Are We “Managing Wildlife to Zero” in British Columbia?

[Fisher-Dude]

Are We “Managing Wildlife to Zero” in British Columbia?


by Mark LR Hall | Jan 4, 2018



http://hunterconservationist.ca/wp-content/uploads/Nose-Dive-Hunting-Regulations.jpg



“Managing to Zero” is when;

Wildlife populations are in a long-term decline,
There is no plan to recover the populations to former levels and,
The only management action is to continually ratchet hunting seasons down so that hunting is not a cause of the population declines.

Are Hunters Contributing to the “Managing to Zero” Approach?

The problem with trying to get government committed to science-based wildlife management is compounded when hunters are only advocating for reductions in hunting seasons. More and more I am seeing that the standard “go-to” response from hunters is to advocate for shortening the hunting seasons and ask that government take hunting opportunities away. The most concerning part of this approach to hunter advocacy is there is often no solid evidence showing that hunting regulations are causing the declines in the first place. This is a dangerous approach to advocacy because it is driving hunters, wildlife managers and politicians down the road of endorsing populist wildlife management like we saw with the grizzly hunting ban decision.

If all hunters want is less hunting and they hassle and embarrass government to get their way the easiest cost-effective way for government to fix the problem is to take hunting away rather than invest in recovering wildlife populations. If a little bit less hunting is good for wildlife then is a lot less hunting even better? The messages we should be telling politicians are: Declining populations are the problem not hunting and investing in wildlife management is what it will take to recover wildlife populations.

Managing to Zero – Case in Point

In British Columbia, some wildlife populations and hunter harvest levels have been on a downward trend for many decades. For example, in B.C.’s Region 5 wildlife management unit the moose population suffered significant multiple population crashes over the last several decades. After each successive crash attempts were made to recover the moose population by eliminating antlerless seasons, closing the any bull GOS season, shortening the length of the bull seasons and putting bulls on Limited Entry. None of these changes to the hunting regulations caused the population to rebound. With minimal science and investment in moose management we don’t know exactly what is causing the moose declines or what combinations of factors or conditions are limiting their population recovery. The total moose harvest in Region 5 went from 3000+ moose to a few hundred in a period of 25 years yet there is still no formal science-based management plan to recover moose in Region 5. Research is under way to find out the answers but it’s only been started recently as a result of hunters raising concerns about moose numbers.

http://hunterconservationist.ca/wp-content/uploads/Supernatural-BC.jpg
Region 5 moose harvest trends. Moose are victims of the Managing to Zero approach.


In British Columbia’s Region 4 wildlife management unit the mule deer population crashed after the severe winter of 1996/1997 and consequently the hunter harvest crashed. The seasons were shortened in length, mule deer does seasons were closed and bucks were restricted to 4 points. With all these changes to the hunting regulations over the years mule deer have never recovered in Region 4. B.C. has not invested enough in mule deer research to know what factors are preventing the population from rebounding. Consequently we do not know how to recover the deer populations. Mule deer in Region 4 are a victim of the Managing to Zero approach and some hunters continue to advocate for more hunting restrictions on mule deer rather than demanding a science-based recovery plan.

Hunters recognized these declines decades ago and they have been demanding that the government take action to rebuild the populations. Hunters, guides and trappers are very in tune with what is going on in the areas they are familiar with. Local knowledge can be the early warning red flags that signal when more intense management is needed. This is why hunter’s field observations need to be documented in a systematic, objective and meaningful way to help verify wildlife monitoring data.

http://hunterconservationist.ca/wp-content/uploads/R4-1.jpg
Region 4 mule deer harvest trends. Mule deer are a victim of the Managing to Zero approach.

Obviously, when a wildlife population continues to decline hunting will need to stop at some point. Some hunters in B.C. continue to suggest white-tailed deer populations are crashing but harvest data suggest the long-term trend is one of increasing harvest and increasing populations. Many of the Bighorn Sheep herds in Region 4 have fallen below the threshold of 75 animals where provincial harvest policy says that hunting needs to be suspended. There are no science-based recovery plans being developed for sheep but this fact garners little protest from hunters. Bighorn sheep of the Rocky Mountains and Purcell Mountains of southeastern B.C. are victims of the Managing to Zero approach, lack of funding for sheep management and hunter apathy.

The Real Big Picture

Wildlife scientists are starting to tell us they are seeing similar patterns in the ups and downs of wildlife populations across western North America. There are no solid explanations yet but the oscillation of long-term continental weather patterns is one theory being looked at. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a 30-40 year natural oscillation in the warm currents of the Pacific Ocean. The PDO has already been linked to wildfire cycles as well as population fluctuations in Dall’s Sheep in North America. Wildlife populations across the continent are managed by many different approaches to regulating hunting. It is highly unlikely that with today’s conservation and science-based hunting regulations that hunting seasons in any one jurisdiction plays such a major role in influencing the long-term population trends of wildlife across such large regions.

-----Continued-----

[Fisher-Dude]

What are We Trying to Accomplish?

If wildlife populations are going to be restored there has to be clearly defined objectives for what wildlife managers need to achieve. Without objectives there can be no detailed management plans. Without detailed management plans wildlife management is ad hoc and directionless. Did you know that it is law in B.C. that protecting wildlife or habitat cannot be done in a way that unduly impacts timber supply? There is no legislation that says timber extraction must not unduly impact wildlife populations. That’s right. Wildlife managers cannot make decisions in the best interest of wildlife that impact timber supply. There is no legislation in B.C. that says mule deer, moose or any other wildlife species must be maintained at specific population levels. Without legislated objectives for wildlife populations as the starting point every other discussion about wildlife management is pretty much a moot discussion.

The Camps

When it comes to advocating for the recovery of declining wildlife populations there are three general camps on the issue.

Camp 1. Hunters with a Heart

“Hunters with a Heart” are the hunters who honestly feel if giving up hunting will bring back wildlife populations they are willing to forego their own opportunities. During the unregulated exploitation periods of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the history of conservation in Canada was about placing restrictions on hunting so wildlife populations could recover. The “Hunters with a Heart” mean well. They are unselfish and willing to give up something important to them for conservation. But they have fallen into the trap of believing that hunting in the 21st century under strict conservation principles and regulatory controls is the cause of population declines. The overall wildlife management model in B.C. has failed these hunters by allowing them to feel they are the problem. Hunters are bombarded with anti-hunting messages, negative media coverage and even substandard research that paints the picture that hunting is now bad for conservation. Wildlife managers and biologists should be clearly standing up and telling the government, public and media that hunting is sustainable and there is no reason to keep taking away from hunters. Too many hunters seem to believe they are the cause of wildlife problems and hunting regulations are seen by many as the only way to recover declining populations.

Camp 2. Hunter Hating Hunters

There is a small subculture in the hunting community comprised of hunters who hate other hunters being out in the mountains and enjoying success. There are folks who would like nothing more than hunting to be so restrictive that they are the only ones in the woods. In other areas of society this elitism manifests itself when the cost of an activity becomes a barrier to entry and only the rich can enjoy it. In hunting, making hunting regulations so restrictive that hunters say, “Screw it” and quit is something the “Hunter Hating Hunters” actually want to have happen. The real sinister part of this subculture is when folks use the situation of declining wildlife populations to advocate for shorter seasons, more restrictions, less opportunity and advocate for pretty much anything that reduces the number of hunters. These folks might not even be interested in having populations rebound so more people can enjoy success and the number of hunters can increase. Rather they might hope for the opposite. Often these hunter haters stand out in the crowd because they are the loudest ones at public meetings or they are the ones pushing their opinions over and over again in the local newspapers. They use the word “I” a lot and often use coercive tactics to get a group of people aligned with their way of thinking. Often their arguments lack logic and their opinions on hunting regulations are self-serving. You can often recognize these hunters because they advocate for restrictions that affect everyone else except them. For example, I recently read a submission where hunters said: “spike elk should be closed, hunting bull elk in the rut should be closed, the elk season should be shortened by 10 days and the remaining cow permits should be revoked”. At the same time the submission said, “Senior hunters should be allowed to hunt any elk at any elevation all season long”.

