
People talk about the science and when I bring up quotes for the so called Bio Masters that are saying things relating to a more conservative changes, readers
try to distract and divert the topic.
Mark my words, if we continue with our seasons that run from Sept1- Dec 20th, the changes will be drastic. I can already smell the LEH system
coming down the pipe.
Funding is and will always be problem,
As a long time director and a avid fund raiser I can tell you that the battle is not over. The BCWF and many other passionate
groups have hit the funding wall for so many years that the outcome is so predictable.
But once again "IN The Meantime We Need To Move Forward With A More Conservative Approach"
Or continue with the IGNORANCE!

So you are concerned about the whitetail seasons since you mentioned Sept 1- Dec 20th?

The Christian Valley spring ground counts conducted have yielded consistent numbers since the antlerless whitetail GOS was introduced...other than the first year where there was a slight dip while the does were
educated. The numbers bounced back the following year and have been pretty
consistent.

SSS

[Fisher-Dude]

Last 10 years of mule deer harvest in region 8 (2007-2016):


3155
3202
2759
3601
2887
2975
3233
3163
3614
3420


Trend? Flat. Indicator: population is stable.

Notes: heavily roaded, heavily hunted, season unchanged, still produces the same number of deer.

If current seasons were causing a decrease in populations, then trend would be down over a decade of hunting as the region would be "shot off."

Further evidence: days per kill is statistically flat. Indicator: same number of deer harvested by the same hunter effort, populations are stable.


21
23
26
22
25
26
29
27
23
29

[bownut]

Here we go again....

We might as well count all the deer in town and add those ones to the mix. Ask yourselves how has you hunting been? , and I am not talking about Vineyard deer.

[Ourea]

Ignorance you say, well thats calling the kettle black.
I have been more open to all he drivers that have caused the declines, and yet many still can't face the fact that we need to back up our pressure on the wildlife.
People talk about the science and when I bring up quotes for the so called Bio Masters that are saying things relating to a more conservative changes, readers
try to distract and divert the topic.
Mark my words, if we continue with our seasons that run from Sept1- Dec 20th, the changes will be drastic. I can already smell the LEH system
coming down the pipe.
Funding is and will always be problem,
As a long time director and a avid fund raiser I can tell you that the battle is not over. The BCWF and many other passionate
groups have hit the funding wall for so many years that the outcome is so predictable.
But once again "IN The Meantime We Need To Move Forward With A More Conservative Approach"
Or continue with the IGNORANCE!


We need dedicated funding for wildlife......at a massive level.
Simple as that.

Some are better than others at creating and supporting the model.
You have obviously quit and revert to wanting regulating a declining resource as the answer??

Raffle tickets won't help.


There is no ignorance


No wall cannot be breached.
We will break that wall down.

[bownut]

Keep adding seasons and you can keep the numbers up. Opportunity rocks!
If BCWF states we are suffering declining game population and your counts are stable, who's correct?

[bownut]

Not at all, but keep making it look like that.

Funding is the key but time is the factor. We are running out of time.
You so right on massive level.
What have you been doing about it?


Interesting stuff on Youtube
Some talk about funding and science. Don't know how to link the stuff but everyone should check it out.

Northwoods Adventures. Rebuilding Deer Populations, and Minnesota DNR Commissioners Deer Opener.
Something to think about as we chase the money people.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Here we go again....

We might as well count all the deer in town and add those ones to the mix. Ask yourselves how has you hunting been? , and I am not talking about Vineyard deer.

Town whitetails weren't counted in Christian Valley.

Hunting was slow for the kid and I as we saw about 1/10 the deer that we've seen in preceding years...but it was an incredibly dry summer and the deer weren't in their regular spots. After the recent mule deer presentation this makes sense.

I missed what would have been my biggest whitetail last week and the cameras keep showing new solid bucks appearing...including what has to be a 10 year old buck.

Having said this, i never judge deer populations only by my personal experiences.


Keep adding seasons and you can keep the numbers up. Opportunity rocks!
If BCWF states we are suffering declining game population and your counts are stable, who's correct?

Region 8 has faired better than other regions with deer numbers (that was mentioned at the Town Hall meeting) but we've also had a couple signicant burns in recent years. While the OMP and Terrace fires aren't as productive as they used to be, we now have the Testalinden and Rock Creek fires approaching high productivity.

SSS

[Ourea]

[QUOTE=


What have you been doing about it?

[/QUOTE]

Answer.
A lot.

[bownut]

Thats all we can go on my friend, personal experiences.
I can remember when the beer flowed like wine, rut lines on every ridge. massive rubs that you would give names to, three 170 Plus Mulies chasing a hot doe, double drop tine bucks at 20 yards with the bow,
The memories go on and on. Hope to see those days again so all the kids can experience them.
Long before the cameras and baits we had it all..
Cheers Brent

[bownut]

You should be carful of belittling the power of a good old raffle. The Clubs could shut the doors on attitudes like that.
It's those so called contributions that buy radio collars and save rivers and marshes.
While the big show is happening the needs are still being supported the small donations.

So party on Garth.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Thats all we can go on my friend, personal experiences.
I can remember when the beer flowed like wine, rut lines on every ridge. massive rubs that you would give names to, three 170 Plus Mulies chasing a hot doe, double drop tine bucks at 20 yards with the bow,
The memories go on and on. Hope to see those days again so all the kids can experience them.
Long before the cameras and baits we had it all..
Cheers Brent

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is the age class of mulies that there was in previous years. Age class and deer numbers aren't the same thing. For that you need habitat and access restrictions like we had in the park just a few years ago.

There are still guys out there (there are a few on this site) who are pretty consistent at killing big bucks....but they go find the conditions that will grow big bucks.

Having said that, the kid and I also saw a 170" plus whitetail last year the evening before the season started and I killed 'my' biggest bodied and oldest muley a week later close to the same spot.

Like I said, I don't make judgements based on my personal experiences. A sample size of just 'one' is a bit too small to pass any judgment.

SSS

[Greenthumbed]

Completely agree with you on this aspect. That is the approach they have in a lot of states down south(Idaho and Montana come to mind), any outdoor recreation is subject to a tax which is then invested solely in conservation, to the point where Idaho has a budget tens of millions above what BC's is, with a lower population and less area to cover. This tax would be an easy fix for the funding situation.

I also think that companies that actively benefit from using the land (forestry, mining, oil and gas) should have to pay a conservation tax as well that is completely devoted to the environment. They get to make millions a year off this Province and contribute relatively little in keeping the environment stable and nourishing for our local species.

But the biggest thing we all need to think about and do, is not keep our complaints and ideas on some internet forum. This place is good for fostering discussion but what really makes a difference is calling and writing your local MLA's and MP's. This problem can only be fixed at the level of government and if our elected representatives don't hear from us, their constituents, on a near-constant basis they don't have the incentive to change things. It's amazing what just 30 or so phone calls can do. I've started writing my local MLA this year and have gotten responses and further information rather easily, while being able to stress how important conservation is to me. If we all group together and do this one simple task that doesn't take very long it can make a big difference regardless of which party currently holds power.

If there are enough people on this forum interested in writing a letter to their MLA and MP I would be happy to write up a draft letter that can be used so it takes people even less time. There is a way to do conservation and have generous bag limits but it requires the funding and political will to do so, and if we want to live in a democracy we have to take matters into our own hands at some point and demand action from our elected representatives.
Sounds good! Draft up your letter. I'm sure there would be many here that would appreciate a helping hand to get a letter to there their political representatives. Good on you for offering to do it!

[horshur]

Pittman Robertson money was used to reintroduce wolves in lower 48 look it up. Counting on scientist to protect threatened species whatever eh!! http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/inbred-wolf-population-isle-royale-collapses

Are not Caribou a threatened species?? but science is gonna get there jollies and collect tax paying money to watch wolves decimate a threatened population. Read the posted article.
This is a real worry!Using sportsmen's money to take away opportunities. Just have to look south to see. Fooling yourself to think it won't happen. It aready has happened. What measures are available to avoid similar situation??

[Fisher-Dude]

Some people tip their hand and admit they want to see 170 class mulies behind every tree, so they want to restrict other hunters to get what they want.

Others want to see healthy, productive deer herds that provide opportunity for all hunters with all motivations.

Quickest way to poor productivity and shrinking deer herds is to drive up a surplus of mature bucks. Herd shrinks, fawn recruitment tanks.

But I guess when that was discussed, the guys who want more regulations were plugging their ears. Thankfully, our biologists want to manage our deer to provide healthy, growing populations with excellent fawn recruitment and representation from all age classes in that population.

[gcreek]

This province still needs to kill some wolves and bears off.

[bownut]

Good one Dude, I have been hunting for over 45 years, still count the rings on a buck.

[HarryToolips]

This province still needs to kill some wolves and bears off.
This is the truth.....

[Fisher-Dude]

This province still needs to kill some wolves and bears off.

Where moose and elk and 'bou are struggling, yup.

Waste of time and money and effort for deer though.

[antlerking]

Wolves were not part of the deer studies probably because of public sentiment biggest factor for fawn mortality was weather,remember last years recorded snow fall! Did you notice the lack of yearling bucks (spikes and 2 points) I sure did where I normally see 2 or 3 young bucks a day I seen probably 10 all season long! That's out of 60 days in the field. All the forest fires this summer have created more habitat in 2 months then any government or group could have created in 10 years. Do we honestly want the 5 day gun seasons they have in a lot of the states. What do you think the government will do with more revenue from hunters,set up more safe injection sites for bucks (parks) and keep hunters out! Best we can do is hope for mild weather,shoot every predator you can and practice personal conversation . The numbers will return seen it before

[bownut]

Some people tip their hand and admit they want to see 170 class mulies behind every tree, so they want to restrict other hunters to get what they want.

Others want to see healthy, productive deer herds that provide opportunity for all hunters with all motivations.

Quickest way to poor productivity and shrinking deer herds is to drive up a surplus of mature bucks. Herd shrinks, fawn recruitment tanks.

But I guess when that was discussed, the guys who want more regulations were plugging their ears. Thankfully, our biologists want to manage our deer to provide healthy, growing populations with excellent fawn recruitment and representation from all age classes in that population.
And yet another great diversion.
Mature Deer combined with Great numbers would please all hunters. Tell me how many guys would pass on a mature buck if one was standing next to a two point? Not One.

Being that you know so much about the breeding cycle, Tell me this, what age class of deer is the most efficient at breeding? If breeding is done early the recruitment goes up.
Grab yourself a copy of Mule Deer Quest by Walt Prothero and learn a little more about things.

You went to a one Mule Deer Strategy meeting and you act like the topics in the presentation haven't been herd before. If you want to view the topics discussed about Doe and fawn study practices
go and youtube and watch "Kentucky Deer Study" and you can see how the process works.

If you don't think I was listening then carry on with your little Diversionary Ways.

It is the week definition of "Sustainable Harvest" that we are lead to believe, that is the root of many evils.

[slowjo]

Last 10 years of mule deer harvest in region 8 (2007-2016):


3155
3202
2759
3601
2887
2975
3233
3163
3614
3420


Trend? Flat. Indicator: population is stable.

Notes: heavily roaded, heavily hunted, season unchanged, still produces the same number of deer.

If current seasons were causing a decrease in populations, then trend would be down over a decade of hunting as the region would be "shot off."

Further evidence: days per kill is statistically flat. Indicator: same number of deer harvested by the same hunter effort, populations are stable.


21
23
26
22
25
26
29
27
23
29

where do we find these stats for region 4?

[bownut]

where do we find these stats for region 4?

When they turn up, have a close look at the changes in 10 years.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

1) Totally agree. I shared a small to med size moose with a buddy this year and I have loin steaks, had tenderloins, euro wieners, pepperoni, jerky, farmers sausage, and ground coming out my wazoo. Me or someone in my family is eating meat almost every night and I couldn't get through a full animal of either species in a year. With densities of both moose and elk declining in most areas of the province, I have no problem with being limited to one of either species, not both.

2) Disagree. Like a few have eluded to, when they can actually ascertain that the LEH system works like it's supposed to, I'll have a tiny bit more faith, but even then, there are better (more fair) models.

3) Agree but disagree. I agree that some rut mule deer would gag a maggot and aren't fit to feed your ex-wife, but the severity seems to vary from none to heavy and everywhere in between. Over and above that, let the individual decide as they may not mind. I don't hunt Nov MD because I hate stinky deer. Most people I know don't seem to mind, so let them fill their boots. It's a hokey proposition that won't accomplish f/a anyway.

[backcountry99]

Some people tip their hand and admit they want to see 170 class mulies behind every tree, so they want to restrict other hunters to get what they want.

Others want to see healthy, productive deer herds that provide opportunity for all hunters with all motivations.

Quickest way to poor productivity and shrinking deer herds is to drive up a surplus of mature bucks. Herd shrinks, fawn recruitment tanks.

But I guess when that was discussed, the guys who want more regulations were plugging their ears. Thankfully, our biologists want to manage our deer to provide healthy, growing populations with excellent fawn recruitment and representation from all age classes in that population.

I dont recall anyone saying there goal was to produce 170 class muledeer behind every tree. You clearly have not hunted the west kootenays, this group has watched muledeer numbers slowly decline over the past 30 years to the point we are at now were they are almost non-existant. Be it there methods right or wrong of how to produce more muledeer its hard to believe that the biologists really know what they r doing when they have managed animal numbers in the wk to this all time low.

[bownut]

I dont recall anyone saying there goal was to produce 170 class muledeer behind every tree. You clearly have not hunted the west kootenays, this group has watched muledeer numbers slowly decline over the past 30 years to the point we are at now were they are almost non-existant. Be it there methods right or wrong of how to produce more muledeer its hard to believe that the biologists really know what they r doing when they have managed animal numbers in the wk to this all time low.

Yes and that's where thee problems is, it like a hand full of water it will either drip through or evaporate off.
Val Geist believes that Mule Deer are a evolutionary failure and feels they are on their way out, all we are doing is speeding up the process.
Funding for science, Habitat loss, Access,Hunting and Rec. Pressure, Predators, and so on. The list is endless.

Healthy game populations should be front and center, mature age class is a sign of a healthy population as well as the overall numbers. It shows us that
the game has reached full cycle. Too bad that some people feel that when I bring up "Mature Bucks" I get called a Trophy Hunter. I would like to think of myself as a "Selective Hunter"
who enjoys to see more game on the mountains rather that shoot the first legal deer.

The lack of rut activity and doe counts along with the shed pick up has left me to believe that the decline is felt all over the Province. We can only hope that their will be a turn in the trend soon.

I do miss my stinky Mule deer hanging in the shop aging into a quality steak on the BQ.

[Fisher-Dude]

I dont recall anyone saying there goal was to produce 170 class muledeer behind every tree. You clearly have not hunted the west kootenays, this group has watched muledeer numbers slowly decline over the past 30 years to the point we are at now were they are almost non-existant. Be it there methods right or wrong of how to produce more muledeer its hard to believe that the biologists really know what they r doing when they have managed animal numbers in the wk to this all time low.

Actually I have hunted the WK.

Exactly 30 years ago, the WK mule deer season was any buck from Sep 10 to Nov 15. Hunting was good, populations were good. Harvest ranged from 2800 to 4700 deer per year, averaged about 3600. Hunters were in the 10,000 to 12,000 range.

Now it is Sep 10 to Nov 10 4 point only. Harvest averages 700 deer. Hunters number about 5700. And the mule deer are in decline in the region, despite cutting harvest to 20% of its former level and having half the hunters stay home and watch football.

Question: will more hunting regulations reverse the decline? Looks like it hasn't worked to do anything except lull people into thinking they are doing something positive. Clearly, that isn't working and people need to shift focus away from hunting regulations to something that will result in more mule deer.