Camp 3. Hunters-4-Science

The “Hunters-4-Science” are the folks that want science and objectives to drive wildlife management. They are critical thinkers and well-versed in the scientific literature as well as being knowledgeable about wildlife management concepts and government policy. Some of these hunters are actual wildlife scientists. “Hunters-4-Science” believe that wildlife policy needs to be based on solid wildlife and human dimensions research. The “Hunters-4-Science” are often the ones asking questions rather than stating opinions at public meetings. They are the ones most proactive in engaging with biologists and politicians to find solutions to problems. “Hunters-4-Science” recognize that the future of hunting relies on sustainable wildlife populations and they know that sustainable wildlife populations rely on world-class funding for wildlife management, lots of science and lots of voters who care deeply about wildlife.

Does your Dog Bite?

There are many more examples of Managing to Zero in B.C. including salmon and steelhead populations that are on the brink of extinction because recovering their populations have never been a conservation priority. But all these examples share the same theme; our management approach in B.C. far too often involves watching fish and wildlife disappear from the land and then simply restricting fishing and hunting opportunities.

We risk getting bit in our collective asses when hunters take to the airwaves to start publicly stating that they want hunting regulations to be more restrictive or for hunting seasons to be shortened because hunting is causing wildlife declines. Some hunters believe that if they give up something in the name of conservation that the relinquished opportunity will be given back to them in the future when populations rebound. History has shown this does not happen. These folks trust that the media will report their claims something like this:

Headlines: “Hunters generously ask for reduced hunting seasons to help recover wildlife populations.”

When in today’s explosive and emotionally charged public forums the hunter’s words are more likely going to be turned against us something like:

Headlines: “Hunters admit they are devastating wildlife populations – Is it time to ban all hunting forever?”

Once this kind of headline hits the media there is no going back. Hunters have no control over what the media or social media does with their statements and we once again risk losing control of the hunting narrative. The media is most interested in reporting the angle of a story that creates controversy. In the eyes of B.C.’s media right now hunters are the evil doers and that’s the angle that sells papers. The anti-hunters are looking for anything hunters do or say so they can pounce and continue to drive nails in the coffin of our hunting heritage. I ask that hunters stop handing the anti-hunters nails and that they begin to work more collaboratively with biologists, scientists and other stakeholder groups so we can solve our most critical wildlife population problems using science and the roundtable approach. This doesn’t mean discounting hunter’s field observations, ideas or opinions but it does mean harnessing them and integrating them with sound wildlife science. This is how hunter conservationists and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation got us to the 21st century. As much as some folks state that the good old days of hunting are gone I firmly believe that things are pretty damn good right now! There are some wildlife populations in B.C. that are in need of intensive management and recovery but there are also many species and populations that are doing quite well. We still have an amazing landscape to hunt and some of the best opportunities in all of North America. For our youth hunters just starting out in hunting today is their good old days. Let’s not keep discouraging them by saying the good old days are gone.

What can you do to help? In my previous article (http://hunterconservationist.ca/12-ways-hunters-can-make-a-positive-change-in-2018/) I outlined 12 things hunters can do to create a positive change in 2018. These twelve mantras can also be applied to the issue of Managing to Zero.

Additional steps hunters can take to help include:

Approaching issues with “eyes-wide-open” so you are aware of power plays.
Focusing on the “Big Picture” vision for hunting and wildlife conservation.
Presenting well-thought out messages in public forums that cannot be spun by the media.
Demanding people speak the truth and back up opinions with facts.
Shifting the discussion away from hunting regulations to that of science-based wildlife management.
Telling your elected officials you want government to create legislated objectives for fish and wildlife populations.
Is it time we stopped pulling on the lever marked “hunting regulations?”


http://hunterconservationist.ca/are-we-managing-wildlife-to-zero-in-british-columbia/

[BgBlkDg]

The BEST post I have EVER read here and one which should be staple source material in every school and public venue in BC.

Good for you, FD, for posting this here.

[338win mag]

Exellent article.

[squamishhunter]

The government would love nothing more than for you to have to reply on a grocery store to feed your family.

[wos]

Thanks for posting.

[bigbuzz]

I agree. that is the standard for wildlife management across the entire country.

[digger dogger]

The government would love nothing more than for you to have to reply on a grocery store to feed your family.

DING DING!
I believe this is true!
A huge percentage already do.

[Ride Red]

Great post FD. Excellent information as BBD has stated. Unless our youth and general public are educated to the real causes of wildlife declines, our hunting heritage hasn’t a hope of surviving. A major continual media marketing plan needs to be implemented for the general public to see the truths behind the issues faced today. The anti groups are doing this, why aren’t we? With the right campaign, we could have millions of dollars flowing in to support wildlife projects such as habitat restoration, predator reduction ect. Time is of the essence.

[325]

Great post! I have tried to educate many hunters on the principles of wildlife management, only to have them stare glassy eyed and me and respond with “we need to put everything on LEH”. Many hunters just don’t understand wildlife management, and that needs to change. We also must insist that wildlife management is adequately funded so we can make sound management decisions based on truth.

As is stands now, we are trying to come up with solutions to the problem of declining wildlife, without having actually defined what the problem actually is.

[tater]

Seems like the Region 5 Moose graph may correlate to the timeline of the beginning of massive use of glysophates in cutblocks on deciduous growth.
No food, no moose may be one route of scientific inquiry to explore...

[kootenaihunter]

The fact of the matter is, it's doesn't really cost the gov't much, if any, to change hunting regulations to reduce harvests. Hunting is just one of many facets in wildlife management.

The other facets require money: research, legislation, habitat improvement, etc.

Only so much can be done from an arm chair and the rest requires boots on the ground, which requires money. It's easy to give lip service, do the cheapest thing, and say you've done something, but whatever is being done now is clearly not working.

BC's greatest resources are it's natural resources and they've been mismanaged for the all mighty buck for too long. The funny thing is, shifting the paradigm can pull in just as much money, if not more if done smartly. The fact of the matter is, hunters make up a a very small percentage of the population, so why the need to please us? If some tourist or city dweller is happy to a see a deer or bear once every 10 years, they're tickled pink. But most of the voters are so removed from the issues that we notice, it's not 'worth it' to pile money into the issue.

The biggest step forward that can be made now is getting hunting dollars into a non-partisan wildlife management society and get politicians fingers out of science based management so we don't end up with more hunting bans based on emotion.

[kootenaihunter]

Interesting to see the Mule Deer chart. Mule deer population drop has been notoriously blamed on the harsh winter of 96/97, but it's clear that the issue began way before that and maybe the winter just put another nail in the coffin. Looks like things started to head south around 92/93.

Would be interested to see that Region 4 chart trended against area logged in the region and road density.

[Wild one]

Hunting regs don’t do much for increasing populations on a large scale most known and agree. Hunting regs are more about working with the present population we have.

Big picture wise I would say 90%+ hunters agree the issue lies that we are not getting results come habitat issues, predation, unregulated hunting ext

Nothing wrong with limiting hunter impact well focusing on big issues.

What seems to go over some people’s heads is majorly of those supporting hunting reg changes are not blind to the main issues and support change. Most do not look at hunting reg changes as a way to dramatically increase game populations but instead being more conservative with the game populations we have

[steepNdeep]

Camp 3. Hunters-4-Science

The “Hunters-4-Science” are the folks that want science and objectives to drive wildlife management. They are critical thinkers and well-versed in the scientific literature as well as being knowledgeable about wildlife management concepts and government policy. Some of these hunters are actual wildlife scientists. “Hunters-4-Science” believe that wildlife policy needs to be based on solid wildlife and human dimensions research. The “Hunters-4-Science” are often the ones asking questions rather than stating opinions at public meetings. They are the ones most proactive in engaging with biologists and politicians to find solutions to problems. “Hunters-4-Science” recognize that the future of hunting relies on sustainable wildlife populations and they know that sustainable wildlife populations rely on world-class funding for wildlife management, lots of science and lots of voters who care deeply about wildlife.



fisherdude - It's good to see that you like my idea & post about it! ; I'd never heard you use "SCIENCE" before, but it looks like you have a new buzzword. Keep 'er going... lol



Good thread bownut & Ourea! Here are my 5 "investments that would provide the greatest impact and bang":

A campaign (primarily via social media) to educate the public (& politicians) about the necessity of an autonomous SCIENCE-BASED wildlife management system. This system must be guaranteed to run in perpetuity without interference from political whims.

A SCIENCE-BASED predator management program. This is the elephant in the room that must be addressed. If there are no animals left, what is the point of wildlife habitat? (See *** below)

Habitat conservation programs to protect wintering grounds, migration corridors, etc. (ie: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's Conservation Program)

Habitat enhancement programs. Prescribed by wildlife biologists & implemented by grass roots volunteer groups (ie: WKBGTA (haha)

A private fundraising platform to self-fund these programs. (Sounds alot like BCWF... ; )

*** “Determining Factors Affecting Moose Population Change in British Columbia: Testing the Landscape Change Hypothesis.” READ FULL REPORT HERE (http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs2016_2/603453/factors_affecting_moose_population_in_bc.pdf)

BCWF Summary HERE ( http://www.bcwf.net/files/2016%20AGM/2016%20AGM%20Presentations/Gerry_Kuzyk_FLNRO_-_Update_on_Provincial_Moose_Research_Project_in_Ce ntral_BC.pdf)

Research to date recovered 49 of the collars from moose that had died & determined that predators killed 21 or 45%:
• cougars killed 2 and a bear killed 1
• wolves killed 18 or 86%

>>> I'd like to see these same stats for deer in this region!


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

[Fisher-Dude]

Hunting regs don’t do much for increasing populations on a large scale most known and agree. Hunting regs are more about working with the present population we have.

Big picture wise I would say 90%+ hunters agree the issue lies that we are not getting results come habitat issues, predation, unregulated hunting ext

Nothing wrong with limiting hunter impact well focusing on big issues.

What seems to go over some people’s heads is majorly of those supporting hunting reg changes are not blind to the main issues and support change. Most do not look at hunting reg changes as a way to dramatically increase game populations but instead being more conservative with the game populations we have

Classic camp 1 response.

[Fisher-Dude]

fisherdude - It's good to see that you like my idea & post about it! ; I'd never heard you use "SCIENCE" before, but it looks like you have a new buzzword. Keep 'er going... lol

Classic response from a camp 2 hunter.

Claim to be pushing science, even when faced with a chart that shows a 2% hunting-related mortality, while simultaneously supporting further hunting regulations restrictions.

The most dangerous type of hunter that is feeding the anti-hunting groups and anti-hunting government with the exact ammunition they want to stop it all.

[guest]

Well done FD.

thanks for posting

[Wild one]

Classic camp 1 response.

Dont remember joining any camp only state my personal views and opinions lol

Want support on big picture issues might be wise to open your eyes to the agreement on the big issues and seek support here. Insulting and demanding everyone follow blindly on small issues is costing support on the big issues.

Learn a little give and take to find middle ground then you will build an army. Without this history will repeat it self

Truth is the only thing in my original post that goes against what you want big picture is I proffer a conservative harvest over max opportunity

But this makes me the enemy lol

[Wild one]

Thinking about it more FD is a camp 2 hunter in many ways lol

I am only using your classifications FD don’t get but hurt lol

[Salty]

Thanks for posting the article I hope everyone can read it with an open mind. This cut the regs save the animals bent is very entrenched in many, it has been for a long time yet as science gets better and better its proven more and more wrong. I know its been hard for me but changing my mind on issues through the years has had to happen and been the best things I've done in life. By shear odds there's just no way any one person has the correct view on everything from the get go.

[Weatherby Fan]

The trouble with managing hunters with cutbacks to hunting opportunity is like most things you will be hard pressed to get that opportunity back even if the science supports it !

[Wild one]

The trouble with managing hunters with cutbacks to hunting opportunity is like most things you will be hard pressed to get that opportunity back even if the science supports it !

And managing populations with max harvest in mind often leads to lower success rate and more $ spent trying to achieve success because the number of days available in the season. Over time this can actually cause some to give up hunting or cut right back

This also creates hunters that are less passionate about hunting/wildlife do to frustration. I actually see this a lot in BC.

Wonder why it’s hard t get more hunters involved in BC?

Remember majority of BCs hunters are not on forums or part of surveys

[Salty]

And managing populations with max harvest in mind often leads to lower success rate and more $ spent trying to achieve success because the number of days available in the season. Over time this can actually cause some to give up hunting or cut right back

This also creates hunters that are less passionate about hunting/wildlife do to frustration. I actually see this a lot in BC.

Wonder why it’s hard t get more hunters involved in BC?

Remember majority of BCs hunters are not on forums or part of surveys

Disagree. Hunter numbers in BC are on the increase and many from non traditional demographics. Lots of doom and gloom around, human nature I guess, but I have a very positive outlook for the future of hunting in BC ;) Political obstacles notwithstanding.

[Wild one]

Disagree. Hunter numbers in BC are on the increase and many from non traditional demographics. Lots of doom and gloom around, human nature I guess, but I have a very positive outlook for the future of hunting in BC ;) Political obstacles notwithstanding.

Yes hunter numbers have increased and have taken the time to mentor many. How many will only be fad hunters?

I have also seen many hunters cut back number of days in the field. Also seen an increase in questionable ethics that I won’t get into in open forum

[guest]

I might be wrong but I believe there largest number of new hunters to BC are the young females...... Great to see in my opinion.

Lets continue to help encouraging our youth to our traditions, heritage, our rights as lovers of the outdoors and conservation, healthy alternatives to supermarket butcher shops .

Spend time with those showing an interest, they are and will be our future. Have them get involved in voicing concerns to our officials.

[browningboy]

Great post, IMO I feel that hunters just don't back each other up, for instance the natives that got caught in poaching the elk, they have their tribe there supporting them... yes for poaching and not one law abiding citizen was there demoting their tribal gathering, the local fish and game clubs should be more vocal, however the local game clubs have been in decline due to the internet ( Social networking), time etc... Every hunter has a voice, with many people stepping up maybe the government will listen to our concerns however until there is a a significant amount of people banding together we will just be the shiet under their shoe..

It's pretty sad to see how fast the demise is coming, I hear next years regulations will have major impact for GOS in several management units, but right now that's hear say.... I'm not sure what the answer is, stronger membership in BCWF??

[Salty]

I hear next years regulations will have major impact for GOS in several management units, but right now that's hear say.... I'm not sure what the answer is, stronger membership in BCWF??

I'm not seeing major impact for GOS but here it is, you be the judge :)

https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/hunting

They're inviting comments until Jan. 19 within that site as posted in the BCWF section here. Let'm know what you think!

[IronNoggin]

The fact of the matter is, it's doesn't really cost the gov't much, if any, to change hunting regulations to reduce harvests...

The other facets require money: research, legislation, habitat improvement, etc.

And that, right there, is why you will NEVER see any government in BC do the right thing towards wild life & wild spaces without one hell of a groundswell of support. Given the demonstrable APATHY among BC hunters & anglers, that day may never come unfortunately.


The biggest step forward that can be made now is getting hunting dollars into a non-partisan wildlife management society and get politicians fingers out of science based management so we don't end up with more hunting bans based on emotion.

Again it will take some serious pressure to accomplish this.
Great theory.
Do we have enough support or sway to make it happen??

Wondering...
Nog

[Fisher-Dude]

Do we have enough support or sway to make it happen??

Wondering...
Nog


Oh, we have the numbers. 105,000 votes, plus whomever within our friends/family circles we can bring onside. There were only 1500 votes separating the pro-hunting party and the anti-hunting party in the 2017 election.

However, we're too busy arguing over 10 days of deer season, or whether we should see 50 whitetail does before 9 am.

And the ones we're arguing with want to lower that 105,000 number down via hunting regulations to some level that helps them sleep in an extra 15 minutes and not have some coastie beat them to their favourite spot in the morning.

We need the political voice that our 174,000 hunters gave us in the early 1980s. Coincidentally (or not), when that number shrank rapidly over the course of a couple of years to 84,000, that seemed to be the start of reduced funding and increased use of LEH and more restrictive GOS.

I don't know why the knuckle draggers can't connect those few simple dots together. Without a very strong number of ballots to influence politicians, we're ignored, along with the wildlife we cherish.

[scott h]

Seems like the Region 5 Moose graph may correlate to the timeline of the beginning of massive use of glysophates in cutblocks on deciduous growth.
No food, no moose may be one route of scientific inquiry to explore...

It only makes sense that that is one of the contributing factors. Not a lot of people in the industry want that studied too closely however.

[pg83]

Looks like I have a bunch of reading to do. Thanks for sharing this.

[Stillhunting]

^^^I noticed in one of those gps collar studies they did on moose that malnutrition was a larger than expected cause of mortality. I think you guys are on to something...

[elknut]

Yup..We have to get the vote out for the Liberal candidate ...It's the only party that will help us in our goal of a change in management and to restore G bear hunting..I'm not trying to put down the NDP supporters or the Conservative supporters but we must vote LIBERAL ...Dennis They are the only party that has our back..