Only one thing will result in more mule deer in the WK. Habitat.

The biologists? They've been under constant pressure to manage hunters with more hunting regulations, while they should have been freed up from dealing with screaming people and allowed to manage mule deer habitat. What a thankless job.

[Bugle M In]

Actually I have hunted the WK.

Exactly 30 years ago, the WK mule deer season was any buck from Sep 10 to Nov 15. Hunting was good, populations were good. Harvest ranged from 2800 to 4700 deer per year, averaged about 3600. Hunters were in the 10,000 to 12,000 range.

Now it is Sep 10 to Nov 10 4 point only. Harvest averages 700 deer. Hunters number about 5700. And the mule deer are in decline in the region, despite cutting harvest to 20% of its former level and having half the hunters stay home and watch football.

Question: will more hunting regulations reverse the decline? Looks like it hasn't worked to do anything except lull people into thinking they are doing something positive. Clearly, that isn't working and people need to shift focus away from hunting regulations to something that will result in more mule deer.

Only one thing will result in more mule deer in the WK. Habitat.

The biologists? They've been under constant pressure to manage hunters with more hunting regulations, while they should have been freed up from dealing with screaming people and allowed to manage mule deer habitat. What a thankless job.

well said...bang on...IMO.

[Timbow]

FD is right, further hunting restrictions will do jack shit.

Take a honest look at moose in Region 5, it's has been under LEH since the '90's and the entire region is in the same boat in terms to low moose populations as to what it once was. A declining population and limited hunting should attest that hunting restrictions doesn't bring back game numbers.

[bownut]

Actually I have hunted the WK.

Exactly 30 years ago, the WK mule deer season was any buck from Sep 10 to Nov 15. Hunting was good, populations were good. Harvest ranged from 2800 to 4700 deer per year, averaged about 3600. Hunters were in the 10,000 to 12,000 range.

Now it is Sep 10 to Nov 10 4 point only. Harvest averages 700 deer. Hunters number about 5700. And the mule deer are in decline in the region, despite cutting harvest to 20% of its former level and having half the hunters stay home and watch football.

Question: will more hunting regulations reverse the decline? Looks like it hasn't worked to do anything except lull people into thinking they are doing something positive. Clearly, that isn't working and people need to shift focus away from hunting regulations to something that will result in more mule deer.

Only one thing will result in more mule deer in the WK. Habitat.

The biologists? They've been under constant pressure to manage hunters with more hunting regulations, while they should have been freed up from dealing with screaming people and allowed to manage mule deer habitat. What a thankless job.

Ask yourselves this.
If twice as many hunters were shooting four times as many deer 30 years ago and we fast forward to todays harvest where did it all change?
Habitat took a total dive in 30 years? Could it be 30 years ago those 10.000 hunters could only get to 30% of the country and the population was still building in the other 70%?
In 30 years our back country has been opened up and the rec. vehicles have allowed hunters go where no man has gone before.
Sounds like a game of diminishing returns over the last 30 years.

Yes Habitat and yes Hunter pressure, they go hand in hand, so lets stop pulling up old stats and deal with the now and not the then.
We can't continue to compare apples and oranges.
The modern hunter is nothing like the past, we are way better at getting the job done.

Habitat yes, Hunting pressure yes, Funding yes, attitude no.
Bios talk about all the road density having a huge effect. If the Rec. users don't have a reason to be there the pressure drops right off. Eg. OPENING DAY.
It's all about moderation until the smoke clears. If your going up that road go kill a wolf or something with sharp teeth.

[Ourea]

Im amazed that there are many still invested in system that has been given 30 yrs to bring any noticeable change to sectors of wildlife populations.

I guess yr 31 we will be "The Year" it all turns around.
Not going to get into the obvious reality that they refuse to see the obvious in.

Ban all hunting....numbers will continue to decline.
It is so far down the list as a factor, if any.

There is a plan to make wildife a priority in this province and a long term meens to fund it.

The archaic regulation conversations do not happen during these discusions because they not recognised as a driver.

The reinvestment in wildlife to enhance and protect habitat, and lastely, educate has been seen as the clear path on how to stop this downward spiral.

[bownut]

Im amazed that there are many still invested in system that has been given 30 yrs to bring any noticeable change to sectors of wildlife populations.

I guess yr 31 we will be "The Year" it all turns around.
Not going to get into the obvious reality that they refuse to see the obvious in.

Ban all hunting....numbers will continue to decline.
It is so far down the list as a factor, if any.

There is a plan to make wildife a priority in this province and a long term meens to fund it.

The archaic regulation conversations do not happen during these discusions because they not recognised as a driver.

The reinvestment in wildlife to enhance and protect habitat, and lastely, educate has been seen as the clear path on how to stop this downward spiral.


And this is why funding is on my list. If individuals want to continue to think that backing up seasons will be the reason for the decline in hunter numbers, keep
watching the trend as the success rates continue to drop.

Oh and I think your extremely harsh with your BAN ALL HUNTING! statement, but the dramatic approach may buy you a few votes for now.

[Ourea]

And this is why funding is on my list. If individuals want to continue to think that backing up seasons will be the reason for the decline in hunter numbers, keep
watching the trend as the success rates continue to drop.

Oh and I think your extremely harsh with your BAN ALL HUNTING! statement, but the dramatic approach may buy you a few votes for now.

I have no political affiliation, at any level, when it comes to wildlife.
I wish to be clear about that.
My sole involvement is about the plan.

Wildlife first, politics and special interest second.
Any person or group that supports funding for wildlife is a friend of mine under this model.
All user groups interest's would be protected
That is the blueprint.

[bearvalley]

FD is right, further hunting restrictions will do jack shit.

Take a honest look at moose in Region 5, it's has been under LEH since the '90's and the entire region is in the same boat in terms to low moose populations as to what it once was. A declining population and limited hunting should attest that hunting restrictions doesn't bring back game numbers.
Does LEH really mean much if it’s over authaurized?

[bownut]

I have no political affiliation, at any level, when it comes to wildlife.
I wish to be clear about that.
My sole involvement is about the plan.

Wildlife first, politics and special interest second.
Any person or group that supports funding for wildlife is a friend of mine under this model.
All user groups interest's would be protected
That is the blueprint.

As long as everyone is all eyes and ears then the plan is valid, without this those walls will continue.
We can keep on knocking them down only to find another going up.
Cheers!

[Bugle M In]

There is "always" going to be groups "against hunting"....always.
We, as hunters, don't need to keep bashing ourselves up....imposing further restrictions upon old ones etc.
The info is out there now....that mule deer study that was just posted is a good example of our
"real time issues".
I believe in creative thought, critical thinking, and new ideas....but the "now" scenario is that we need to all,
on this community, to start "thinking alike".
Take what "we know are issues", and make sure that the "ministry introduces those fixes".
The back and forth is just, in the end, "wasted time and effort".
We need to direct all this "frustration" (as that is what all this really is) towards the ministry.
Money from hunters to be directed/allocated towards habitat.
On top of that, new money from all those that have made habitat "suffer".
Example, Ski Resorts, Condo Developers, Golf Courses, Mining, Forestry etc. all need to start contributing to the
Fund.

[bownut]

There is "always" going to be groups "against hunting"....always.
We, as hunters, don't need to keep bashing ourselves up....imposing further restrictions upon old ones etc.
The info is out there now....that mule deer study that was just posted is a good example of our
"real time issues".
I believe in creative thought, critical thinking, and new ideas....but the "now" scenario is that we need to all,
on this community, to start "thinking alike".
Take what "we know are issues", and make sure that the "ministry introduces those fixes".
The back and forth is just, in the end, "wasted time and effort".
We need to direct all this "frustration" (as that is what all this really is) towards the ministry.
Money from hunters to be directed/allocated towards habitat.
On top of that, new money from all those that have made habitat "suffer".
Example, Ski Resorts, Condo Developers, Golf Courses, Mining, Forestry etc. all need to start contributing to the
Fund.

So true, user groups have gotten away with so much for too long. Time to make all involved.

[Fisher-Dude]

Ask yourselves this.
If twice as many hunters were shooting four times as many deer 30 years ago and we fast forward to todays harvest where did it all change?
Habitat took a total dive in 30 years? Could it be 30 years ago those 10.000 hunters could only get to 30% of the country and the population was still building in the other 70%?
In 30 years our back country has been opened up and the rec. vehicles have allowed hunters go where no man has gone before.
Sounds like a game of diminishing returns over the last 30 years.


30 years of ingrowth will kill habitat.

NDT4 needs to burn every 5 - 15 years to maintain its ability to support wildlife.

If access were the driver over the past 30 years, then we'd see fewer days per kill as we became more efficient killers, and a spike up in harvest. Neither has occurred. So toss that theory out. The harvest remained at similar levels for a long time before that 30 year mark.

Not sure why you want to swim against the tide when the evidence is clear what the drivers are. Sometimes it looks as though you're arguing for argument's sake.

[bownut]

30 years of ingrowth will kill habitat.

NDT4 needs to burn every 5 - 15 years to maintain its ability to support wildlife.

If access were the driver over the past 30 years, then we'd see fewer days per kill as we became more efficient killers, and a spike up in harvest. Neither has occurred. So toss that theory out. The harvest remained at similar levels for a long time before that 30 year mark.

Not sure why you want to swim against the tide when the evidence is clear what the drivers are. Sometimes it looks as though you're arguing for argument's sake.

Tell me this if Road Density is one of the know drivers and we can access greater area, how long can we maintain the harvest days and numbers of kills.
Anyone who hunts should know this, you of all people living in the valley and watching clear cuts popping up all over. How long did the magic years last?

I want to remind you again the Bios all over the States still regulate the seasons when times are tough. Even your guest speaker said so. Maybe he swimming upstream as well.

[HarryToolips]

1) Totally agree. I shared a small to med size moose with a buddy this year and I have loin steaks, had tenderloins, euro wieners, pepperoni, jerky, farmers sausage, and ground coming out my wazoo. Me or someone in my family is eating meat almost every night and I couldn't get through a full animal of either species in a year. With densities of both moose and elk declining in most areas of the province, I have no problem with being limited to one of either species, not both.

2) Disagree. Like a few have eluded to, when they can actually ascertain that the LEH system works like it's supposed to, I'll have a tiny bit more faith, but even then, there are better (more fair) models.

3) Agree but disagree. I agree that some rut mule deer would gag a maggot and aren't fit to feed your ex-wife, but the severity seems to vary from none to heavy and everywhere in between. Over and above that, let the individual decide as they may not mind. I don't hunt Nov MD because I hate stinky deer. Most people I know don't seem to mind, so let them fill their boots. It's a hokey proposition that won't accomplish f/a anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but elk are stable/increasing in most parts of the province, except reg4....my buddy and I shot a MD buck this month, tastes wonderful..

[HarryToolips]

Yes and that's where thee problems is, it like a hand full of water it will either drip through or evaporate off.
Val Geist believes that Mule Deer are a evolutionary failure and feels they are on their way out, all we are doing is speeding up the process.
Funding for science, Habitat loss, Access,Hunting and Rec. Pressure, Predators, and so on. The list is endless.

Healthy game populations should be front and center, mature age class is a sign of a healthy population as well as the overall numbers. It shows us that
the game has reached full cycle. Too bad that some people feel that when I bring up "Mature Bucks" I get called a Trophy Hunter. I would like to think of myself as a "Selective Hunter"
who enjoys to see more game on the mountains rather that shoot the first legal deer.

The lack of rut activity and doe counts along with the shed pick up has left me to believe that the decline is felt all over the Province. We can only hope that their will be a turn in the trend soon.

I do miss my stinky Mule deer hanging in the shop aging into a quality steak on the BQ.
I live where there's a month long my buck season, 2 month any buck youth season, and the muley numbers I see are stable...I'd say the probs of reg 4 are not hunting related..

[bownut]

I live where there's a month long my buck season, 2 month any buck youth season, and the muley numbers I see are stable...I'd say the probs of reg 4 are not hunting related..

Ok then......

[Ourea]

As long as everyone is all eyes and ears then the plan is valid, without this those walls will continue.
We can keep on knocking them down only to find another going up.
Cheers!

Bownut, the kids will always keep fighting in the sandbox...that's the simple reality.
Anyone thinks that suddenly we all can get together and hold hands singing Kumbya, that will never happen.
The fighting will never end both inside the hunting community and out.

[LBM]

[QUOTE=LBM;1955021]

The message is loud and clear.

All license revenue goes back to the resource.
That's step 1.

Step 2.
A tax is implemented on all goods, services and industry that derive revenue from the outdoors.
Insulate the funding.

Pretty simple stuff.

The challenge is how will that revenue be poured back into the resource.
Who makes the decisions.
Who is the conduit.

That administrative arm needs to be removed from any one user group and highly qualified.
All user groups would report up to what their needs/wants are for wildlife.

Reality is, there will never be a kumbya moment when all user groups hold hands.
They will always fight in the sand box.

Let them keep fighting over a growing resource rather than a shrinking one.

Funding and a plan.

Push your political contacts on step 1 and 2.

Yes pretty simple stuff and hope it happens, especially step #2
And as you mentioned not every body will be happy, but hope it benefits wildlife.
Will be interesting to see who is put in charge, hopefully not the ones on here that have sayed there was
never a problem in Region 4. Still think it may be 30 plus years to late, time will tell.

[Ourea]

Tell me this if Road Density is one of the know drivers and we can access greater area, how long can we maintain the harvest days and numbers of kills.
Anyone who hunts should know this, you of all people living in the valley and watching clear cuts popping up all over. How long did the magic years last?

I want to remind you again the Bios all over the States still regulate the seasons when times are tough. Even your guest speaker said so. Maybe he swimming upstream as well.

How do you get roads deactivated, and by deactivated I mean ripped out?
Regulation will have ZERO impact on industry.
Trees will keep coming down as houses need to be built and the economy needs to keep purring.

Where does the influence come from to modify logging practices to afford more habitat protection.....to create more public awareness that can apply pressure?

What's your solution?

[steepNdeep]

Ungulate populations are under growing pressure from all sides. Habitat fragmentation, FSR road networks aiding predators & urban development of wintering grounds being some of the biggies. However, the biggest change that we've seen in the last couple of decades is the re-introduction of wolves.


Habitat fragmentation is a HUGE factor affecting wildlife numbers. Thats a given.


30 years of ingrowth will kill habitat. NDT4 needs to burn every 5 - 15 years to maintain its ability to support wildlife.

Just checking in... Funny, how the discussion has come back around & we all agree that habitat is key = CONSERVATION.

I just finished watching the "Ecology and Conservation of Mule Deer in Idaho: Management Strategies for Restoring Populations." presentation by University of Montana - great info! (thanks Brent) The presentation highlighted these factors affecting muleys - habitat fragmentation, urban development of wintering grounds, habitat quality & winter severity. Here are a couple slides from the video:

(Their fawn survival study started at 6 months of age, which is after much of the fawn predation occurs. They also didn't study wolves effect - obviously the solution would be too expensive & controversial.)

http://fluidstudios.ca/UP/conserve.jpg

Imagine that - according to the experts, WKBGA members are doing all the right things for wildlife conservation:

- Protecting wintering grounds through land purchase with partners & restricting hunting there
- Managing predator numbers
- Feeding ungulates on the winter range to help them survive severe winters
- Prescribed burning to improve habitat

The deep snow packs in the Kootenays are the big difference affecting deer numbers there.

Everyone needs to contribute to conservation.



I just sat in at the Mule Deer Strategy Meeting at UBC... the respected Head Bio explained how a dry summer and a possible hard early winter could effect the population by up to 30%.
My question was "Would you then be looking at a more conservative season to follow", his reply was absolutely.