[BgBlkDg]

Oh, we have the numbers. 105,000 votes, plus whomever within our friends/family circles we can bring onside. There were only 1500 votes separating the pro-hunting party and the anti-hunting party in the 2017 election.

However, we're too busy arguing over 10 days of deer season, or whether we should see 50 whitetail does before 9 am.

And the ones we're arguing with want to lower that 105,000 number down via hunting regulations to some level that helps them sleep in an extra 15 minutes and not have some coastie beat them to their favourite spot in the morning.

We need the political voice that our 174,000 hunters gave us in the early 1980s. Coincidentally (or not), when that number shrank rapidly over the course of a couple of years to 84,000, that seemed to be the start of reduced funding and increased use of LEH and more restrictive GOS.

I don't know why the knuckle draggers can't connect those few simple dots together. Without a very strong number of ballots to influence politicians, we're ignored, along with the wildlife we cherish.

Outstanding post and I well recall discussing this with a former BC Cabinet Minister or three, both NDP and Socreds. The most honest about it was Steven Rogers, who very bluntly told me that on wilderness issues, the IWA and "Union Jack" had a LOT more "votes" than did the environmental lobby, this in 1989.

So, time to get active and force our issues to government attention by pointing out the VOTES we can offer..........

[Bugle M In]

I have to say, I really like the time and thought that Mark Hall is putting into his article's.
One, because I totally agree with what was presented, and secondly, he states and backs it up.
He supports hunters, and wants to see wildlife to flourish, and he is a great Representative for all of us, at just the right time, considering all of the challenges that we are faced with right now, and the hurdles still to overcome.

[Fisher-Dude]

Outstanding post and I well recall discussing this with a former BC Cabinet Minister or three, both NDP and Socreds. The most honest about it was Steven Rogers, who very bluntly told me that on wilderness issues, the IWA and "Union Jack" had a LOT more "votes" than did the environmental lobby, this in 1989.

So, time to get active and force our issues to government attention by pointing out the VOTES we can offer..........

Yep, you got that right Dewey.

When I spoke with former Minister Barry Penner circa 2007 about opening a wolf season in region 8, he told me that he has a 3 inch pile of letters on his desk from people who don't want any wolves shot, and one piece of paper from me. "What do you think I can do when that's what I'm faced with?" he asked.

It was a point that has resonated with me and has motivated me to work hard to restore hunters' political clout. Often, it's like herding cats. Having to battle the 3 inch stack of antis as well as battle hunters who want to close down hunting is a big challenge.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I have to say, I really like the time and thought that Mark Hall is putting into his article's.
One, because I totally agree with what was presented, and secondly, he states and backs it up.
He supports hunters, and wants to see wildlife to flourish, and he is a great Representative for all of us, at just the right time, considering all of the challenges that we are faced with right now, and the hurdles still to overcome.

Totally agree with you, Bugle!

He represents hunters and conservationists well.

[horshur]

Classic response from a camp 2 hunter.

Claim to be pushing science, even when faced with a chart that shows a 2% hunting-related mortality, while simultaneously supporting further hunting regulations restrictions.

The most dangerous type of hunter that is feeding the anti-hunting groups and anti-hunting government with the exact ammunition they want to stop it all.

or is it the hunter association that is being fed by the anti hunting groups with money.

[IronNoggin]

Yup..We have to get the vote out for the Liberal candidate ...It's the only party that will help us in our goal of a change in management and to restore G bear hunting...

I agree.

But I feel that I should point out that in this hour of rising to that challenge, we also REMIND our Liberal Candidates (and I mean Remind Them Often) as to WHY you are supporting or even promoting them.
Do not ever assume they will always understand that.

Make it a point.

Repeatedly...

And if all goes well, they will remember the back they have when we replace the current trough snufflers with them. ;-)

Cheers,
Nog

[Bugle M In]

I agree.

But I feel that I should point out that in this hour of rising to that challenge, we also REMIND our Liberal Candidates (and I mean Remind Them Often) as to WHY you are supporting or even promoting them.
Do not ever assume they will always understand that.

Make it a point.

Repeatedly...

And if all goes well, they will remember the back they have when we replace the current trough snufflers with them. ;-)

Cheers,
Nog

Yup......definitely remind them why !!

[Bugle M In]

or is it the hunter association that is being fed by the anti hunting groups with money.

I have to ask...did you like Hall's point of view....or not???

[bownut]

That was a great read, his past article on a 2018 Mantra had some solid foundation that hunters and non hunters should focus on.

It's funny I never read anything on promoting illegal activities like Buying 25$ worth of 1080 and go out and poison wolves.
Try to make less friends and stronger enemies.

Maybe that member should start with #2 and#4, just saying.

Comments like this will only fuel the anti hunter movement, and make the G-Bear Ban look like a Bedtime Story...

[horshur]

I have to ask...did you like Hall's point of view....or not???
The fed should practice what they preach...hunters hating hunters, so what was the last ten year campaign against the guide outfitters exactly.

[horshur]

Hunters hating hunters..so what are First Nations?

[horshur]

Hunters against hunters..so look thu archives on fed opinion regarding bow hunting seasons. The division they have caused by fighting hunters, hunter associations, individual opinions on internet boards..

[Salty]

The fed should practice what they preach...hunters hating hunters, so what was the last ten year campaign against the guide outfitters exactly.

That's not even remotely the case there was no riff at all until the Allocation issue. Speaking of which most of us are willing to leave the past in the past and look forward with common goals. Flinging this kind of crap isn't helping anyone.

[Gateholio]

That sure is a good article...Thanks for posting it!

[Bugle M In]

The fed should practice what they preach...hunters hating hunters, so what was the last ten year campaign against the guide outfitters exactly.

So, let me get this straight, Hall is a friend of FD, and I suspect you are not a friend of FD.
So, a friend of your enemy is also your enemy, got it!
And because I agree with FD much of the time (not always), that must make me his friend as well, and your enemy also. (FYI, I have 0 affiliation with BCWF, nor am I a member at this given time)
It's seems like the term "choirboys" has floated around a lot as of late, ans seems to relate to "anybody" who shares FD's views etc, so I guess that makes me a part of the "choirboys", fine by me!
Yup, I have "dick" between my legs, so I am a boy.....good!
So, hope you don't mind if I take the opportunity to be a "prick", since that is what I was given, and say this.
At least I am not acting like a "schoolgirl" here, on this thread...you know.. "oh, your friends with her, so you are not my friend". (Just cause Hall and FD know each other).
Hall is trying to bring all of us together, RH, GO, Trapper, FN, and ranchers and farmers (if they enjoy hunting, or want more wildlife), and to get on the same page, before it is too late.
Done!

[horshur]

That's not even remotely the case there was no riff at all until the Allocation issue. Speaking of which most of us are willing to leave the past in the past and look forward with common goals. Flinging this kind of crap isn't helping anyone.
They are still fighting...his previous blog attacked the kootenay sportsman association, inferred they were trumpish, not educated or sophisticated like him that they were sheep following a personality. Same old tune.

[gcreek]

Seems like the Region 5 Moose graph may correlate to the timeline of the beginning of massive use of glysophates in cutblocks on deciduous growth.
No food, no moose may be one route of scientific inquiry to explore...

I'm thinking the spike in 1987 was when the roads opened up for the slaughter here at Anahim Lake.

[gcreek]

thinking about it more fd is a camp 2 hunter in many ways lol

i am only using your classifications fd don’t get but hurt lol

lol!!!!!!!!!!

[dana]

So if regulations don't save critters, then why in the heck do we have them? Really, claiming to be a conservationist and then also claiming regulations do nothing to save wildlfe? Is that what ol' Teddy was thinking when he founded the North America Conservation Model. We have been doing it wrong all these many years. Hunting Regulations do nothing for our wildlife eh? Hmm, then why the heck don't we open up a season for Southern Mountain Caribou. It is obvious that nothing that we've done the last 50 years has stopped their decline. Might as well give hunters opportunity right? Zero chance of harvest but plenty of hunter oppotunity not much different than hunting moose and muleys in many units in this province. The fact is True Conservationists are willing to give up the hunt when they see animals in peril. They actually want to help them, not kill them off. But, again, only one group of conservationists are right and all the others are dead wrong! Again, hunters fighting with hunters. If you don't drink the same Koolaid as the 'in' crowd, you must be stopped at all costs. It is alright for them to fight other hunters because they are the 'noble' ones. Everyone else must stop disagreeing with them because to disagree means to be an antihunter. Funny how the tune has changed. 3 years ago anyone that said lets not fight, hunters need to stick together was tarred and feathered. Anyone that said, don't sleep with the enemy, the NDP are not to be trusted, was backstabbed and lied about. But, now when THEY say hunters need to stick together, we better listen or else we will be tarred and feathered once again.