Good info, bownut. The head biologist believes that conservative hunting seasons help mule deer numbers.

I also believe that mature bucks (& bulls) are more efficient at breeding, which get more does bred earlier, which gives the fawns a better chance at surviving their first winter. There is no single management solution - it all helps...

[Ourea]

Just checking in... Funny, how the discussion has come back around & we all agree that habitat is key = CONSERVATION.

I just finished watching the "Ecology and Conservation of Mule Deer in Idaho: Management Strategies for Restoring Populations." presentation by University of Montana - great info! (thanks Brent) The presentation highlighted these factors affecting muleys - habitat fragmentation, urban development of wintering grounds, habitat quality & winter severity. Here are a couple slides from the video:

(Their fawn survival study started at 6 months of age, which is after much of the fawn predation occurs. They also didn't study wolves effect - obviously the solution would be too expensive & controversial.)

http://fluidstudios.ca/UP/conserve.jpg

Imagine that - according to the experts, WKBGA members are doing all the right things for wildlife conservation:

- Protecting wintering grounds through land purchase with partners & restricting hunting there
- Managing predator numbers
- Feeding ungulates on the winter range to help them survive severe winters
- Prescribed burning to improve habitat

The deep snow packs in the Kootenays are the big difference affecting deer numbers there.

Everyone needs to contribute to conservation.




Good info, bownut. The head biologist believes that conservative hunting seasons help mule deer numbers.

I also believe that mature bucks (& bulls) are more efficient at breeding, which get more does bred earlier, which gives the fawns a better chance at surviving their first winter. There is no single management solution - it all helps...

And how does this happen....who pays for it?
The above suggestions are a pipe dream if there is no funding and public support.

Having a goal without a plan is no different than a ladder with no steps.....both get you nowhere.

So we are clear bownut and steepndeep.... I am probably a bigger trophy fag than you two.
I've killed numerous bulls over 350 and MD up to 240", that is not a look at me statement.
I am underscoring the fact I want age, just like you two, if not more.

Where we differ is that you are not putting wildlife first.
Everything you state on your science will do nothing for wildlife numbers in this province.
Regulations have done nothing, and never will, other than effect age.

It appears to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that your desire is for more age as a priority.

If this model gets wings I can guarantee your voice in the process will have nothing to do with anything.
Not trying to be rude or insulting but that is the simple reality.

You two sit down with the ones that will get this model implemented, and this includes politicians, wildlife experts, bring up regulation and they will role their eyes into the back of their heads.
(I'm not involved other than in the plan)

And appreciate, HBC has zero impact on anything that will influence change.


Priority one is getting wildlife the attention it desperately needs and rebooting habitat and with it numbers.
(there is far more to it than just this)
Managing for trophy class animals is an absolute non starter on any wildlife conversations going on. That is the simple truth guys.

[steepNdeep]

And how does this happen....who pays for it?
The above suggestions are a pipe dream if there is no funding and public support.

It's pretty simple - as I said before, everyone has to UNITE. Together, we have the numbers to influence politicians to channel the funding into wildlife management.

We should all be able to agree enough to at least support BCWF, as a united voice of BC hunters: http://www.bcwf.net/index.php/about/our-mission



1) UNITE - Everyone has to get united (through hunting associations & clubs) & fight hard to lobby the politicians to make it a priority build and ...protect the resource. If you're not united & vocal (more than the anti's) things will deteriorate.

[Ourea]

It's pretty simple - as I said before, everyone has to UNITE. Together, we have the numbers to influence politicians to channel the funding into wildlife management.

We should all be able to agree enough to at least support BCWF, as a united voice of BC hunters: http://www.bcwf.net/index.php/about/our-mission

Everyone has to unite?
Who is we?
Just Hunters?

[bownut]

[QUOTE=Ourea;1956558]How do you get roads deactivated, and by deactivated I mean ripped out?
Regulation will have ZERO impact on industry.
Trees will keep coming down as houses need to be built and the economy needs to keep purring.

Where does the influence come from to modify logging practices to afford more habitat protection.....to create more public awareness that can apply pressure?

I don't think we will get much help from forestry, they have their work cut out getting the price back up. In the perfect world full deactivation would be great in so many ways, but
industry would probably tell us to get stuffed. Ripping up the turn offs and posting the fines may be a good start. The roads will go in faster then most would expect.
Thats where clubs can help, get the media involved and show people what we are made of. BCWF can have all the fame I think most would give to shits, as long as wildlife
turns around. Do something and we can all hold our heads high. Do nothing and we can carry on with the great debate.

I drive 33 every weekend during the summer, I noticed new logging last year off the highway at the height of land in some prime area. The activity during the summer was crazy, pressure
from vehicles was ramping up hard. Shortly before the season both roads tore at the turn off, and the whole area was left to foot traffic only.
What do you think that did for the wildlife in that area?

The process is already in effect, we need to do more of it. Find out who pushed for Scull Mountain Closure It works.
And please lets not bring up Okanagan Park I am so tired of that defence. Habitat loss and predators played a huge roll in that one.

UBC is now working on a Corridor Study, we all ready know what is needed, a place for wildlife to live without heavy human pressure.
You are so correct, WE ALL HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER.

[bownut]

Just checking in... Funny, how the discussion has come back around & we all agree that habitat is key = CONSERVATION.

I just finished watching the "Ecology and Conservation of Mule Deer in Idaho: Management Strategies for Restoring Populations." presentation by University of Montana - great info! (thanks Brent) The presentation highlighted these factors affecting muleys - habitat fragmentation, urban development of wintering grounds, habitat quality & winter severity. Here are a couple slides from the video:

(Their fawn survival study started at 6 months of age, which is after much of the fawn predation occurs. They also didn't study wolves effect - obviously the solution would be too expensive & controversial.)

http://fluidstudios.ca/UP/conserve.jpg

Imagine that - according to the experts, WKBGA members are doing all the right things for wildlife conservation:

- Protecting wintering grounds through land purchase with partners & restricting hunting there
- Managing predator numbers
- Feeding ungulates on the winter range to help them survive severe winters
- Prescribed burning to improve habitat

The deep snow packs in the Kootenays are the big difference affecting deer numbers there.

Everyone needs to contribute to conservation.




Good info, bownut. The head biologist believes that conservative hunting seasons help mule deer numbers.

I also believe that mature bucks (& bulls) are more efficient at breeding, which get more does bred earlier, which gives the fawns a better chance at surviving their first winter. There is no single management solution - it all helps...


Such a complex thing, thats why my hackles go up when I have to listen to individuals that try to say that Harvest isn't having any effect. There is so much funded information out there in yet it gets filtered
when people don't agree on it.

I have been a student of nature all my life, and I have been blessed to see many great and beautiful things, through it all I have adjusted my thinking more than once.
What's that saying A wise man changes his mind many times, a fool never.

[Ourea]

Again, any friend of wildlife is friend of mind.
Club work is important and does accomplish some good things.
In the BIG picture it is simply above their pay grade though.
There are numerous non hunting groups doing their part feeling they will be the key difference.
Think about that.

I don't believe in pushing the rock uphill and expect large scale results.
I do believe, however, in pushing a big rock downhill for large scale results.
That rock is being built.

Bownut, if you are actively involved in getting local projects off the ground good for you and much respect.

If you are in the opinion that regulation is a key driver for the recovery of wildlife in BC, you are in a very tiny and shrinking minority.

There is next to no game biologist (if any), leading researcher or most conservationists, that have hunting and regulation anywhere on the list of importance to effect needed changes in in wildlife recovery. That is a simple fact.

You want to talk regulation for conservation to increase age?

I would be the first to support a regulation amendment on the late MD archery season then.
To preserve mature breeding bucks, that we all desire, let's make it a three point or smaller season.
This would be in 100% support of your conservation beliefs would it not?

Hunting bucks at their most vulnerable state....
-when snow has pushed them down making them easy access
-their numbers are compressed into small areas (A single digit fraction of their range)
-they are close to valley bottoms
-they are in low stem density timber making them easily found/glassed (close to roads most times)
How does that support your regulation position on protecting age more?

Remember, you are talking to another trophy hunter just like you.


I hope your answer would be yes.

[bownut]

Again, any friend of wildlife is friend of mind.
Club work is important and does accomplish some good things.
In the BIG picture it is simply above their pay grade though.
There are numerous non hunting groups doing their part feeling they will be the key difference.
Think about that.

I don't believe in pushing the rock uphill and expect large scale results.
I do believe, however, in pushing a big rock downhill for large scale results.
That rock is being built.

Bownut, if you are actively involved in getting local projects off the ground good for you and much respect.

If you are in the opinion that regulation is a key driver for the recovery of wildlife in BC, you are in a very tiny and shrinking minority.

There is next to no game biologist (if any), leading researcher or most conservationists, that have hunting and regulation anywhere on the list of importance to effect needed changes in in wildlife recovery. That is a simple fact.

You want to talk regulation for conservation to increase age?

I would be the first to support a regulation amendment on the late MD archery season then.
To preserve mature breeding bucks, that we all desire, let's make it a three point or smaller season.
This would be in 100% support of your conservation beliefs would it not?

Hunting bucks at their most vulnerable state....
-when snow has pushed them down making them easy access
-their numbers are compressed into small areas (A single digit fraction of their range)
-they are close to valley bottoms
-they are in low stem density timber making them easily found/glassed (close to roads most times)
How does that support your regulation position on protecting age more?

Remember, you are talking to another trophy hunter just like you.


I hope your answer would be yes.


First off I am a Selective Hunter not a Trophy Hunter. Score does not matter to me, a mature bucks or a mature rams is my goal. Honestly I just love seeing lots of game.
By slowing down on the killing I have learned so much more.
Following a group of does all day with hopes of catching a cranker passing through gives me more thrills than anything else. Getting into the mind of mature deer, sheep or what ever has slowed me down.

I don't have many monsters on the wall, but if I could image all that I have seen it would make for some great conversation.

Bowhunting:
I have hunted for years with a compound bow and now with my recurve with no regrets. Bow seasons matter very little to me, but as a long time teacher and a advocate of the bowhunting,
I feel that the system is missing the boat when it comes to the power of introducing and the recruitment potential of bow seasons, look at the States, and Alberta.

If late seasons need to be shorten for the sake of wildlife, then everything including youth seasons need to go. Pressure is pressure no matter whats in our hands.

As far as getting involved again, you bet. Earlier I spoke of my concerns for burnt out members, that was me, after a good twenty years I had to step back, I will always continue to be a advocate
the fund raising projects, and have never looked for a pat on the back, it has always been about wildlife for me. If up coming projects need support and I can get the best bang for buck, then I am in.
When Opportunity and Unsatisfactory Stats control proper management, I'm out!

Regulations are not the key driver, you and I along with many others know this isn't the case. I have laid out so many factors on this site in the past in yet everyone wants to put their fists up when I
speak of it. Individuals claim my ears are plugged, and I'm trying to take away hunter opportunity. Whats with that? Do we need to waste our funding on proven studies? Conservation still plays a
important role, we can't deny it. Isn't that why we have Conservation Officers?
Moving forward, the next time someone attacks me with some bait a switch BS, it will get ugly. And thats not a threat.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Sounds like our late archery season for mulies is as good as gone.

Reduced to many great memories and experiences.

[Ourea]

Sounds like our late archery season for mulies is as good as gone.

Reduced to many great memories and experiences.

All the more need for a long term and well funded wildlife plan.
It's the only way to get things back on track long term.

[bownut]

Late season hunting works when there is stable populations and mild winters, but it can really effect them when their week from the rut and heading into a hard winter. Post rut condition
is the worst for mule deer, a simple domestic dog chase can take out a whole group of deer. I have seen where unaware dog walkers have their dogs go at a deer and found the blood trail that leads to a bedded
deer. The next morning, coyote meal.

Heres another driver that many don't experience.
Shed hunting in Feb. I always move carefully through the range being ever so diligent not to push the deer, I come across a snowmobile track going from one brush to the next looking for sheds off the machine.
Later that year I find way more kills above the area in the thick firs. I wasn't hard to determine what went down.

Too many drivers so little time.

[bownut]

Sounds like our late archery season for mulies is as good as gone.

Reduced to many great memories and experiences.

Shit can the works so guys can save money on bait.

[Ourea]

First off I am a Selective Hunter not a Trophy Hunter. Score does not matter to me, a mature bucks or a mature rams is my goal. Honestly I just love seeing lots of game.
By slowing down on the killing I have learned so much more.
Following a group of does all day with hopes of catching a cranker passing through gives me more thrills than anything else. Getting into the mind of mature deer, sheep or what ever has slowed me down.

I don't have many monsters on the wall, but if I could image all that I have seen it would make for some great conversation.

Bowhunting:
I have hunted for years with a compound bow and now with my recurve with no regrets. Bow seasons matter very little to me, but as a long time teacher and a advocate of the bowhunting,
I feel that the system is missing the boat when it comes to the power of introducing and the recruitment potential of bow seasons, look at the States, and Alberta.

If late seasons need to be shorten for the sake of wildlife, then everything including youth seasons need to go. Pressure is pressure no matter whats in our hands.

As far as getting involved again, you bet. Earlier I spoke of my concerns for burnt out members, that was me, after a good twenty years I had to step back, I will always continue to be a advocate
the fund raising projects, and have never looked for a pat on the back, it has always been about wildlife for me. If up coming projects need support and I can get the best bang for buck, then I am in.
When Opportunity and Unsatisfactory Stats control proper management, I'm out!

Regulations are not the key driver, you and I along with many others know this isn't the case. I have laid out so many factors on this site in the past in yet everyone wants to put their fists up when I
speak of it. Individuals claim my ears are plugged, and I'm trying to take away hunter opportunity. Whats with that? Do we need to waste our funding on proven studies? Conservation still plays a
important role, we can't deny it. Isn't that why we have Conservation Officers?
Moving forward, the next time someone attacks me with some bait a switch BS, it will get ugly. And thats not a threat.

Wow that was quite the edit!!!!
You changed your post from being somewhat understanding to defiant.

Bownut, your mind is up, that is very obvious.
if you wish to stick with your rotary phone approach to wildlife, that's your prerogative.
I can rebut so much of what you say but it is pointless, your mind is made up however, that is very clear.

And no one is attacking you, jesus man.
Your rotary ph way of thinking is what's being called into question.

Understand, your church that you are preaching in has very few people sitting in it.... and the congregation is getting smaller.

Good luck.

[Bugle M In]

Bownut,

No one is trying to put into question "how you hunt" etc.
Seems like you hunt like many of us, and your passionate about hunting like many of us.
We all want to see wildlife "flourish" in the end....we all want to see more game then we have in the future.
The sooner the better.
But "restrictions" is where you are being "criticized".

Example,

I hunt in a small area of R3 for Mulies, usually in the month of November.
Over the past 3-4 years, I have noticed that for the most part, that about 80% of the Does I see have
spring Fawns with them.
So, I go for my stalk, and each time I generally trip up/spot the same amount of deer, year after year.
I walk the same mountain side, and do everything to locate deer.
Now, I thought, hey, 80% of the Does have fawns...should equate to "more deer sightings" next year.
Maybe not a huge difference, in just one year, but, like I said, this 80% is happening for several years, so, by now, there should be a lot more deer in that same area come November......but there's not.

So, what's going on??
LEH for Does has been in effect for a long time, never seemed to be that big of an impact...in my opinion.
The biggest change was the closure of R5 for 10 days in November...I can defiantly see that there was now
"way more hunting pressure" in my area (as I hunt close to R5.....but...I can't really say that a lot more deer
are taken....although you would have to surmise that "there are some more deer taken" in that area, and may not
have been taken if R5 was open.....seems logical.
But in the end, it doesn't appear that it's a ton more deer.
So, I ask....why am I not tripping over more deer? when the doe/fawn ratio seems really, really good in November?