[gcreek]

So if regulations don't save critters, then why in the heck do we have them? Really, claiming to be a conservationist and then also claiming regulations do nothing to save wildlfe? Is that what ol' Teddy was thinking when he founded the North America Conservation Model. We have been doing it wrong all these many years. Hunting Regulations do nothing for our wildlife eh? Hmm, then why the he k don't we open up a season for Southern Mountain Caribou. It is obvious that nothing that we've done the last 50 years has stopped their decline. Might as well give hunters opportunity right? Zero chance of harvest but plenty of hunter oppotunity not much different than hunting moose and muleys in many units in this province. The fact is True Conservationists are willing to give up the hunt when they see animals in peril. They actually want to help them, not kill them off. But, again, only one group of conservationists are right and all the others are dead wrong! Again, hunters fighting with hunters. If you don't drink the same Koolaid as the 'in' crowd, you must be stopped at all costs. It is alright for them to fight other hunters because they are the 'noble' ones. Everyone else must stop disagreeing with them because to disagree means to be an antihunter. Funny how the tune has changed. 3 years ago anyone that said lets not fight, hunters need to stick together was tarred and feathered. Anyone that said, don't sleep with the enemy, the NDP are not to be trusted, was backstabbed and lied about. But, now when they say hunters need to stick together, we better listen or else we will be tarred and feathered once again.

Hear! Hear!

[Ourea]

So if regulations don't save critters, then why in the heck do we have them? Really, claiming to be a conservationist and then also claiming regulations do nothing to save wildlfe? Is that what ol' Teddy was thinking when he founded the North America Conservation Model. We have been doing it wrong all these many years. Hunting Regulations do nothing for our wildlife eh? Hmm, then why the heck don't we open up a season for Southern Mountain Caribou. It is obvious that nothing that we've done the last 50 years has stopped their decline. Might as well give hunters opportunity right? Zero chance of harvest but plenty of hunter oppotunity not much different than hunting moose and muleys in many units in this province. The fact is True Conservationists are willing to give up the hunt when they see animals in peril. They actually want to help them, not kill them off. But, again, only one group of conservationists are right and all the others are dead wrong! Again, hunters fighting with hunters. If you don't drink the same Koolaid as the 'in' crowd, you must be stopped at all costs. It is alright for them to fight other hunters because they are the 'noble' ones. Everyone else must stop disagreeing with them because to disagree means to be an antihunter. Funny how the tune has changed. 3 years ago anyone that said lets not fight, hunters need to stick together was tarred and feathered. Anyone that said, don't sleep with the enemy, the NDP are not to be trusted, was backstabbed and lied about. But, now when THEY say hunters need to stick together, we better listen or else we will be tarred and feathered once again.

My, that didn't put another log on the fire.

[f350ps]

Outstanding post and I well recall discussing this with a former BC Cabinet Minister or three, both NDP and Socreds. The most honest about it was Steven Rogers, who very bluntly told me that on wilderness issues, the IWA and "Union Jack" had a LOT more "votes" than did the environmental lobby, this in 1989.

So, time to get active and force our issues to government attention by pointing out the VOTES we can offer..........
So I guess I'll be buying you a beer also on on Monday night at the Central City Brew Pub hey Dewey, here's your chance to let Wilkinson know why your going to vote Liberal, Circa, 2018. K

[Husky7mm]

I didnt read the whole thread as I was short on time. Its been my observation that the decline of a "good" unit parallels a regulation change for the most part. We dont want to say that out loud because that affects hunter opportunitiy and recuitment which is important for the future of legal hunting. We need as many people on our side as we can get. So why is it that we have apperantly less hunters and less game today than a few decades ago?


#1 Access

Access into every crack and crevice has tipped the scale for the predator, both 4 and 2 legged. When you work in the bush yr round it becomes as obvious as the nose on your face.

#2 pred numbers

We have decades of compounding predator numbers due to a change in our society.

#3 media

There are no secrets, nothing is untouched or unexplored.

Add late to react under funded flawed management into it and its a real receipt for disaster.

[bownut]

So if regulations don't save critters, then why in the heck do we have them? Really, claiming to be a conservationist and then also claiming regulations do nothing to save wildlfe? Is that what ol' Teddy was thinking when he founded the North America Conservation Model. We have been doing it wrong all these many years. Hunting Regulations do nothing for our wildlife eh? Hmm, then why the heck don't we open up a season for Southern Mountain Caribou. It is obvious that nothing that we've done the last 50 years has stopped their decline. Might as well give hunters opportunity right? Zero chance of harvest but plenty of hunter oppotunity not much different than hunting moose and muleys in many units in this province. The fact is True Conservationists are willing to give up the hunt when they see animals in peril. They actually want to help them, not kill them off. But, again, only one group of conservationists are right and all the others are dead wrong! Again, hunters fighting with hunters. If you don't drink the same Koolaid as the 'in' crowd, you must be stopped at all costs. It is alright for them to fight other hunters because they are the 'noble' ones. Everyone else must stop disagreeing with them because to disagree means to be an antihunter. Funny how the tune has changed. 3 years ago anyone that said lets not fight, hunters need to stick together was tarred and feathered. Anyone that said, don't sleep with the enemy, the NDP are not to be trusted, was backstabbed and lied about. But, now when THEY say hunters need to stick together, we better listen or else we will be tarred and feathered once again.

Thank You Dana.

I was asked a while back why do I waste my time here, and what was my goal? My only answer was, and still is "It's All About Exposure"
When I look back on some of my old threads asking questions about wildlife management and why we allowed the things that we do, it was to learn.
Educate myself about the Drivers that effect the mountains and game within them. I have opened my eyes thanks to everyone here.
The comments like "Wheres The Science", "We Need The Funding", "It's The Natives", "It's The Predators,"It's The Government","It"s Habitat", "Access"
Never ever does Hunter Harvest, Hunter Pressure, Ethical Hunting,Fair Chase have anything to do with it. When that question comes up, the ankle kicking starts.
Nature feels every hole the result is the same, a empty bucket.

You are so right, when organizations need your support the become your friend and take your money with a smile. Sucks don't it?

[Bugle M In]

hmmm....looking at the charts, since 1976, things just decline.
But, look at the pages of hunting regs since 1976 till now, well those sure have grown (no one can argue that)
So, I guess there just wasn't enough hunting restrictions passed year after year til now.
So hey,throw in some more.
Funny, haven't heard many saying to remove many of them, just, "why add more", if it has shown not to
"help enough" to make a difference.....hmmm
Totally makes sense to me now...lol

[horshur]

hmmm....looking at the charts, since 1976, things just decline.
But, look at the pages of hunting regs since 1976 till now, well those sure have grown (no one can argue that)
So, I guess there just wasn't enough hunting restrictions passed year after year til now.
So hey,throw in some more.
Funny, haven't heard many saying to remove many of them, just, "why add more", if it has shown not to
"help enough" to make a difference.....hmmm
Totally makes sense to me now...lol

What makes sense? That the urban will, development for jobs and social programs, urban sprawl and all the concurrent uglies of humanity have had there effect and hunters can do shit all about it except Resort to Arsony.
None of the proposed regulation are detrimental to wildlife. The statistics have already been posted that very little in hunter harvest will change if you believe them. So what's the big deal?
We have no social licence to do what needs to be done even habitat wise. So why blame hunter groups for proposals? Put the blame where it belongs.