Okay...FN close by, and I know from speaking to a few individuals, they take a good amount....
Seems to be 4-5 deer on average per individual.....which for me, is a little hard to accept.
What I don't know is....is that any different from past years....are they taking more now?
Let's say they aren't...that it has been this way for years.....no change.

Is it poaching?....could be....I see the odd deer down that makes me wonder if it was "accidently shot" or
possibly poached, and just horns or some prime cuts taken?
But, is that any different then in the past??
Let's say it's not.

Logging...well heck.. like one individual said...it used to be you could "shoot across the cutblock"....
but now it takes you 15 minutes to "drive thru it".
That's a big change...definitely changed were the deer walked/migrated thru.....but, for the most part,
it is on the "high plateau" (as I like to call it), which the deer don't really stay on, come snowfall (2 ft +).
So....nothing new there....deer migrate down to where I hunt.
Yes , plenty of "spur roads" off of the main FSR's for sure!, so a bit more "vehicle traffic" in areas that were once
inaccessible....and a bit more opportunity for guys on foot for sure, but I doubt it equates to a ton of success.
But deer definitely get "pushed more" then in the past.

So, I ask...where are these extra deer?
What is going on "after" the hunting season?
Something must be going on? between The end of November of one year, til the next November the following year.
Sounds like hunter success hasn't gone up...about the same as always, maybe even less.

The only ting I can come up with, is maybe it is the fact, that there just isn't "enough habitat to support more deer".
Wolves, and Cougars...they are up, and have an influence on an area that "never had wolves" (not as long as I can
remember), but the studies do seem to say that it is not "predation".
(I may argue that they might be wrong to a degree.....Yellowstone did show the drop in elk after wolf introduction,
and it was noticeable....so, I am not sure where the studies don't see that....)
But again....let's say they are right....so what is the real problem???

I guess what I am saying is....restrictions and closure will not get you anything more then you are already seeing
and experiencing when you are hunting right now.....it won't make a difference.....because "ethical hunting" is not
the problem for the declines you are experiencing.
Yes, you can close off areas, and in the end...you will just sit at home....not hunting...and then you will be disappointed when it doesn't ever open again....because the animals still didn't come back, because it wasn't hunting
that was causing the problem.

Yes, we have to get involved with the FN, and ask for them to "start reporting" their kills, but that is not going to be
so easy....but it is the right thing to do, so we have "Better numbers for our science".
That will take "public pressure" probably in the end, but the talking has to start somewhere.
Basically, it's campaigning for change, but campaigning requires "Money".

Poaching...all we can do is report to RAPP, and to hopefully put more CO's in the field.
Not just more CO's....but money for them to actually leave the office with a full tank of gas.
Again....this requires public pressure on the Ministry to hire and fund for more CO's....but it requires "Money".

Predators...well again, to do it right and be effective...will require us to use "heli"...and again, public pressure
and "Money".

Logging...I think there is a long way to go to make it better for wildlife....getting those companies to really
deactivate those spur roads...but more importantly, to somehow just make those cutblocks a better
"future habitat environment".
Again...public pressure to have them change their practices "after they are done cutting".....they can spend the
"Money".

But the real theme is "Habitat"....
It's why I think the deer where I hunt just don't seem to be growing in size, even though the ratios look good going
into December.
Habitat. to make it better, or generate new ones.....that requires "Money".

The general themes are "public pressure and a whole lot of money".
If you want to see more game....that is what it takes...restrictions will just cause you further disappointment.
I have seen it...I have been hunting in restrictions for over 35 years now, and it hasn't made seeing game any better,
in the end, I just watch it "shrink"

The thing that people are saying to you is....money spent in the right way...will make the biggest difference.
And Public Pressure only works, if you have a large group, saying and shouting "the same thing".
(Does NOT work, if we continually show up as a group...and yet sit there and "quarrel amongst ourselves"!!)
Public Pressure to find and spend more Money is the "target you are looking for so you can see more game"

Now, like some are saying, if we all get on the same page and stop arguing, we now need to figure out way to
"Generate this Money".
Who should pay??how much??...how often???
Restrictions are just there to "fine tune" things....they will not fix what it is you are upset about.. that's were
others, like myself, say you are going wrong on...thus the replies you are receiving...not about you or your
hunting ability or passion....just your direction on finding a solution to these problems....
And remember, they are Province Wide Issues...happening in every Region.

[horshur]

Well said Bugle.Nicely done.

[bownut]

Wow that was quite the edit!!!!
You changed your post from being somewhat understanding to defiant.

Bownut, your mind is up, that is very obvious.
if you wish to stick with your rotary phone approach to wildlife, that's your prerogative.
I can rebut so much of what you say but it is pointless, your mind is made up however, that is very clear.

And no one is attacking you, jesus man.
Your rotary ph way of thinking is what's being called into question.

Understand, your church that you are preaching in has very few people sitting in it.... and the congregation is getting smaller.

Good luck.

It's going to take more than luck to open yours eyes, I understand that Habitat and Funding should be the main focus, thats not the question here.
It blows me away how groups still can't see the effect that hunters and back country users have on wildlife.
With the declining numbers there has been little changes to the pressures we place on them.
We still have the longest seasons going.

[bownut]

Bownut,

No one is trying to put into question "how you hunt" etc.
Seems like you hunt like many of us, and your passionate about hunting like many of us.
We all want to see wildlife "flourish" in the end....we all want to see more game then we have in the future.
The sooner the better.
But "restrictions" is where you are being "criticized".

Example,

I hunt in a small area of R3 for Mulies, usually in the month of November.
Over the past 3-4 years, I have noticed that for the most part, that about 80% of the Does I see have
spring Fawns with them.
So, I go for my stalk, and each time I generally trip up/spot the same amount of deer, year after year.
I walk the same mountain side, and do everything to locate deer.
Now, I thought, hey, 80% of the Does have fawns...should equate to "more deer sightings" next year.
Maybe not a huge difference, in just one year, but, like I said, this 80% is happening for several years, so, by now, there should be a lot more deer in that same area come November......but there's not.

So, what's going on??
LEH for Does has been in effect for a long time, never seemed to be that big of an impact...in my opinion.
The biggest change was the closure of R5 for 10 days in November...I can defiantly see that there was now
"way more hunting pressure" in my area (as I hunt close to R5.....but...I can't really say that a lot more deer
are taken....although you would have to surmise that "there are some more deer taken" in that area, and may not
have been taken if R5 was open.....seems logical.
But in the end, it doesn't appear that it's a ton more deer.
So, I ask....why am I not tripping over more deer? when the doe/fawn ratio seems really, really good in November?

Okay...FN close by, and I know from speaking to a few individuals, they take a good amount....
Seems to be 4-5 deer on average per individual.....which for me, is a little hard to accept.
What I don't know is....is that any different from past years....are they taking more now?
Let's say they aren't...that it has been this way for years.....no change.

Is it poaching?....could be....I see the odd deer down that makes me wonder if it was "accidently shot" or
possibly poached, and just horns or some prime cuts taken?
But, is that any different then in the past??
Let's say it's not.

Logging...well heck.. like one individual said...it used to be you could "shoot across the cutblock"....
but now it takes you 15 minutes to "drive thru it".
That's a big change...definitely changed were the deer walked/migrated thru.....but, for the most part,
it is on the "high plateau" (as I like to call it), which the deer don't really stay on, come snowfall (2 ft +).
So....nothing new there....deer migrate down to where I hunt.
Yes , plenty of "spur roads" off of the main FSR's for sure!, so a bit more "vehicle traffic" in areas that were once
inaccessible....and a bit more opportunity for guys on foot for sure, but I doubt it equates to a ton of success.
But deer definitely get "pushed more" then in the past.

So, I ask...where are these extra deer?
What is going on "after" the hunting season?
Something must be going on? between The end of November of one year, til the next November the following year.
Sounds like hunter success hasn't gone up...about the same as always, maybe even less.

The only ting I can come up with, is maybe it is the fact, that there just isn't "enough habitat to support more deer".
Wolves, and Cougars...they are up, and have an influence on an area that "never had wolves" (not as long as I can
remember), but the studies do seem to say that it is not "predation".
(I may argue that they might be wrong to a degree.....Yellowstone did show the drop in elk after wolf introduction,
and it was noticeable....so, I am not sure where the studies don't see that....)
But again....let's say they are right....so what is the real problem???

I guess what I am saying is....restrictions and closure will not get you anything more then you are already seeing
and experiencing when you are hunting right now.....it won't make a difference.....because "ethical hunting" is not
the problem for the declines you are experiencing.
Yes, you can close off areas, and in the end...you will just sit at home....not hunting...and then you will be disappointed when it doesn't ever open again....because the animals still didn't come back, because it wasn't hunting
that was causing the problem.

Yes, we have to get involved with the FN, and ask for them to "start reporting" their kills, but that is not going to be
so easy....but it is the right thing to do, so we have "Better numbers for our science".
That will take "public pressure" probably in the end, but the talking has to start somewhere.
Basically, it's campaigning for change, but campaigning requires "Money".

Poaching...all we can do is report to RAPP, and to hopefully put more CO's in the field.
Not just more CO's....but money for them to actually leave the office with a full tank of gas.
Again....this requires public pressure on the Ministry to hire and fund for more CO's....but it requires "Money".

Predators...well again, to do it right and be effective...will require us to use "heli"...and again, public pressure
and "Money".

Logging...I think there is a long way to go to make it better for wildlife....getting those companies to really
deactivate those spur roads...but more importantly, to somehow just make those cutblocks a better
"future habitat environment".
Again...public pressure to have them change their practices "after they are done cutting".....they can spend the
"Money".

But the real theme is "Habitat"....
It's why I think the deer where I hunt just don't seem to be growing in size, even though the ratios look good going
into December.
Habitat. to make it better, or generate new ones.....that requires "Money".

The general themes are "public pressure and a whole lot of money".
If you want to see more game....that is what it takes...restrictions will just cause you further disappointment.
I have seen it...I have been hunting in restrictions for over 35 years now, and it hasn't made seeing game any better,
in the end, I just watch it "shrink"

The thing that people are saying to you is....money spent in the right way...will make the biggest difference.
And Public Pressure only works, if you have a large group, saying and shouting "the same thing".
(Does NOT work, if we continually show up as a group...and yet sit there and "quarrel amongst ourselves"!!)
Public Pressure to find and spend more Money is the "target you are looking for so you can see more game"

Now, like some are saying, if we all get on the same page and stop arguing, we now need to figure out way to
"Generate this Money".
Who should pay??how much??...how often???
Restrictions are just there to "fine tune" things....they will not fix what it is you are upset about.. that's were
others, like myself, say you are going wrong on...thus the replies you are receiving...not about you or your
hunting ability or passion....just your direction on finding a solution to these problems....
And remember, they are Province Wide Issues...happening in every Region.

You have made some great statements in regards to the declining trends, so many things to think about.
It's funny how Restrictions are viewed as a fine tuning practice. By the time all the money starts to roll in and the divers get resolved, the only thing that will be left to tune is our whistle.
Sorry, but I can't sign up yet.

How about this, ask yourself, How did are seasons get to where we are now? What were the prime directives? Who put Opportunity and Increased Hunter Numbers first?
What was the state of habitat 10 years Ago? How could the Wildlife Numbers decline while all the seasons got longer?
Thats what I want brought to the table.

Nature doesn't tank out that fast, without a big hand by us.

[Ourea]

It's going to take more than luck to open yours eyes, I understand that Habitat and Funding should be the main focus, thats not the question here.
It blows me away how groups still can't see the effect that hunters and back country users have on wildlife.
With the declining numbers there has been little changes to the pressures we place on them.
We still have the longest seasons going.

See, here's the the deal bownut.
I hunt with a bio, another partner of mine is a field researcher (GB).
I have other contacts that are in the front lines with Gov working on this plan.
We talk a lot, i ask a lot of questions...... I've learned a lot as a result.

What blows most away at this stage, is how some simply refuse the overwhelming science and studies, from top experts in their fields, that have identified the key drivers that are negatively impacting most species in this province. From grizzlies to elk to MD, they have a pretty good understanding of the major issues. It will take money and political will. Both are slowly getting the interest of high level ears and gaining traction.

Anyways, I done on this topic.

[steepNdeep]

Wolves, and Cougars...they are up, and have an influence on an area that "never had wolves" (not as long as I can
remember), but the studies do seem to say that it is not "predation".
(I may argue that they might be wrong to a degree.....Yellowstone did show the drop in elk after wolf introduction,
and it was noticeable....so, I am not sure where the studies don't see that....)

I agree Bugle. I'd like to see more data on predators impacts on ungulate populations. That muley conservation presentation, for instance, was lacking in several ways:

1) They did not specifically study wolves in it. Wolf populations were still relatively new & it would have been very controversial & expensive to cull them in several areas for a study.

2) They only monitored deer populations for 2 years after removal of predators & then it happened to be a severe winter which wiped out the deer population. Skewed the data

3) The study 'marked' & monitored fawns starting at 6 months of age. Many are killed by predators right at birth & in the first 6 months. Maybe they are too hard to mark before that, but I think they are missing a large chunk of data there.

It would be interesting to get some data on the wolves impacts on ungulate populations in Region 3. That place is infected...

[Bugle M In]

You have made some great statements in regards to the declining trends, so many things to think about.
It's funny how Restrictions are viewed as a fine tuning practice. By the time all the money starts to roll in and the divers get resolved, the only thing that will be left to tune is our whistle.
Sorry, but I can't sign up yet.

How about this, ask yourself, How did are seasons get to where we are now? What were the prime directives? Who put Opportunity and Increased Hunter Numbers first?
What was the state of habitat 10 years Ago? How could the Wildlife Numbers decline while all the seasons got longer?
Thats what I want brought to the table.

Nature doesn't tank out that fast, without a big hand by us.

Habitat...10 years ago....well, we hadn't seen the "full effects of pine beetle kill" at that point.
Nature itself, start to blow all those dead trees down....made it hard for animals to travel thru some of those corridors.
Man made effects...all the logging the forestry companies did to get ahead of the beetle and harvest all the green trees before the beetle killed them off.....huge blocks gone quickly, and spur roads to boot.
Another nature effect, or lack of...was snow fall, and the lack of avalanches in the alpine country.
If you want a long story on elk in the EK in the good old days...let me know....but I guarantee you, when those natural events happened, it made for better habitat come summer.

Increased seasons or hunter numbers?
It is very hard for people to get involved in hunting and to raise hunter recruitment.
It's not like the 70's...where you walked in, threw some cash down, walked away with your hunting tags...
Oh, and bought a 308 british for 15.00$, without a PAL etc.
Lots of people hunted then....not necessarily effectively, but, if they wanted to do it, it was like going to a hockey game tonight...just drop a few bucks...off you go....
Opportunity....well the folks that hunted in R3, that showed me that place...they used to hunt it till the end of Dec.
There is no increase....all I have ever seen is decreased opportunity....shorten seasons and LEH.
Buy tags..if it walked and had antlers back then...you were good to go...hunting regs were one , two sided printed page....not a bible, and requiring you to check the I-net before you walk out the door because of last second changes.

But you know...what didn't happen all those years....F*** all was placed into doing some real serious habitat
restoration....and worse...protection.
Those few bucks that the Ministry and those leaders bragged about...wouldn't have paid for much of anything.
And over the years...the money never increased...but the costs to do a project did.
Thus, every year, the money didn't go as far as the previous year...so less got done.

And you ask...why did...is....wildlife declining....
I don't need to "see it"....I don't need to "think" about it any longer........I have "Lived" thru it.

The reason Wildlife is Shrinking...and I am not just talking about here in BC....not just in Canada or the
US of A....But EVERYWHERE...is Human Expansion.....Overpopulation.
And without preserving habitat.....nothing will survive...even if you ban hunting outright.

Sugestion:

For everyone....there was a documentary called "Surviving Progress"
"Visually" good to watch, as well as "Thought Provoking".
It has to do with the planet...but with humans trying to live on it...and everything that goes on...but in the end,
shows the impact on this planet.
Even Dr. Suzuki had some decent perspective on this:shock:.
But it touches on China, Africa, South America, North America...
Lots of people with some "Human Insight" on our future.

Watch it...it will make you see just how "messed up" things are becoming.
After that....you will understand why you are not seeing the game people once talked about.
You will realize why you will probably never see those numbers again.
If you think hunting is the problem, or the major problem to "lack of game"....
Then I suggest you seriously consider "hanging it up"....why add to the decline in wildlife if hunting is it's
reason.

Again....watch "surviving progress"...something I think a lot of members might find "thought provoking"
Interestingly...it comments on the same question you are asking......"WHY"

[HarryToolips]

Both of your last posts are well done Bugle, it is the truth..

[WKBGTA_BC]

People of this post and whoever else this may concern,

My name is Josh and I am the President of the WKBGTA. I would like to start off by making an apology, that being it has taken me this long to respond to all of your friendly inquiries about our organization. I started reading this thread over a week ago but have been awaiting registration approval from the administrators to allow me to post.

That being said I am going to dive right into this popular thread and hopefully address all of the questions, complaints and personal attacks on our VOLUNTEER wildlife organization. As far as the document with "our" proposals that you have all reviewed, it is accurate in some ways and completely inaccurate in others. Some of it has been completely misconstrued and false information has been released to the public and I am thoroughly looking into how that happened and who is responsible.

Let's start with the Mule Deer proposal. Yes, we do want to see a shorter season and our reasoning is we would like to see the mature bucks breed the does in peace during the heaviest rut period which we believe falls between November 1-10 (in most cases). We feel that those illusive, mature, breeding bucks dummy up during the rut and get harvested at their highest point of weakness when they are distracted by their harem of does. Another concern for this time of year is the potential for heavy snowfall which pushes these mule deer out of their living rooms and forces them to breed at lower elevations which are easily accessible to all hunters. I can assure you that our proposal had absolutely NOTHING to do with the meat being tainted with swollen, rutted up scent glands. I am a mule deer hunter (along with many other members of our club) and I have sunk my teeth into September bucks right through to November 10th bucks and I have never thrown a morsel of meat into my dog's dish. Our focus for mule deer is NOT to see more "trophy" bucks that will fill our banquet walls as some of you have accused, but to see a healthy, thriving mule deer population again in the West Kootenays and province wide. We are well aware that regulation changes are very low on the priority list when it comes to things needing to be done, however, that is all the biologists asked from us when we drafted this document therefor that is all you have read thus far. What you haven't read is our views on habitat loss, controlled burns, wintering ground restoration, predation and road closures due to high accessibility in the back country, just to name a few.

Next, the Elk/Moose Proposal. Yes, we proposed a combined provincial bag limit for elk and moose to be 1. Our reasoning SOLELY being to take some of the pressure off both species. We feel that by making a hunter choose one of the mentioned big game animals instead of both, it MAY help reduce pressure on the unselected species. Our proposal had absolutely NOTHING to do with families not needing that much meat, we are well aware of how much meat a family can burn through during the off season, especially if wild meat is the only meat on the menu. We are not and will never be an organization that tries to dictate how much meat a family may harvest in a hunting season. Our focus for elk and moose is spot on with mule deer, increase population, decrease calf mortality and create a healthy, thriving population for both species in the West Kootenays and province wide. Again, we realize that regulation changes are low on the priority list but as you can see that is all this document focused on when we were asked to draft our views.

I'm going to address a few questions I've seen regarding our banquet and in return I am going to ask some of my own:
Yes, we do host a "trophy" banquet each year for successful hunters/fisherman to enter their animals/fish into the competition for the opportunity at a trophy or certificate and possibly a free shoulder mount.
Yes, we put up all these entries on display for all to see throughout the night.
Yes, we have a big awards ceremony.

Now I have a few questions for you people:
Did any of you know that we have a junior category for all hunters under the age of 18 where no minimum requirements are necessary in any class?
Did any of you know that the banquet is open for ANYONE to attend and our non-hunter attendance is high and increasing as the years go on?
Did any of you know that we hold a massive fundraiser at the banquet that generates substantial funding for us to donate back into wildlife?
Did any of you know that with that funding, over the last five years...
We purchased a mechanical elk decoy for our local COS?
We purchase 4000 lbs of sheep feed annually for the Bighorn Sheep on the Salmo-Creston Pass, pick it up, deliver it and feed them once a week throughout the entire winter?
We've donated funding to "Beaks" bird sanctuary?
We purchased salt and helicopter fuel for the Mountain Goats in the Slocan Valley and distributed the salt via helicopter high on the mountain range to ensure decreased highway mortality?
We donated money to the East Kootenay emergency deer/elk feed program last winter due to the harsh winter conditions?
We maintain our own local deer feeders in the event of a harsh winter season?
Did any of you know that our organization is 100% VOLUNTEER?
Did any of you know that our organization is over 60 years old and has been giving back to wildlife since the day it started?
Did any of you know that the WKBGTA is part of a Regional wildlife group called the West Kootenay Outdoorsmen where we meet quarterly, hash out concerns and work directly with our local biologists and the BCWF in hopes of correcting some of the many problems this province is experiencing with wildlife?

I could go on but I don't want to ramble, that's not my intent. Things to remember about those proposals are only some of the information was accurate and they were based on our opinion of the WEST KOOTENAYS. We understand that the province has many different sectors that need to be managed separately. I apologize that you were all misinformed and I wish I had answers as to how that happened. I personally drafted our proposals myself and I would be happy to share that document with anyone that would like to see it. As hunters we need to stick together and threads like this are nothing but great ammunition for the anti's and we all know they already have a full magazine. For those of you that were judgmental, confrontational and malicious, I invite you to join our organization and inspire us with your energetic views on areas that need improvement in our organization. Our door is always open to people willing to contribute, suggest new ideas and improvements and dedicate their time to our wildlife. It's easy to sit behind the keyboard and criticize anything and everything someone is doing but it takes a certain somebody to get off the couch and make a difference. Unfortunately, complacency is a huge reason as to why we are here today. Involvement is the only thing that is going to make a difference and that's what we are striving for. Our club is heading over with a truck and car trailer to pick up 4000 lbs of sheep feed for the annual winter feed program on Saturday and then attending the quarterly WKO meeting on Sunday. What are YOU doing this weekend to make a difference? Are you going to be a keyboard hero or a contributor?

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. If you have any other questions or inquiries we have a website and a Facebook page that may help you understand who we really are and what we do behind the scenes.

[steepNdeep]

My name is Josh and I am the President of the WKBGTA. re and what we do behind the scenes.

Well written Josh! You've come a long way as a hunter, since we met & you were just getting started...

As I said before, I've never seen a group of hunters that cares & does more for wildlife conservation than the hunters in the West Kootenays.

This place is good for entertainment. ;)

Keep up the good work!

[Fisher-Dude]

Too bad Josh doesn't have sex ratio data or pregnancy rate data to back up his proposals.

You know, science and stuff to justify reducing the harvest of surplus male animals, since we know surplus mature males reduce the productivity of herds and cause further reductions in game populations.

No one has produced either of the two criteria above to justify the proposals. Without such data, the proposals become social programs to simply restrict hunter numbers.

[Bugle M In]

Damn FD...beat me to the my question.

Hi Josh, welcome to the forum...
It is a public site, so, just a heads up, thick skin is advisable in order to be a long term member...

As for your Mule deer resolution..
I question why Bio's would seek advise from a hunting club, or any hunter unless for this fact:
(and something you should be able to say point blank without research)

What is your fawn to doe ratio in the WK?
(I am not talking about buck to doe ratio...to be honest, I could care less about this number for the most part)
I am asking what those numbers in the Spring, right after the Doe's have dropped there fawns, NOT, just what
you evaluate in the fall, as numbers will be less then Spring due to predation and food supply, but just
"how many fawns are born in relation to Does.

Reason is this...
If it is normal (as considered by the Bio's), then the whole idea of "Bucks not breeding Does" is out the window.
Obviously, if the ratio is fine/normal, then there are enough Bucks "doing the job", and the fawn to doe ratio is
"proof in the pudding".

Did the Bios come and say the Ratio was low?
IF so, is it all the MU's in the WK, or just "some of the MU's"

If that is the case, then yes, we should consider giving the bucks a break during the "peak rut time".
OR, if it is just some MU's that are low, then only these MU's should see this sort of restriction.

IF these fawn to Doe Ratios are normal, then I seriously question the "real intent" of this resolution you speak of.

As for 1 elk or 1 moose...okay...for me, I am fine with that (but that is just me, and my opinion)
Yes, a hunter can purchase both species tags, and hunt both species, and if that hunter is successful, they are done.
The EK seem to be short in Elk #'s, and many say so are the moose in the EK, so such a proposal would make sense
to me, for the time, until such a time as #'s return....but again, I admit "it's my opinion" on that matter.

So, again, the mule deer resolution only seems "valid" if Bios have reported the "Fawn to Doe ratio's are low"...
Are they?
I know FD probably has those #'s...I don't (I admit that), but low fawn #'s in the Spring is the only "validation" you
would have to "encourage that resolution".

As for the clubs work....thank you....sounds excellent, and is what Gun Clubs do best...your club included.

[WKBGTA_BC]

Too bad Josh doesn't have sex ratio data or pregnancy rate data to back up his proposals.

You know, science and stuff to justify reducing the harvest of surplus male animals, since we know surplus mature males reduce the productivity of herds and cause further reductions in game populations.

No one has produced either of the two criteria above to justify the proposals. Without such data, the proposals become social programs to simply restrict hunter numbers.

I don’t have data? I have lots of data actually, a whole binders worth from the biologists I meet with on a regular basis.. What I don’t have is time to banter back and forth on social media. Where are your proposals for the next regulation cycle? I hope you submitted them because you seem to have the answers for everything. I’ll ask it one last time, are YOU going to get out there and make a difference or sit behind the computer screen and be a keyboard hero? Option is yours.

[Salty]

I don’t have data? I have lots of data actually, a whole binders worth from the biologists I meet with on a regular basis.. What I don’t have is time to banter back and forth on social media. Where are your proposals for the next regulation cycle? I hope you submitted them because you seem to have the answers for everything. I’ll ask it one last time, are YOU going to get out there and make a difference or sit behind the computer screen and be a keyboard hero? Option is yours.

Wow pretty sharp for a second post? You might want to look in to how much F D does for our sport before you start insinuating things, its considerable.

[WKBGTA_BC]

Wow pretty sharp for a second post? You might want to look in to how much F D does for our sport before you start insinuating things, its considerable.

I am not trying to be sharp and by no means am I insulting anyone. Simply justifying our club’s position, rectifying the accusation of our proposals having no factual documentation to support our views, and clearing the misconception that started this entire thread. Take with it what you will and know that we are always accepting new members with new ideas on how to improve what we are doing. We are having a meeting next week for anyone interested, we’d love to see some of the enthusiasm in this thread brought to the table and used towards something productive.

Speaking of insults...let’s not forget what 95% of this thread has been towards the WKBGTA. I strictly joined to clarify the misconception and be on my way.

[Walking Buffalo]

I am not trying to be sharp and by no means am I insulting anyone. Simply justifying our club’s position, rectifying the accusation of our proposals having no factual documentation to support our views, and clearing the misconception that started this entire thread. Take with it what you will and know that we are always accepting new members with new ideas on how to improve what we are doing. We are having a meeting next week for anyone interested, we’d love to see some of the enthusiasm in this thread brought to the table and used towards something productive.

Or you could have responded directly to his claim regarding the data.
That might have moved things forward.

[Dannybuoy]

I am not trying to be sharp and by no means am I insulting anyone. Simply justifying our club’s position, rectifying the accusation of our proposals having no factual documentation to support our views, and clearing the misconception that started this entire thread. Take with it what you will and know that we are always accepting new members with new ideas on how to improve what we are doing. We are having a meeting next week for anyone interested, we’d love to see some of the enthusiasm in this thread brought to the table and used towards something productive.
Good first posts and thanks for the clarification.It all makes sense to some of us.It would make sense to make those changes in the okanagan as well..

[bownut]

People of this post and whoever else this may concern,

My name is Josh and I am the President of the WKBGTA. I would like to start off by making an apology, that being it has taken me this long to respond to all of your friendly inquiries about our organization. I started reading this thread over a week ago but have been awaiting registration approval from the administrators to allow me to post.

That being said I am going to dive right into this popular thread and hopefully address all of the questions, complaints and personal attacks on our VOLUNTEER wildlife organization. As far as the document with "our" proposals that you have all reviewed, it is accurate in some ways and completely inaccurate in others. Some of it has been completely misconstrued and false information has been released to the public and I am thoroughly looking into how that happened and who is responsible.

Let's start with the Mule Deer proposal. Yes, we do want to see a shorter season and our reasoning is we would like to see the mature bucks breed the does in peace during the heaviest rut period which we believe falls between November 1-10 (in most cases). We feel that those illusive, mature, breeding bucks dummy up during the rut and get harvested at their highest point of weakness when they are distracted by their harem of does. Another concern for this time of year is the potential for heavy snowfall which pushes these mule deer out of their living rooms and forces them to breed at lower elevations which are easily accessible to all hunters. I can assure you that our proposal had absolutely NOTHING to do with the meat being tainted with swollen, rutted up scent glands. I am a mule deer hunter (along with many other members of our club) and I have sunk my teeth into September bucks right through to November 10th bucks and I have never thrown a morsel of meat into my dog's dish. Our focus for mule deer is NOT to see more "trophy" bucks that will fill our banquet walls as some of you have accused, but to see a healthy, thriving mule deer population again in the West Kootenays and province wide. We are well aware that regulation changes are very low on the priority list when it comes to things needing to be done, however, that is all the biologists asked from us when we drafted this document therefor that is all you have read thus far. What you haven't read is our views on habitat loss, controlled burns, wintering ground restoration, predation and road closures due to high accessibility in the back country, just to name a few.

Next, the Elk/Moose Proposal. Yes, we proposed a combined provincial bag limit for elk and moose to be 1. Our reasoning SOLELY being to take some of the pressure off both species. We feel that by making a hunter choose one of the mentioned big game animals instead of both, it MAY help reduce pressure on the unselected species. Our proposal had absolutely NOTHING to do with families not needing that much meat, we are well aware of how much meat a family can burn through during the off season, especially if wild meat is the only meat on the menu. We are not and will never be an organization that tries to dictate how much meat a family may harvest in a hunting season. Our focus for elk and moose is spot on with mule deer, increase population, decrease calf mortality and create a healthy, thriving population for both species in the West Kootenays and province wide. Again, we realize that regulation changes are low on the priority list but as you can see that is all this document focused on when we were asked to draft our views.

I'm going to address a few questions I've seen regarding our banquet and in return I am going to ask some of my own:
Yes, we do host a "trophy" banquet each year for successful hunters/fisherman to enter their animals/fish into the competition for the opportunity at a trophy or certificate and possibly a free shoulder mount.
Yes, we put up all these entries on display for all to see throughout the night.
Yes, we have a big awards ceremony.