[steepNdeep]

The Camps When it comes to advocating for the recovery of declining wildlife populations there are three general camps on the issue.
Camp 1. Hunters with a Heart
“Hunters with a Heart” are the hunters who honestly feel if giving up hunting will bring back wildlife populations they are willing to forego their own opportunities. During the unregulated exploitation periods of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the history of conservation in Canada was about placing restrictions on hunting so wildlife populations could recover. The “Hunters with a Heart” mean well. They are unselfish and willing to give up something important to them for conservation. But they have fallen into the trap of believing that hunting in the 21st century under strict conservation principles and regulatory controls is the cause of population declines. The overall wildlife management model in B.C. has failed these hunters by allowing them to feel they are the problem. Hunters are bombarded with anti-hunting messages, negative media coverage and even substandard research that paints the picture that hunting is now bad for conservation. Wildlife managers and biologists should be clearly standing up and telling the government, public and media that hunting is sustainable and there is no reason to keep taking away from hunters. Too many hunters seem to believe they are the cause of wildlife problems and hunting regulations are seen by many as the only way to recover declining populations.
Camp 2. Hunter Hating Hunters
There is a small subculture in the hunting community comprised of hunters who hate other hunters being out in the mountains and enjoying success. There are folks who would like nothing more than hunting to be so restrictive that they are the only ones in the woods. In other areas of society this elitism manifests itself when the cost of an activity becomes a barrier to entry and only the rich can enjoy it. In hunting, making hunting regulations so restrictive that hunters say, “Screw it” and quit is something the “Hunter Hating Hunters” actually want to have happen. The real sinister part of this subculture is when folks use the situation of declining wildlife populations to advocate for shorter seasons, more restrictions, less opportunity and advocate for pretty much anything that reduces the number of hunters. These folks might not even be interested in having populations rebound so more people can enjoy success and the number of hunters can increase. Rather they might hope for the opposite. Often these hunter haters stand out in the crowd because they are the loudest ones at public meetings or they are the ones pushing their opinions over and over again in the local newspapers. They use the word “I” a lot and often use coercive tactics to get a group of people aligned with their way of thinking. Often their arguments lack logic and their opinions on hunting regulations are self-serving. You can often recognize these hunters because they advocate for restrictions that affect everyone else except them. For example, I recently read a submission where hunters said: “spike elk should be closed, hunting bull elk in the rut should be closed, the elk season should be shortened by 10 days and the remaining cow permits should be revoked”. At the same time the submission said, “Senior hunters should be allowed to hunt any elk at any elevation all season long”.

Camp 3. Hunters-4-Science
The “Hunters-4-Science” are the folks that want science and objectives to drive wildlife management. They are critical thinkers and well-versed in the scientific literature as well as being knowledgeable about wildlife management concepts and government policy. Some of these hunters are actual wildlife scientists. “Hunters-4-Science” believe that wildlife policy needs to be based on solid wildlife and human dimensions research. The “Hunters-4-Science” are often the ones asking questions rather than stating opinions at public meetings. They are the ones most proactive in engaging with biologists and politicians to find solutions to problems. “Hunters-4-Science” recognize that the future of hunting relies on sustainable wildlife populations and they know that sustainable wildlife populations rely on world-class funding for wildlife management, lots of science and lots of voters who care deeply about wildlife

"Classic camp 1 response."

"Classic response from a camp 2 hunter."



fisherdude - This attitude is POISON for hunting. Anti-hunters would applaud you for promoting segregation and fighting within the hunting community. Dividing the hunting community is negative & will only result in it's FAILURE.

You post some good information, but your attitude can be so abrasive & confrontational at times, that it turns people off & makes them want to argue & play devil's advocate.

I believe that wildlife management must be based on science & support that. I am willing to forgo my own hunting opportunities if it will help wildlife populations. I have no problem finding game, enjoy sharing & reading about other hunter's success - which is mainly why I visit this forum.

You can choose to focus on the positive or negative. We need to work together as a community to focus on finding constructive solutions.

[bownut]

I Agree I got more from his past . article than the F/D's post on how to divide us.

Good Stuff.
http://hunterconservationist.ca/12-ways-hunters-can-make-a-positive-change-in-2018/

Wasn't Hall involved with the BCWF foe a while, what ever happened to him?

[LBM]

I'm thinking the spike in 1987 was when the roads opened up for the slaughter here at Anahim Lake.

The slaughter, do you mean by humans.

[LBM]

hmmm....looking at the charts, since 1976, things just decline.
But, look at the pages of hunting regs since 1976 till now, well those sure have grown (no one can argue that)
So, I guess there just wasn't enough hunting restrictions passed year after year til now.
So hey,throw in some more.
Funny, haven't heard many saying to remove many of them, just, "why add more", if it has shown not to
"help enough" to make a difference.....hmmm
Totally makes sense to me now...lol

Restrictions, there has been many things added in, Wk elk came off leh Some region 4 goats came off leh mind you the one didn't last long
could because of to many of the wrong ones being shot. Whitetail doe season, spike fork moose season , early and late bow seasons been
quit a few additions as well.

[LBM]

Great post! I have tried to educate many hunters on the principles of wildlife management, only to have them stare glassy eyed and me and respond with “we need to put everything on LEH”. Many hunters just don’t understand wildlife management, and that needs to change. We also must insist that wildlife management is adequately funded so we can make sound management decisions based on truth.

As is stands now, we are trying to come up with solutions to the problem of declining wildlife, without having actually defined what the problem actually is.

Yes very good article of ones opinions/thoughts but in both examples says use science but doesn't no what the problems are.

[Bugle M In]

What makes sense? That the urban will, development for jobs and social programs, urban sprawl and all the concurrent uglies of humanity have had there effect and hunters can do shit all about it except Resort to Arsony.
None of the proposed regulation are detrimental to wildlife. The statistics have already been posted that very little in hunter harvest will change if you believe them. So what's the big deal?
We have no social licence to do what needs to be done even habitat wise. So why blame hunter groups for proposals? Put the blame where it belongs.

Honestly, I thought I was, that the Fault is with the Ministry (the government), and that they just try to manage wildlife with "hunting regs", ever year.
I never said hunting reg don't need to exist, they do!, but they haven't helped produce more wildlife!!
It just keeps going downhill, and they wont manage wolves, and they never wanted to spray to kill the beetle way back when it started, years and years ago...all due to public pressure, and worse, ripping us hunters off by not using all 100% of our tag money to put back into burns or what have you.
Don't have to tell me about urban sprawl, cant go from 4 million to 9 billion and climbing on the same little ball floating in space, and hope that everything stays the same.
But hunters are the biggest reason why animals are disappearing all over this planet, and with a little help from hunters, have shown to grow, instead of decline, if money is thrown back into the system.
Sorry, I tried to be respectful when I asked you about if you liked the article, but you ended up just going on with some sort of BCWF conspiracy, and it just ends up wrecking thread after thread around here, and its not just you, lots of people involved, in both camps.

[LBM]

Classic response from a camp 2 hunter.

Claim to be pushing science, even when faced with a chart that shows a 2% hunting-related mortality, while simultaneously supporting further hunting regulations restrictions.

The most dangerous type of hunter that is feeding the anti-hunting groups and anti-hunting government with the exact ammunition they want to stop it all.

Interesting what you think of others FD well you seem to push for science based things so will see if things can be answered here.
Lets just talk goats since in the other thread you stated the population must be >100 in every year or there wouldn't be a hunt well I should where in 4-25a there was a count of 25 and they still had a hunt, So according to what you posted some thing is wrong, also don't believe they do counts every year so again if this is true , something is wrong.
So can you help make me believe this science based management and post up the goat count numbers for the last 15 years in that area, or for all mus in region 4. If you could post up the moose count numbers for the last 15 years by MU in region 4 that would be great as well or at least provide a link that shows this. Then I and others may be able to start to believe science based management since you say it must be plus a certain number in every year.
Thanks for your time.

[Bugle M In]

Restrictions, there has been many things added in, Wk elk came off leh Some region 4 goats came off leh mind you the one didn't last long
could because of to many of the wrong ones being shot. Whitetail doe season, spike fork moose season , early and late bow seasons been
quit a few additions as well.

LBM, I am all for hunting regs, they are needed, that's a given.
But have to admit, always just more and more regs, but, no money being put in for any sort of projects.
Look at you hometown and surroundings...
Just more resorts and urban sprawl, but none of them putting any money in.
But, even if they did, the government would just piss it away "under general revenue".

[Fisher-Dude]

Interesting what you think of others FD well you seem to push for science based things so will see if things can be answered here.
Lets just talk goats since in the other thread you stated the population must be >100 in every year or there wouldn't be a hunt well I should where in 4-25a there was a count of 25 and they still had a hunt, So according to what you posted some thing is wrong, also don't believe they do counts every year so again if this is true , something is wrong.
So can you help make me believe this science based management and post up the goat count numbers for the last 15 years in that area, or for all mus in region 4.

Mountain goat population data: http://friendsofkootenay.ca/sites/default/files/Poole%202006.pdf

4-25 (4Ea)
1986: 695
1992: 1080
2000: 342
2005: 545

So you're telling us there are only 25 goats left now?

If so, it's not from hunting. Kills since the 2005 count by year, 2006 - 2016:

10
6
2
8
3
7
0
2
8
10
7

Total = 63 goats killed in 11 years.

Taking an average of 5.5 goats a year from a population of 545 is a harvest rate of 1%. A goat population won't decline by 95% over 11 years by harvesting 1% of goats per year.

That's not a lot different from the 2% hunting-related moose mortality being used by some to promote moose hunting restrictions.

Once again, we have examples of people blaming hunters for declining populations when we can clearly see, hunting has nothing to do with it.

[LBM]

Mountain goat population data: http://friendsofkootenay.ca/sites/default/files/Poole%202006.pdf

4-25 (4Ea)
1986: 695
1992: 1080
2000: 342
2005: 545

So you're telling us there are only 25 goats left now?

If so, it's not from hunting. Kills since the 2005 count by year, 2006 - 2016:

10
6
2
8
3
7
0
2
8
10
7

Total = 63 goats killed in 11 years.

Taking an average of 5.5 goats a year from a population of 545 is a harvest rate of 1%. A goat population won't decline by 95% over 11 years by harvesting 1% of goats per year.

That's not a lot different from the 2% hunting-related moose mortality being used by some to promote moose hunting restrictions.

Once again, we have examples of people blaming hunters for declining populations when we can clearly see, hunting has nothing to do with it.

Well thanks for clarifying that what you posted was false once again, I said 425A have a look at the 2014 count it will show you what they state for 425A
425 is broken into sub units in case you didn't know.
Again looks like counts are not done every year, so again false info you posted.
And I never blamed hunters your the one that keeps saying that.
Im just simply saying that a lot of the data or what you say is false and you keep showing that
People can make there own decisions on what they think.

[Fisher-Dude]

Well thanks for clarifying that what you posted was false once again, I said 425A have a look at the 2014 count it will show you what they state for 425A
425 is broken into sub units in case you didn't know.
Again looks like counts are not done every year, so again false info you posted.
And I never blamed hunters your the one that keeps saying that.
Im just simply saying that a lot of the data or what you say is false and you keep showing that
People can make there own decisions on what they think.

When did I say counts are done every year?

Perhaps you should drop by the local bio's office and ask him/her to explain population dynamics and harvest calculations before you accuse people of posting false information.

You've posted nothing except a goat number of 25. You've provided no links to your "statistic." Please post it up. Please explain how a goat population is negatively affected by a harvest rate of 1%.

[LBM]

When did I say counts are done every year?

Perhaps you should drop by the local bio's office and ask him/her to explain population dynamics and harvest calculations before you accuse people of posting false information.

You've posted nothing except a goat number of 25. You've provided no links to your "statistic." Please post it up. Please explain how a goat population is negatively affected by a harvest rate of 1%.

You said they had to be >100 every year or no hunt, so to know that they would have to be counted
I talk to the bios. and get numbers sent to me have no clue how to post it up, cant even get pictures on here.
Its all on a link like you all ready posted except from 2014 where yours was from 2006 Im sure you have it you post
up harvest numbers to a later date.
Don't know about your 1% harvest rate but if you look at the 2014 leh there was 22 authorizations for 4-25A seems a bit extreme
for 25 goats last years LEH its down to 2 which still doesn't meet the >100 or no hunt that you posted.
I will see if can find someone to post the 2014 count but no promises.
Found it but don't know how to get it on here its called the
East Kootenay Mountain Goat Assessment for 2014

[horshur]

Honestly, I thought I was, that the Fault is with the Ministry (the government), and that they just try to manage wildlife with "hunting regs", ever year.
I never said hunting reg don't need to exist, they do!, but they haven't helped produce more wildlife!!
It just keeps going downhill, and they wont manage wolves, and they never wanted to spray to kill the beetle way back when it started, years and years ago...all due to public pressure, and worse, ripping us hunters off by not using all 100% of our tag money to put back into burns or what have you.
Don't have to tell me about urban sprawl, cant go from 4 million to 9 billion and climbing on the same little ball floating in space, and hope that everything stays the same.
But hunters are the biggest reason why animals are disappearing all over this planet, and with a little help from hunters, have shown to grow, instead of decline, if money is thrown back into the system.
Sorry, I tried to be respectful when I asked you about if you liked the article, but you ended up just going on with some sort of BCWF conspiracy, and it just ends up wrecking thread after thread around here, and its not just you, lots of people involved, in both camps.
You don't get it...the article described three camps. Inferred only one is legitimate. Kinda like me saying wtf to those who voted for the NDP or Greens. It is your democratic right to vote for who you want. The article is the same old song. Our way or your a knuckledragger. Society does not work that way. Read up on what raincoast supporters think of hunters. Same term knuckledraggers.
If there is a will to get along it cannot be one sided all groups have to come out of negotiations getting something....the "sophisticated " science based hunters..talk about hubris! Why would a "commoner" listen to them when they have examples every day of how reliable science isn't.
Probably should have hunter type 4. Ones that can see through all the bullshit .

[Bugle M In]

Let's see if I can clear up "my point of view", and this is just mine, with 0 influence, I promise.
I am not against Hunting Regs/LEH or Restrictions, and even Closures.
But, I am also pissed off that little to noe of our money gets used, or was ever really used, by the ministry, to do much in the way of helping wildlife, whether it was habitat, or wolf culling, blah blah blah.
BUT, Regs wont work on their own!
AND, Funding wont just work on it's own!
AND Funding will only work if Ministry has BALLS implement (ie. wolf culls etc).
BOTH ARE NEEDED TO HAPPEN TOGHETHER, AT THE SAME TIME TO WORK, and thus make more wildlife again.

[Wild one]

Let's see if I can clear up "my point of view", and this is just mine, with 0 influence, I promise.
I am not against Hunting Regs/LEH or Restrictions, and even Closures.
But, I am also pissed off that little to noe of our money gets used, or was ever really used, by the ministry, to do much in the way of helping wildlife, whether it was habitat, or wolf culling, blah blah blah.
BUT, Regs wont work on their own!
AND, Funding wont just work on it's own!
AND Funding will only work if Ministry has BALLS implement (ie. wolf culls etc).
BOTH ARE NEEDED TO HAPPEN TOGHETHER, AT THE SAME TIME TO WORK, and thus make more wildlife again.

would have to agree with you here and many do

[horshur]

Here is the situation.
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/4371657-lake-superiors-last-caribou-herds-lake-superior-caribou-brink

[Bugle M In]

would have to agree with you here and many do

I hope so?, and that's what I took from the article, and this OP.
We all are adults here, and we all know Hunting Regs are needed.
And by now, after all these years, we should be pretty confident that Regs to be changed to help were needed, whether to help a certain species recover, or, open up opportunity were it can be supported.
The Thing Missing, is the Funding and Doing, and that's what we should be screaming the loudest and together.

[Wild one]

I hope so?, and that's what I took from the article, and this OP.
We all are adults here, and we all know Hunting Regs are needed.
And by now, after all these years, we should be pretty confident that Regs to be changed to help were needed, whether to help a certain species recover, or, open up opportunity were it can be supported.
The Thing Missing, is the Funding and Doing, and that's what we should be screaming the loudest and together.

The conclusion many are reaching is we need a new voice to accomplish this as the present one has not represented hunters properly but instead has played a roll in division of hunters

That is a big one holding things back

[gcreek]

The slaughter, do you mean by humans.

1987 to 1991, until the LEH on cow moose ended and all bulls were put on LEH. Yes.

I stated somewhere before that I asked a biologist why our logging roads weren't closed to hunting........... His reply, " Horsefly and Likely are shot out. They (hunters) need somewhere to go."

[brownmancheng]

Let's see if I can clear up "my point of view", and this is just mine, with 0 influence, I promise.
I am not against Hunting Regs/LEH or Restrictions, and even Closures.
But, I am also pissed off that little to noe of our money gets used, or was ever really used, by the ministry, to do much in the way of helping wildlife, whether it was habitat, or wolf culling, blah blah blah.
BUT, Regs wont work on their own!
AND, Funding wont just work on it's own!
AND Funding will only work if Ministry has BALLS implement (ie. wolf culls etc).
BOTH ARE NEEDED TO HAPPEN TOGHETHER, AT THE SAME TIME TO WORK, and thus make more wildlife again.

here, here! I think many of us would agree on this but keep arguing based on how it's presented

[gcreek]

here, here! I think many of us would agree on this but keep arguing based on how it's presented


At times it takes a big storm to make things grow............

[Bugle M In]

1987 to 1991, until the LEH on cow moose ended and all bulls were put on LEH. Yes.