Now I have a few questions for you people:
Did any of you know that we have a junior category for all hunters under the age of 18 where no minimum requirements are necessary in any class?
Did any of you know that the banquet is open for ANYONE to attend and our non-hunter attendance is high and increasing as the years go on?
Did any of you know that we hold a massive fundraiser at the banquet that generates substantial funding for us to donate back into wildlife?
Did any of you know that with that funding, over the last five years...
We purchased a mechanical elk decoy for our local COS?
We purchase 4000 lbs of sheep feed annually for the Bighorn Sheep on the Salmo-Creston Pass, pick it up, deliver it and feed them once a week throughout the entire winter?
We've donated funding to "Beaks" bird sanctuary?
We purchased salt and helicopter fuel for the Mountain Goats in the Slocan Valley and distributed the salt via helicopter high on the mountain range to ensure decreased highway mortality?
We donated money to the East Kootenay emergency deer/elk feed program last winter due to the harsh winter conditions?
We maintain our own local deer feeders in the event of a harsh winter season?
Did any of you know that our organization is 100% VOLUNTEER?
Did any of you know that our organization is over 60 years old and has been giving back to wildlife since the day it started?
Did any of you know that the WKBGTA is part of a Regional wildlife group called the West Kootenay Outdoorsmen where we meet quarterly, hash out concerns and work directly with our local biologists and the BCWF in hopes of correcting some of the many problems this province is experiencing with wildlife?

I could go on but I don't want to ramble, that's not my intent. Things to remember about those proposals are only some of the information was accurate and they were based on our opinion of the WEST KOOTENAYS. We understand that the province has many different sectors that need to be managed separately. I apologize that you were all misinformed and I wish I had answers as to how that happened. I personally drafted our proposals myself and I would be happy to share that document with anyone that would like to see it. As hunters we need to stick together and threads like this are nothing but great ammunition for the anti's and we all know they already have a full magazine. For those of you that were judgmental, confrontational and malicious, I invite you to join our organization and inspire us with your energetic views on areas that need improvement in our organization. Our door is always open to people willing to contribute, suggest new ideas and improvements and dedicate their time to our wildlife. It's easy to sit behind the keyboard and criticize anything and everything someone is doing but it takes a certain somebody to get off the couch and make a difference. Unfortunately, complacency is a huge reason as to why we are here today. Involvement is the only thing that is going to make a difference and that's what we are striving for. Our club is heading over with a truck and car trailer to pick up 4000 lbs of sheep feed for the annual winter feed program on Saturday and then attending the quarterly WKO meeting on Sunday. What are YOU doing this weekend to make a difference? Are you going to be a keyboard hero or a contributor?

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. If you have any other questions or inquiries we have a website and a Facebook page that may help you understand who we really are and what we do behind the scenes.


There is no confusion, anyone who speaks about any cutbacks in opportunity gets the same reply, "Wheres Your Science".

F/D and the gang will continue to hammer you with their data and tell us it's all good, and at the same time cry for funding for study.
How accurate is their data when we have been managing with minimal funding for so many years?
How is our fawn recruitment based on their underfunded counting systems?

Moving forward the clubs will still continue to run the projects that need running, and it's groups like yours that will continue
to focus their efforts on wildlife and the conservation of all species.

Keep up the good work, and don't ever bow down to the few individuals that are kicking at your knees.
Cheers Bownut.

[303savage]

I've harvested bucks in full rut, stinking to high heaven, and the meat was delicious.

I was told not to let the hair touch the meat when skinning the beast especially on a rutting buck.
Skin the beast as soon as possible and make all the cuts in the hide for skinning and then use a different knife or wash the knife.
Get the hide off as soon as possibly

[Sitkaspruce]

"Let's start with the Mule Deer proposal. Yes, we do want to see a shorter season and our reasoning is we would like to see the mature bucks breed the does in peace during the heaviest rut period which we believe falls between November 1-10 (in most cases). We feel that those illusive, mature, breeding bucks dummy up during the rut and get harvested at their highest point of weakness when they are distracted by their harem of does."

I have to ask, why do you think that "mature" bucks need to do the breeding?? Why not shoot some of those mature bucks when people can and leave other, maybe younger deer to breed? Not every "mature" buck is shot in a season. As far as I know, we never do counts on "Mature" bucks, so we really have no idea how many are out there, how many survive every year and, as Val Geist says, not all "Mature" bucks breed every year, some live in solitude through the rut. If sperm supply is not in question, then your idea of saving those "mature" bucks to increase deer numbers will not work. If it is to have more "mature" bucks to shoot in 5 years because they have not been hunted, then your idea will have a tiny bit of merit.......but only to those who want "mature" bucks.

I would also like to see all your data to show that science is behind your suggestions?

Cheers

SS

[horshur]

all of it is science ...just pick your poison. Science can prove that recreational hunters are not needed to manage populations so should we go that way. Just cause some science and data implies one thing does not mean going another way is wrong it is just different is all. So you guys gonna give up sex cause science can create life in a test tube. Really.
Put it this way. Maximum sustainable yield is a management style it has no great virtues there is no law..thou shalt have hunting seasons where you kill as many as possible according to science. Managers can use science for another style as well. MSY is social management just the same as managing for older class males or for less vehicle accidents or for no hunting at all.

[Salty]

Speaking of insults...let’s not forget what 95% of this thread has been towards the WKBGTA. I strictly joined to clarify the misconception and be on my way.

There haven't been insults just a bunch of people pointing out flaws in your proposal and general disagreement with it, big difference. I would say that other than managing exclusively for just trophy animals, most here me included applaud that you want to improve wildlife numbers and would support you on that. We just disagree with you on how to get there. I'd recommend looking in to the main drivers that dictate animals to flourish that have been derived by science based work and not anecdotal and emotional sources. Hunting is waaay down the list of importance for most species. Super conservative regulations and very low harvest opportunities for extremely low to no return in the big picture is a waste of time and likely counter productive in the long haul.

[Bugle M In]

I see how managing "point restriction" also does not help "create trophy sized" game.
4 pointers don't necessarily mean they do the breeding over a mature 3 pointer.
Example:
For the past 3 seasons, I keep seeing the same "big 3 point" mule deer in November around the remembrance
weekend.
I have watched him chase way decent sized 4 pointers.
The last 2 years, he seems to be the guy "getting on top"
This buck obviously will never be a 4 pt, he is genetically set to be 3pt at best, yet he is mature enough, big enough, and strong enough to beat out the competition.
For some reason, he avoids being taken during the "any buck" month of October.
But he is there in November, and "untouchable" due to "point restriction".
So, there is the chance to have more 3pt genes passed down the line....
So much for "trophy sized game" and using point restriction to achieve that....IMO.

As for the rest of this thread...I'm done...heard enough.
If the reports say the Fawn/Doe ratio is normal, then I would never support closing the season during the rut.
Why don't we just change the seasons and hunt deer in June, July and August then.....
Hey, can't eat the antlers anyways!....
Makes about as much sense as "shutting it down".
As for "shutting it down"...don't worry, this government will do everything they can to have that happen anyways,
and not just Gbear.

[horshur]

With respect your dominant three point is not passing a three point gene down anymore then any other buck...
Point restrictions are a tool to maintain buck to doe ratios..which obviously is working according to the stats and according to your anecdote.

[guest]

There haven't been insults just a bunch of people pointing out flaws in your proposal and general disagreement with it, big difference. I would say that other than managing exclusively for just trophy animals, most here me included applaud that you want to improve wildlife numbers and would support you on that. We just disagree with you on how to get there. I'd recommend looking in to the main drivers that dictate animals to flourish that have been derived by science based work and not anecdotal and emotional sources. Hunting is waaay down the list of importance for most species. Super conservative regulations and very low harvest opportunities for extremely low to no return in the big picture is a waste of time and likely counter productive in the long haul.

gotta like this !!!

[steepNdeep]

Too bad Josh doesn't have sex ratio data or pregnancy rate data to back up his proposals.

You know, science and stuff to justify reducing the harvest of surplus male animals, since we know surplus mature males reduce the productivity of herds and cause further reductions in game populations.

No one has produced either of the two criteria above to justify the proposals. Without such data, the proposals become social programs to simply restrict hunter numbers.

I asked the powers that be of BC Wildlife management:

Do WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS recommend hunting restrictions, such as Oct. 31 closing for muley bucks, as a tool for protecting mule deer populations:


The answer: YES

[Bugle M In]

Sorry Bud...point restriction has never been my anecdote.
As for buck to doe ratio, never really bothered with that either...
Don't believe me.... read my post #172, as I mention it's not the main factor.
As long as Does and Cows have fawns and calves to drop come spring time is all I care about.
After that, can enough of them survive Predation.
And, can they get enough nutrition thru the summer, and thru winter to survive.
Pretty simple.
If not enough Females are getting bred in the Fall, then yes, we probably have an issue with not enough males,
which then lends itself to the question....why.
Hunting a factor...yes, if not enough males to breed enough females....then restrictions are needed.
But I have yet to see the logic in any of these statement if there are enough % of fawns each spring.
As for #'s of deer...well, if there ain't enough deer, then yes, you may consider getting rid of a "Doe Season/LEH".
That's when it is important to have the right Buck to Doe ratio, to bring back a population as efficiently as possible,
and to maintain it......
And population can only be as high as habitat supports it.
No reason to believe point restriction would make it better.
As for the 3 point...yes, it doesn't mean he will breed more 3 points, but it is possible since he carries part of that
gene sequence....just depends on the doe as well.
But if I drop that buck, I can guarantee you... 100% ......that he wont be passing any part of that gene on...:p

[horshur]

But bugle you are hunting a four point restriction hunt.lets say they can that regulation do you have confidence that buck/doe ratios will remain optimal? The four point season is actually working for the most part. Science says it is. Other tools that managers have will cramp hunters worse. Ie LEH and shorter seasons. Long seasons in high access areas are hard on bucks you can't get around that.

[338win mag]

Has there been any forest fires in the west kootenay within the last 40 years?

[Dannybuoy]

Has there been any forest fires in the west kootenay within the last 40 years?
Oh yeah. lots of logging as well, lots of browse and grass in the meadows as its just like the okanagan.....very few critters to eat the feed.

[Fisher-Dude]

But bugle you are hunting a four point restriction hunt.lets say they can that regulation do you have confidence that buck/doe ratios will remain optimal? The four point season is actually working for the most part. Science says it is. Other tools that managers have will cramp hunters worse. Ie LEH and shorter seasons. Long seasons in high access areas are hard on bucks you can't get around that.

Science does not favour 4 point restrictions.



• Antler point restrictions focus all the hunting pressure on the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually decrease the
average age of the buck segment of the population, and make it more difficult for bucks to reach the older age
classes due to the displaced harvest pressure.

• Antler point restrictions have been shown to reduce the number of trophy bucks over time by protecting only the
smaller-antlered young bucks.

• Antler point restrictions do not increase fawn production or population size. Even in herds with very low
buck:doe ratios (<10:100), pregnancy rates are well over 90%. Large increases in buck ratios result in relatively
few, or no, additional fawns.


Available data and experience suggest antler point restrictions result in no long-term increase in either the proportion or number of mature bucks, or the total deer population.

[bearvalley]

• Antler point restrictions do not increase fawn production or population size. Even in herds with very low
buck:doe ratios (<10:100), pregnancy rates are well over 90%. Large increases in buck ratios result in relatively
few, or no, additional fawns.


How much does a low buck:doe or bull:cow ratio have to do with late born fawns and calves that have a lower chance of surviving their first winter?
Lets face it, mule deer are crashing and we are soon to get a 1 buck limit even though there’s a lot of empty habitat out there.
We had best start looking at ourselves as part of the problem and figure out how we can contribute to the fix.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

If we are not meeting our buck to doe ratio minimums, then restrict the seasons where needed.
You will find broad-based support if that's the case.

Pretty simple actually.
Proper funding will allow counts to be done more frequently.

SSS

[bearvalley]

Pretty simple actually.
Proper funding will allow counts to be done more frequently.
SSS
Good point as long as we move toward independent, unbiased wildlife inventory and harvest accountability.
There are a lot of holes in the current system.

[Dannybuoy]

If we are not meeting our buck to doe ratio minimums, then restrict the seasons where needed.
You will find broad-based support if that's the case.

Pretty simple actually.
Proper funding will allow counts to be done more frequently.

SSS
Not neccesarily true, as the number of does is dramatically being lowered as well. As bearvalley says lots of habitat

[dapesche]

What I don't get is why the Co's haven't utilized hunters to provide feedback throughout the season.

Have a database that hunters can enter data through using FWID online licensing page.

There will be skew but if you have 10 people in each unit reporting wildlife numbers from their trips to the bush, after about 5-10 years you start to get real numbers to work with and the boots on the ground are free.

Obviously would require more thought but there has to be a way to improve the data that the ministry uses for decision making...

[Fisher-Dude]

What I don't get is why the Co's haven't utilized hunters to provide feedback throughout the season.

Have a database that hunters can enter data through using FWID online licensing page.

There will be skew but if you have 10 people in each unit reporting wildlife numbers from their trips to the bush, after about 5-10 years you start to get real numbers to work with and the boots on the ground are free.

Obviously would require more thought but there has to be a way to improve the data that the ministry uses for decision making...

COs are not wildlife managers. They don't analyze population stats - not their forte.

We have a perfectly good system of sampling right now that gives valuable trend data. What we need is funding to do more scientific counts. Anecdotal hunter experiences are far too inconsistent to develop any reliable trend analysis from.

[bearvalley]

What I don't get is why the Co's haven't utilized hunters to provide feedback throughout the season.

Have a database that hunters can enter data through using FWID online licensing page.

There will be skew but if you have 10 people in each unit reporting wildlife numbers from their trips to the bush, after about 5-10 years you start to get real numbers to work with and the boots on the ground are free.

Obviously would require more thought but there has to be a way to improve the data that the ministry uses for decision making...

In some cases the data is there but a blind eye is being turned.
This has nothing to do with mule deer but some recently produced harvest data on a LEH bull moose hunt showed a consistent harvest of 160% of the targeted goal for at least the last 5 years.
No wildlife population can survive the pressure of maximum allowable harvest if there is no accounting from the management side to stop this type of abuse.

[Fisher-Dude]

160% on bull moose managed to 30:100 wouldn't necessarily create a conservation concern in 5 years. But it could push the ratio below target.

One must keep in mind that the 30:100 target is not a conservation target. That target is likely 15:100 or so, which for moose would still give a sufficient sperm supply. The risk is late breeding when cows don't stand for juveniles, and consequent later calf births.

The 30:100 target was developed to have several representative bulls of age classes I through IV, with opportunities for activities outside hunting including wildlife viewing and photography of the various age class specimens.

If we're 60% over target harvest, and outfitters who rank below resident hunters in priority with their 30/100 harvest, removal of the portion attributed to non-resident harvest would certainly bring the target very close to 100% now.

Are the outfitters willing to forego their last priority harvest in order to bring harvest into line? You know, for the moose?

[Keta1969]

In some cases the data is there but a blind eye is being turned.
This has nothing to do with mule deer but some recently produced harvest data on a LEH bull moose hunt showed a consistent harvest of 160% of the targeted goal for at least the last 5 years.
No wildlife population can survive the pressure of maximum allowable harvest if there is no accounting from the management side to stop this type of abuse.

BV I'm curious about what that would actually mean. Are hunters that much more efficient or there more moose than thought? I thought that LEH numbers were decided and a success rate calculated with the idea that say 100 authorizations would be issued with a calculated success rate of say 60% which would be 60 animals. So it would follow that going over by 60% this would result in the harvest of 36 additional moose or 96 total but still below the initial 100. Now if that's too many for a stable population they need to lower the number of authorizations especially if hunter success is because of increased access or some other unnatural condition. Don't doubt what you're saying but would be interested in where this is and your thoughts on why this is. By the way I might be misunderstanding how LEH is set but it has been explained that way to me.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Not neccesarily true, as the number of does is dramatically being lowered as well. As bearvalley says lots of habitat

But we are talking about hunting seasons and whether they are having adverse affects on mule deer.
The last antlerless mule deer season was in the mid to late '90s IIRC.

Licensed hunting isnt the problem.

[Bugle M In]

Can I ask this, and to get back to one of the OP topics ( I know, I was walking away from this thread)

1) What was the latest fawn to doe ratio in the WK MU's?
2) When was it done, year and month taken?
3) Is it considered by Bios a good or strong # or % ?
4) how often is this count down, every year or what?

If that is not good enough for some, then I don't know what is or would be?
As for hunters giving input, yes some of us have a good view of what it looks like out there, but I surely would not rely on hunters in general having "the facts" just from each others personal observations that for sure.

Hey, while we're at it, why don't we just throw in the "get rid of all the whitetails in the WK" so there is more room for Mulies to rebound debate!....lets make this whole thread even more colorful and all over the place then it already is :razz:

[Fisher-Dude]

BV I'm curious about what that would actually mean. Are hunters that much more efficient or there more moose than thought? I thought that LEH numbers were decided and a success rate calculated with the idea that say 100 authorizations would be issued with a calculated success rate of say 60% which would be 60 animals. So it would follow that going over by 60% this would result in the harvest of 36 additional moose or 96 total but still below the initial 100. Now if that's too many for a stable population they need to lower the number of authorizations especially if hunter success is because of increased access or some other unnatural condition. Don't doubt what you're saying but would be interested in where this is and your thoughts on why this is. By the way I might be misunderstanding how LEH is set but it has been explained that way to me.

You make a good point.

On the one hand, BV complains about moose numbers being dismal.

On the other hand, BV is telling us that hunters achieved 160% harvest over 5 years.

How is it possible to achieve 160% harvest for 5 straight years with dismal moose populations?

Something ain't adding up, and I suspect that it's from somebody trying to suck and blow at the same time. ;)

Now, of course, this extreme example may be the result of an AAH in one specific subunit of 1 moose per year, and having 8 shot in 5 years. 8/5 = 160%. Unlikely 3 moose will make or break a population unit, especially since huntable units generally require 100 or more animals to be open for hunting.

[bearvalley]

But we are talking about hunting seasons and whether they are having adverse affects on mule deer.
The last antlerless mule deer season was in the mid to late '90s IIRC.

Licensed hunting isnt the problem.
The question is what is the percentage of does that have fawns, how many are being born late and how viable is it for those fawns to survive.
Antlerless seasons, horn regs etc don’t mean s***....what’s the big picture causing the mule deer decline.
Is it too much pressure on the breeding bucks causing a fawn crop with little chance of surviving the first winter?

[bearvalley]

You make a good point.

On the one hand, BV complains about moose numbers being dismal.

On the other hand, BV is telling us that hunters achieved 160% harvest over 5 years.

How is it possible to achieve 160% harvest for 5 straight years with dismal moose populations?

Something ain't adding up, and I suspect that it's from somebody trying to suck and blow at the same time. ;)

Now, of course, this extreme example may be the result of an AAH in one specific subunit of 1 moose per year, and having 8 shot in 5 years. 8/5 = 160%. Unlikely 3 moose will make or break a population unit, especially since huntable units generally require 100 or more animals to be open for hunting.

FD, I’m not real big on sucking and blowing but a couple of government staffers were probably wishing they could do both when this came out...instead they chose to throw their colleagues under the bus.
As to numbers the 5 year resident number was 100, the harvest 160....all 5 guides in the region were reduced to .8 of a moose annually.....do the math.
This is only one MU....apply it province wide as I’m sure this won’t be a stand alone case.

[Fisher-Dude]

what’s the big picture causing the mule deer decline.


Habitat.

If we know one thing with 100% certainty, it's that.

But in this age of instant gratification, there's little chance we can convince holdouts that habitat = more mule deer, so we'll continue to screw with regulations and manage the population to zero.

[Bugle M In]

But bugle you are hunting a four point restriction hunt.lets say they can that regulation do you have confidence that buck/doe ratios will remain optimal? The four point season is actually working for the most part. Science says it is. Other tools that managers have will cramp hunters worse. Ie LEH and shorter seasons. Long seasons in high access areas are hard on bucks you can't get around that.

Long seasons and high access....
Lets talk elk for a second, and the best example is in the EK.
Road closures for 40+ years, because some R&G Clubs thought this would reduce hunter success and help keep
Wildlife Levels High.....restrict hunter access=less hunter success=more wildlife....
6pt Restriction for the past 20+years, because, there wasn't enough mature elk and a lack of "Trophy Sized Bulls"!
(starting to sound familiar doesn't it..to this thread???)
Guess What????............still NO MORE ELK....if anything, the #'s have declined!
And, lets not forget!!..elk hunting is from Sept 1 til Mid October...it's even a shorter season then mule deer is....
What does it mean??...not hunting related that's for sure.

[horshur]

Science does not favour 4 point restrictions.



• Antler point restrictions focus all the hunting pressure on the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually decrease the
average age of the buck segment of the population, and make it more difficult for bucks to reach the older age
classes due to the displaced harvest pressure.

• Antler point restrictions have been shown to reduce the number of trophy bucks over time by protecting only the
smaller-antlered young bucks.

• Antler point restrictions do not increase fawn production or population size. Even in herds with very low
buck:doe ratios (<10:100), pregnancy rates are well over 90%. Large increases in buck ratios result in relatively
few, or no, additional fawns.


Available data and experience suggest antler point restrictions result in no long-term increase in either the proportion or number of mature bucks, or the total deer population.

the point restrictions are a tool to maintain buck to doe ratios period. Are you arguing that? Really?

[horshur]

Long seasons and high access....
Lets talk elk for a second, and the best example is in the EK.
Road closures for 40+ years, because some R&G Clubs thought this would reduce hunter success and help keep
Wildlife Levels High.....restrict hunter access=less hunter success=more wildlife....
6pt Restriction for the past 20+years, because, there wasn't enough mature elk and a lack of "Trophy Sized Bulls"!
(starting to sound familiar doesn't it..to this thread???)
Guess What????............still NO MORE ELK....if anything, the #'s have declined!
And, lets not forget!!..elk hunting is from Sept 1 til Mid October...it's even a shorter season then mule deer is....
What does it mean??...not hunting related that's for sure.

bugle they have buck/doe ratio targets for scientific reasons. Point restrictions are a tool so is killing Does that is all I have been saying. For the most part managers have used the tools to maintain targets as they should and apparently for the most part buck/doe ratios are okay because of regs.Point restrictions/season duration/leh are other tools to maintain there targets. Pic your poison.

[bownut]

Good point as long as we move toward independent, unbiased wildlife inventory and harvest accountability.
There are a lot of holes in the current system.
Theres a hole alright, but as long as the system continues to allow hunter opportunity based on a questionable sustainability wildlife will carry on declining.
Resident Access was the Mandate for the longest time and now it turns out to be one of the top drivers along with habitat, was that based on science?
Funding for better science, and yet management claims the numbers are ok. What does a guy believe?
INDEPENDANT AUIDIT!!!!!!!

[horshur]

I agree Bugle. I'd like to see more data on predators impacts on ungulate populations. That muley conservation presentation, for instance, was lacking in several ways:

1) They did not specifically study wolves in it. Wolf populations were still relatively new & it would have been very controversial & expensive to cull them in several areas for a study.

2) They only monitored deer populations for 2 years after removal of predators & then it happened to be a severe winter which wiped out the deer population. Skewed the data

3) The study 'marked' & monitored fawns starting at 6 months of age. Many are killed by predators right at birth & in the first 6 months. Maybe they are too hard to mark before that, but I think they are missing a large chunk of data there.

It would be interesting to get some data on the wolves impacts on ungulate populations in Region 3. That place is infected...
Steep the lack of response to your points only makes them louder..keep posting them..when you post and there are crickets...It is pretty obvious

[dapesche]

People of this post and whoever else this may concern,

My name is Josh and I am the President of the WKBGTA. I would like to start off by making an apology, that being it has taken me this long to respond to all of your friendly inquiries about our organization. I started reading this thread over a week ago but have been awaiting registration approval from the administrators to allow me to post.

That being said I am going to dive right into this popular thread and hopefully address all of the questions, complaints and personal attacks on our VOLUNTEER wildlife organization. As far as the document with "our" proposals that you have all reviewed, it is accurate in some ways and completely inaccurate in others. Some of it has been completely misconstrued and false information has been released to the public and I am thoroughly looking into how that happened and who is responsible.

Let's start with the Mule Deer proposal. Yes, we do want to see a shorter season and our reasoning is we would like to see the mature bucks breed the does in peace during the heaviest rut period which we believe falls between November 1-10 (in most cases). We feel that those illusive, mature, breeding bucks dummy up during the rut and get harvested at their highest point of weakness when they are distracted by their harem of does. Another concern for this time of year is the potential for heavy snowfall which pushes these mule deer out of their living rooms and forces them to breed at lower elevations which are easily accessible to all hunters. I can assure you that our proposal had absolutely NOTHING to do with the meat being tainted with swollen, rutted up scent glands. I am a mule deer hunter (along with many other members of our club) and I have sunk my teeth into September bucks right through to November 10th bucks and I have never thrown a morsel of meat into my dog's dish. Our focus for mule deer is NOT to see more "trophy" bucks that will fill our banquet walls as some of you have accused, but to see a healthy, thriving mule deer population again in the West Kootenays and province wide. We are well aware that regulation changes are very low on the priority list when it comes to things needing to be done, however, that is all the biologists asked from us when we drafted this document therefor that is all you have read thus far. What you haven't read is our views on habitat loss, controlled burns, wintering ground restoration, predation and road closures due to high accessibility in the back country, just to name a few.

Next, the Elk/Moose Proposal. Yes, we proposed a combined provincial bag limit for elk and moose to be 1. Our reasoning SOLELY being to take some of the pressure off both species. We feel that by making a hunter choose one of the mentioned big game animals instead of both, it MAY help reduce pressure on the unselected species. Our proposal had absolutely NOTHING to do with families not needing that much meat, we are well aware of how much meat a family can burn through during the off season, especially if wild meat is the only meat on the menu. We are not and will never be an organization that tries to dictate how much meat a family may harvest in a hunting season. Our focus for elk and moose is spot on with mule deer, increase population, decrease calf mortality and create a healthy, thriving population for both species in the West Kootenays and province wide. Again, we realize that regulation changes are low on the priority list but as you can see that is all this document focused on when we were asked to draft our views.

I'm going to address a few questions I've seen regarding our banquet and in return I am going to ask some of my own:
Yes, we do host a "trophy" banquet each year for successful hunters/fisherman to enter their animals/fish into the competition for the opportunity at a trophy or certificate and possibly a free shoulder mount.
Yes, we put up all these entries on display for all to see throughout the night.
Yes, we have a big awards ceremony.

Now I have a few questions for you people:
Did any of you know that we have a junior category for all hunters under the age of 18 where no minimum requirements are necessary in any class?
Did any of you know that the banquet is open for ANYONE to attend and our non-hunter attendance is high and increasing as the years go on?
Did any of you know that we hold a massive fundraiser at the banquet that generates substantial funding for us to donate back into wildlife?
Did any of you know that with that funding, over the last five years...
We purchased a mechanical elk decoy for our local COS?
We purchase 4000 lbs of sheep feed annually for the Bighorn Sheep on the Salmo-Creston Pass, pick it up, deliver it and feed them once a week throughout the entire winter?
We've donated funding to "Beaks" bird sanctuary?
We purchased salt and helicopter fuel for the Mountain Goats in the Slocan Valley and distributed the salt via helicopter high on the mountain range to ensure decreased highway mortality?
We donated money to the East Kootenay emergency deer/elk feed program last winter due to the harsh winter conditions?
We maintain our own local deer feeders in the event of a harsh winter season?
Did any of you know that our organization is 100% VOLUNTEER?
Did any of you know that our organization is over 60 years old and has been giving back to wildlife since the day it started?
Did any of you know that the WKBGTA is part of a Regional wildlife group called the West Kootenay Outdoorsmen where we meet quarterly, hash out concerns and work directly with our local biologists and the BCWF in hopes of correcting some of the many problems this province is experiencing with wildlife?

I could go on but I don't want to ramble, that's not my intent. Things to remember about those proposals are only some of the information was accurate and they were based on our opinion of the WEST KOOTENAYS. We understand that the province has many different sectors that need to be managed separately. I apologize that you were all misinformed and I wish I had answers as to how that happened. I personally drafted our proposals myself and I would be happy to share that document with anyone that would like to see it. As hunters we need to stick together and threads like this are nothing but great ammunition for the anti's and we all know they already have a full magazine. For those of you that were judgmental, confrontational and malicious, I invite you to join our organization and inspire us with your energetic views on areas that need improvement in our organization. Our door is always open to people willing to contribute, suggest new ideas and improvements and dedicate their time to our wildlife. It's easy to sit behind the keyboard and criticize anything and everything someone is doing but it takes a certain somebody to get off the couch and make a difference. Unfortunately, complacency is a huge reason as to why we are here today. Involvement is the only thing that is going to make a difference and that's what we are striving for. Our club is heading over with a truck and car trailer to pick up 4000 lbs of sheep feed for the annual winter feed program on Saturday and then attending the quarterly WKO meeting on Sunday. What are YOU doing this weekend to make a difference? Are you going to be a keyboard hero or a contributor?

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. If you have any other questions or inquiries we have a website and a Facebook page that may help you understand who we really are and what we do behind the scenes.

You really need to get Trophy out of your name. You do a tremendous amount of work in our area, and I thank you for that. The problem is that the general public doesn't look that deeply into an organization like yours. They see your name and they begin forming their opinions and making generalizations. 'Trophy' is just fanning the anti-hunting fire.

For example, 'trophy' was used 18 times in this letter (http://bearmatters.com/). Think 'trophy' is a word that's being used to sway public opinion....?
(posted in this thread: http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?141502-Bears-Matter-and-NDP-candidate-Casavant-attack-Conservation-Officers-who-hunt)

[Bugle M In]

bugle they have buck/doe ratio targets for scientific reasons. Point restrictions are a tool so is killing Does that is all I have been saying. For the most part managers have used the tools to maintain targets as they should and apparently for the most part buck/doe ratios are okay because of regs.Point restrictions/season duration/leh are other tools to maintain there targets. Pic your poison.

I agree...there is "enough poison in the water" already.
Now a R&G club is asking to thro more in to the pool...close the season etc etc.

Again, the OP brought up 3 issues up that were proposed from this R&G.

And again, if you are going to close Oct 31.....then it is because there are not enough Does being bred...low fawn #'s
And again...what is the fawn to doe ratio, in these WK MU's, to support this initiative?
No one wants to answer that!! why...????
If someone can show me that it is consecutively low....then I would agree....something needs to be done.
If not.....then what is the "real intent"...
For F sakes...it's just common sense.....but no one wants to answer it, at least not the ones in support of this
proposal.

Another thing.....if there are not enough Does to begin with....then it should be any Doe LEH's should be dropped..
if that's the case...
But, then you have to also ask....are the Doe #'s low or is it because the "habitat" can't support more deer in the
area.??
One ,ore time...if there are tons of does, and there "not bred" during the rut, and come spring time, only a hand full of does have fawns...then yes...you have a "lack of F'n bucks" in those areas.

So I ask....what is the "real" factor ???
If there aren't enough Mulies....what is the real problem...and address accordingly.

I only hunt deer in the 4 pt season, and I rarely shoot one, because I like looking for big bucks myself.
All I can do, is to pass up on smaller ones....but I don't have the right to tell the next guy beside me to
"do as I do"...just so I can try a see more "big bucks".
That's why I brought up the stupid 6pt elk rule...
All the Guides in my elk hunting area kept spewing "6pt restriction is going to give us the chance to once again
see 350 class bulls!!".....No...it did not happen!!
As H47...he will tell you the same thing...hard to find a big bull.
Why....because soon as it is a 6pt...it gets dropped....simple.
But it may have survived my bullet, if I could have dropped the 3 pt I saw the day before.

Road Restrictions...same thing....they can definitely help...without a doubt, and in some areas, we have way too
many spur roads...for sure...atvs can go everywhere, even where there are no roads...
The thing is...restricting access doesn't work, if it isn't the problem in the 1st place.!!
IF it was the big problem, then there should be elk all over the EK...but their #'s are way down.
The examples I gave, are "restrictions" that have been put in place for years now, it's not like they just got introduced, so we still have to wait to see it come to fruition.
It should of happened by now.. but didn't...so....what is the real problem!!!????
It sure as heck ain't "hunter success"...no way is there 100% hunter success rate up there, not even close.
So be careful what poison you pick is very true....I agree.

Pick the right medicine to treat the particular problem....but you need to know what the problem is 1st...
not just say...let try this little pill over here.

If there has been no counting going on up there...then that needs to get done.
When the #'s show up, lets see what the issue is, there is still time to address it before a season starts.
But just remember, if the overall #'s are down, you may need to ask "can the habitat support more".

As for the word "trophy"...yes, people may want to consider it is becoming a "taboo word" outside of the hunting community.
Seems like any game hunting with the word trophy at the front of it, is coming to an end sooner then you think.
And having a "ruler" in your Logo, it "may" create some problems in the upcoming years.
Put's into question what the "real intent about hunting" is by some, especially those who sit on the fence when it comes to hunting.
I get the concept, I hunt, I know whats all involved when it comes to hunting, etc etc....
But, may want to consider "repackaging", or all the "good deeds" that the club does will just get tossed aside.
Anti's don't want to see the "good" in hunting...but they will look for anything to "show the public" the bad.

When it's comes to the WK, I don't get...
Elk goes GOS, and then some get all upset that there "trophy sized bulls" are all gone.
Now some want to make the deer season shorter...fine...but get the facts 1st.
What about all those resident hunters up there, when they grab the new regs, and see there deer season just
became a whole lot shorter....
Their the ones that are going to ask..."what the hell just happened"?
Better have the facts straight before you impose "your thoughts/strategy" on others is all I can say.
If the facts support it...good to go...

[Bugle M In]

SteepnDeep...your comments that you made on the study and wolves impact...
Yes, it is a very legitimate point you brought up.
Not enough time to really get the full impact on wolves in my opinion as well.
I honestly believe the EK and the wolves there have definetly impacted those elk herds.
But I do know, that pine beetle and lack of fires is probably the "biggest factor" that needs to be addressed.
Mother nature I hope has only just begun to get started in correcting that...meaning more huge fires to come like
the one in White River etc etc.
And yes, wolves in R3 are becoming ever more present, and I am sure the effects of them on deer/moose #'s
is only just starting....I don't think we have seen the "full effect yet"

Actually, R3 maybe a great area to have a study done on "wolf impact"
Lets face, much of that Region hasn't had wolves before...so it would be well worth a study there...IMO.

[Ourea]

SteepnDeep...your comments that you made on the study and wolves impact...
Yes, it is a very legitimate point you brought up.
Not enough time to really get the full impact on wolves in my opinion as well.
I honestly believe the EK and the wolves there have definetly impacted those elk herds.
But I do know, that pine beetle and lack of fires is probably the "biggest factor" that needs to be addressed.
Mother nature I hope has only just begun to get started in correcting that...meaning more huge fires to come like
the one in White River etc etc.
And yes, wolves in R3 are becoming ever more present, and I am sure the effects of them on deer/moose #'s
is only just starting....I don't think we have seen the "full effect yet"

Actually, R3 maybe a great area to have a study done on "wolf impact"
Lets face, much of that Region hasn't had wolves before...so it would be well worth a study there...IMO.

Which beckons the question......if studies are needed to acquire this data where does the money come from, who pays for it?

[Dannybuoy]

Which beckons the question......if studies are needed to acquire this data where does the money come from, who pays for it?
I would disagree that studies are needed or would accomplish much....the deer and moose pop are already a fraction of what they were/should be, spend the money on wolf removal instead. Already too much money being spent on consultants/studies. No need to reinvent the wheel

[Ourea]

I would disagree that studies are needed or would accomplish much....the deer and moose pop are already a fraction of what they were/should be, spend the money on wolf removal instead. Already too much money being spent on consultants/studies. No need to reinvent the wheel

And again.....where would that money come from (any money for that matter)?

[Dannybuoy]

And again.....where would that money come from (any money for that matter)?
Instead of pushing for a new organisation(the costs just to set up would be astronomical) the bcwf should be advocating this, spending some money on this,

[Fisher-Dude]

Instead of pushing for a new organisation(the costs just to set up would be astronomical) the bcwf should be advocating this, spending some money on this,

Liberals already committed $5 million to cover the cost for the start up.

That's uncertain with the NDGreens cluster we have now.

[Ourea]

Instead of pushing for a new organisation(the costs just to set up would be astronomical) the bcwf should be advocating this, spending some money on this,

And how would the NDP support such a move and expenditure knowing that anti hunting and conservation groups fully endorsed their party. They won't bite the hand that fed them.

In regards to setting up an organization that the costs "would be astronomical".......what's your idea of astronomical?
Give me a number

[Dannybuoy]

And how would the NDP support such a move and expenditure knowing that anti hunting and conservation groups fully endorsed their party. They won't bite the hand that fed them.

In regards to setting up an organization that the costs "would be astronomical".......what's your idea of astronomical?
Give me a number
1) this is one of the reasons why I give money to the BCWF to deal with the government of the day and probably why some wildlife are in such trouble ... ie cant deal with the wolves , natives , burning etc .
2) Obviously it would be millions and then more millions to do studies that have been done and done and done ...

If we know what the problems are ... predator control. habitat etc, then spend the money on that .... what makes you think a new organization is going to make any difference convincing the government of the day to do what is necessary ?

[Ourea]

1) this is one of the reasons why I give money to the BCWF to deal with the government of the day and probably why some wildlife are in such trouble ... ie cant deal with the wolves , natives , burning etc .
2) Obviously it would be millions and then more millions to do studies that have been done and done and done ...

If we know what the problems are ... predator control. habitat etc, then spend the money on that .... what makes you think a new organization is going to make any difference convincing the government of the day to do what is necessary ?

The message and plan has/is being delivered to very high levels.
The reception is strong.

Think of it more as a social and financial commitment to make all wildlife and habitat a priority in this province.... as it should be. That's an easy sell to both hunters and non hunters.
Second, table a funding model that is sustainable that all user groups can get behind.
Thirdly, and the tricky part.....propose and administrative arm that controls the purse that cannot be influenced by any particular user group.....in other words wildlife first...user groups second.

Sad part is there are user groups already trying to find ways to drive that bus.
The fighting in the sand box will never end....it's been proven over decades.
Remove control of the revenue from anyone in the sandbox and you have something everyone can get behind.

[Wild one]

1) this is one of the reasons why I give money to the BCWF to deal with the government of the day and probably why some wildlife are in such trouble ... ie cant deal with the wolves , natives , burning etc .
2) Obviously it would be millions and then more millions to do studies that have been done and done and done ...

If we know what the problems are ... predator control. habitat etc, then spend the money on that .... what makes you think a new organization is going to make any difference convincing the government of the day to do what is necessary ?


Where another orginization would be beneficial is if there soul purpose was to lobby and interact with govt

Right now in my opinion the BCWF is spread too thin to accomplish this effectively

With a govt like we have in place at this time A game is needed when bringing anything forward to achieve results

[bearvalley]

I’m just throwing this out but maybe holding wildlife in a public trust is a flawed system.
Looking at other jurisdictions, the ones with extremely successful wildlife programs have a combination of both public and private wildlife management.
If private landowners could buy into this concept the benefits to wildlife could be huge.
A lot of these landowners appreciate wildlife but at the same time large wildlife populations can become an economic burden to them therefor they do not encourage the growth of large numbers.
Turning a liability into an asset could have big returns for all.

[Ourea]

I’m just throwing this out but maybe holding wildlife in a public trust is a flawed system.
Looking at other jurisdictions, the ones with extremely successful wildlife programs have a combination of both public and private wildlife management.
If private landowners could buy into this concept the benefits to wildlife could be huge.
A lot of these landowners appreciate wildlife but at the same time large wildlife populations can become an economic burden to them therefor they do not encourage the growth of large numbers.
Turning a liability into an asset could have big returns for all.

Any new business plan is written in pencil, not pen.
Key is to sell the concept and then mine it down into the details.....like prioritizing projects and expenditures.

[bearvalley]

That’s the problem at present Ourea, there seems to be no plan....just an ask for funding.

[Ourea]

That’s the problem at present Ourea, there seems to be no plan....just an ask for funding.

I disagree.
Plan has been platformed.

[bearvalley]

There’s mixed messages on the entire issue, sorry Ourea....I’d like to see wildlife funded properly as much as you.

[Ourea]

There’s mixed messages on the entire issue, sorry Ourea....I’d like to see wildlife funded properly as much as you.

One issue is you have some user groups (who openly stated they would crush any funding model) now stepping up trying to drive the bus. Quite a switch, going from fighting it to trying to be perceived as championing it.

As I said to you before on the phone.....the only way this will work is if all parties support it.
The predictable infighting over control has already begun.....
Mix messaging?..... it's coming from those trying to get in a position of control.
I keep saying wildlife first.....some parties just can't get behind anything wildlife oriented unless they are at the wheel.

The message is clear BV.....it's those that are undermining it, their's your problem on messaging.

[bearvalley]

Ourea, I get it.
The problem is that no organization is behind the funding model unless it furthers their own personal goals.
In case you haven’t figured it out I’m not wet behind the ears when it comes to wildlife politics.

[Ourea]

Ourea, I get it.
The problem is that no organization is behind the funding model unless it furthers their own personal goals.
In case you haven’t figured it out I’m not wet behind the ears when it comes to wildlife politics.

Nor I in the business world.
Despite the obvious and calculated challenges I like OUR odds.
Cheers

[bearvalley]

Nor I in the business world.
Despite the obvious and calculated challenges I like OUR odds.
Cheers
Like I tried to tell you before....think of 2 things...reconciliation and comanagement.
Whether we like it or not....that’s a big stick and government is paying attention.

[Ourea]

Like I tried to tell you before....think of 2 things...reconciliation and comanagement.
Whether we like it or not....that’s a big stick and government is paying attention.

Acutely aware FN are the bell of the ball and no dance happens without them.
It's the sharks circling that I am trying to see marginalized.

[bearvalley]

Acutely aware FN are the bell of the ball and no dance happens without them.
It's the sharks circling that I am trying to see marginalized.
I understand and agree....that said we’ve probably both identified different sharks.

[Dannybuoy]

To be clear , I am not part of any of the organizations (sharks) alluded to ..... I throw the BCWF my membership dues in hopes that they "represent" as a gun owner and hunter and I at least get my atv liability insurance .
I voiced my opinion as some of the "facts" being presented are more theories .... statisticians and biologists use numbers to skew the results ... maybe I should add politicians

[bearvalley]

I voiced my opinion as some of the "facts" being presented are more theories .... statisticians and biologists use numbers to skew the results ... maybe I should add politicians
All part of providing maximum harvest opportunities and managing wildlife to zero.

[Bugle M In]

Ourea...I hear you completely....couldn't agree more.
"plan has been platformed".....where is this plan, as I would like to see it.. maybe others would as well?

As for spending money (which doesn't exist right now, but let's say it does)...
Agreed...money should be spent in the field of "action" as compared to studies....BUT....
let's take "wolf culling" as a course of action for example....
There is a lot of "disapproval" amongst the non-hunters in the province....
So, you will need some studies for "hard evidence", to show why the cull is needed...or to atleast support it,
even if those people still don't.
(doubt there has been any study on wolves in R3 and there impact as of yet).

Also, like the OP, we have some saying the season should be cut off Oct 31.....
yet, none of those people have shown me "the data" to support it, even though I have asked repeatedly???
So, if there is no current data on fawn/doe ratio....then before someone screams "shut it down"....
maybe scream....get out there and find out!!

But yes, I would love to see the money spent on action, addressing the issues where we "have already done" the
studies or have enough data and know what is needed.

Back to Ourea, and what he is saying.....he is bang on...where is the money going to come from.
Who "ALL" is going to contribute to it.
What say will they have or want???
Should they have any say?
Who is going to spend it??

[slowjo]

west kootenay shortening elk season

https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/content/shorten-west-kootenay-elk-general-open-season

[rogerb]

any idea if the elk archery season will be axed as well?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

west kootenay shortening elk season

https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/content/shorten-west-kootenay-elk-general-open-season

Based on one MU with a small sample size. Hmmmm.......

[Fisher-Dude]

Amazing that hunters are begging government to close more sustainable hunts down when they just saw their grizzly hunt abolished due to "opinion."

[Bugle M In]

Well...they in that area of the province asked for it...now they got it....
Now they will have more guys up there...all at the same time....chasing the same elk in a smaller window!
Have fun with that!!!!

Hopefully they will be posting their "monster elk" that they will be creating from that...sure would love to see them.
Lets see if they post it.....
I seriously doubt it...

[Bugle M In]

Amazing that hunters are begging government to close more sustainable hunts down when they just saw their grizzly hunt abolished due to "opinion."

I hear you.....
I'm lost for words....and to bring up stuff like this when NDP/Green is in power is about as foolish as one
could be....

[slowjo]

any idea if the elk archery season will be axed as well?

log in with your bceid and give your oppinion. i believe that with every rifle opportunity decrease should result in a bow hunting increase.

[338win mag]

I hear you.....
I'm lost for words....and to bring up stuff like this when NDP/Green is in power is about as foolish as one
could be....
I'm too self centered and lazy to check into it but... I bet that part of the province is NDP.
I would also bet the real smart ones can get even more foolish.
Cant wait for someone to suggest shortening the mule deer season in region 3,8, and 5 because of...global warming.

[Highlander Hunting]

The rutted up Muleys do require a little more care and preparation. My son calls it musky meat.

[303savage]

Because it leaves more moose and elk for the guide outfitters.

[Wolfdown]

When hunters are watching game numbers decline and no effort to improve things get suggested out of desperation

There is a need for change but we need well thought out change but no one can agree on what that is
It’s simple.. too many people taking too many animals.

[Fisher-Dude]

It’s simple.. too many people taking too many animals.

But there are fewer hunters now and they're taking fewer animals than before.

We haven't killed a southern caribou for 40 years - how are they doing?

We just got a brand new grizzly hunting regulation - is that because too many people are killing too many grizzlies?

Your simplistic solution is so far off the mark.

[Dannybuoy]

It’s simple.. too many people taking too many animals.


No , its not that simple ..... But when there is a finite number of animals and more die each year than are being produced , that equals a net loss ... hunters are the only regulated cause of death for wildlife as we have no control over the others, ie FN , wolf , cougar , bear, accidents , desease and probably a few more .
FD : Your example of the caribou is a poor one as we know thru science that the predators are almost exclusively responsible for the demise of the caribou.