I stated somewhere before that I asked a biologist why our logging roads weren't closed to hunting........... His reply, " Horsefly and Likely are shot out. They (hunters) need somewhere to go."

Logging roads...or the Spur Roads...or is that the same thing.
Anyways, why aren't the logging Companies just not "Bulldozing over the roads" in the Cutblocks??
Just do away with them, obliterate them, make guys get out and walk the block, and make it impossible for ATV's to get into those blocks.
As for FSR's and some roads leading to blocks, leave them.....we all get older....IMO.

[horshur]

Logging roads...or the Spur Roads...or is that the same thing.
Anyways, why aren't the logging Companies just not "Bulldozing over the roads" in the Cutblocks??
Just do away with them, obliterate them, make guys get out and walk the block, and make it impossible for ATV's to get into those blocks.
As for FSR's and some roads leading to blocks, leave them.....we all get older....IMO.
They don't cause government won't let them write them off on cost of logging block. It is a little more complicated then that but not much.

[Fisher-Dude]

Scientific Wildlife Management

1. A recent scientific study conducted in the East Kootenay using remote cameras was published and it shows the greatest number of animals photographed were whitetailed deer. It also shows the further the camera was from a road, the greater number of deer recorded. Hunters support scientific game management, yet there is a concerted effort to change the whitetailed deer season by popular opinion rather than using science.

2. Some hunters are pushing to eliminate spike moose and spike elk seasons in the East Kootenay, yet science shows hunting spikes does not impact elk or moose populations. Another populous opinion trying to change the science. What will have the greater impact on our elk populations is the large number of 5 point elk illegally killed.

3. Science shows that feeding wildlife is not necessary, except in exceptional circumstances. Yet hunters spend their time, money and energy potentially harming our wildlife rather than creating the habitat the wildlife require. Any feeding done ought to be done under Regulation rather than using an ad hoc process over science and our professional biologists’ opinions. You can feed elk for a day or create habitat that lasts an elk’s lifetime. Montana wildlife officials are concerned that feeding stations will promote the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease in wildlife populations and Montana is next door to the East Kootenay and are experiencing CWD in their ungulate populations.

4. Science shows that increasing or improving wildlife habitat will increase wildlife populations. So rather than supporting science and our biologists, some hunters spend their time and energy trying to change Regulations rather than improving habitat.

5. Right now we need more wildlife biologists, more funding for wildlife management, a wildlife management plan with goals. Support is needed to ban herbicide treatments of some 55,000 hectares annually killing aspen and willow moose forage. Fighting against an apparent plan to restrict hunting in the northern half of this province to aboriginals only. Preventing a number of steelhead runs from going extinct. Increasing bighorn sheep populations that are critically low in numbers.

6. The time has arrived where our young hunters have to step up and embrace scientific wildlife management by taking over from the grumpy old geezers who are always talking about the past, promoting ad hoc, unscientific ideas, while doing little that makes positive changes for our wildlife’s future.

Larry Hall

Cranbrook

https://www.cranbrooktownsman.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-jan-12/

[kootenaihunter]

That's a great editorial. What's disgusting is the bleeding heart above justifying some 'conservation' group's effort to illegally feed wildlife during winter. Things are really getting out of hand with all these misinformed people pushing their ill conceived agendas.

[Darksith]

Interesting to see the Mule Deer chart. Mule deer population drop has been notoriously blamed on the harsh winter of 96/97, but it's clear that the issue began way before that and maybe the winter just put another nail in the coffin. Looks like things started to head south around 92/93.

Would be interested to see that Region 4 chart trended against area logged in the region and road density.
there again though, please correct me if I am wrong, but to mention road density would be to say hunters access...aka hunters are part of a reason of decline. This is simply false and access does not equal population decline. loss of habitat, loss of food, and lack of investment in the restoration and rehabilitation of habitat is the reason for lack of recovery

[Ourea]

Road density greatly effects how many species use an area.
Seldom to their benefit.

[Darksith]

Is JT coming to BC to do a town hall? I know this is not the fishing site, but someone should be asking JT why we are managing our salmon stocks to zero

We also need to ask the exact same thing of our provincial MLA's in regards to hunting

[browningboy]

I would love to see Fisherdude interview JT, as he knows what’s going on!

[Jagermeister]

Seems like the Region 5 Moose graph may correlate to the timeline of the beginning of massive use of glysophates in cutblocks on deciduous growth.
No food, no moose may be one route of scientific inquiry to explore...
1999 is the aftermath of the GOS sandwiched between a early and a late LEH in the preceding years. If you were out and about during the GOS, there were hunters everywhere, even your backyard. I wondered where the head regional biologist's head was because it was so evident a moose population crash was imminent.
The regional head biologists have to all be brought to the same page. Many, once appointed "head" consider their region is their fiefdom as they manage on a personal perceived notion. Hence the LEH/GOS/LEH scenerio. When questioned, the stock answer was, "I have a degree, what do you have?" So who is going to listen to a hunter.

[boxhitch]

Why are you guys still arguing over the effect of roads and access? Is there really a buck or bull shortage ? I heard most reports show good recruitment rates ?
Road are kept open for the purposes of timber farming, to think that will change to deter predators is a hooka dream.

[sumonda]

Excellent post.. a must read for all!

[Ohwildwon]

Study finds animals are restricting migratory movement because of humans
Kind of obvious, but the more stuff like this hits the media the better...

https://globalnews.ca/news/3988169/animal-migration-humans-study-conservation/

[Bugle M In]

Wolf seem to have no problems moving and expanding in the province.
Deer and bear and everything else seem to be able to walk as well...don't they?
But, it sure is hard to find a meal, when there is a condo sitting on top of your grub,
especially come winter time...or am I wrong??

[HarryToolips]

I agree, it all starts with legislated objectives for fish and wildlife populations, and the proper funding backing those objectives.....I hope all you old school thinkers read this, and approach it with an open mind, rather than just having a hate on for Fisher Dude..you all know who you are, time to wake up and start demanding to your respective MLA's that wildlife needs to be a higher funding priority, not more restrictive hunting seasons..

[HarryToolips]

Logging roads...or the Spur Roads...or is that the same thing.
Anyways, why aren't the logging Companies just not "Bulldozing over the roads" in the Cutblocks??
Just do away with them, obliterate them, make guys get out and walk the block, and make it impossible for ATV's to get into those blocks.
As for FSR's and some roads leading to blocks, leave them.....we all get older....IMO.
I do agree, it would be nice to see more of this....

[buck nash]

Headlines: “Hunters generously ask for reduced hunting seasons to help recover wildlife populations.”

When in today’s explosive and emotionally charged public forums the hunter’s words are more likely going to be turned against us something like:

Headlines: “Hunters admit they are devastating wildlife populations – Is it time to ban all hunting forever?”

This bit neatly sums up where journalistic integrity is at these days.

[horshur]

I agree, it all starts with legislated objectives for fish and wildlife populations, and the proper funding backing those objectives.....I hope all you old school thinkers read this, and approach it with an open mind, rather than just having a hate on for Fisher Dude..you all know who you are, time to wake up and start demanding to your respective MLA's that wildlife needs to be a higher funding priority, not more restrictive hunting seasons..

harry money causes more problems then it ever fixed. Money is power. Power corrupts. More money more corruption.

[horshur]

I do agree, it would be nice to see more of this....

This has been answered a million times..cause rd construction is a cost it is deducted against the provinces share on timber value. Tear back up the rd and the province didn't make anything. Money is the reason.

[blacklab]

I agree, it all starts with legislated objectives for fish and wildlife populations, and the proper funding backing those objectives.....I hope all you old school thinkers read this, and approach it with an open mind, rather than just having a hate on for Fisher Dude..you all know who you are, time to wake up and start demanding to your respective MLA's that wildlife needs to be a higher funding priority, not more restrictive hunting seasons..
You want more money! who is going to spend this money and on what?
I've seen first hand how Fish and Wildlife spend money. I wouldn't give them a dime to run a pay toilet.

[Wild one]

I agree, it all starts with legislated objectives for fish and wildlife populations, and the proper funding backing those objectives.....I hope all you old school thinkers read this, and approach it with an open mind, rather than just having a hate on for Fisher Dude..you all know who you are, time to wake up and start demanding to your respective MLA's that wildlife needs to be a higher funding priority, not more restrictive hunting seasons..

Funding for wildlife enhancement , COs, and collecting data to keep better track of our game populations is needed

Running our present system without the above is part of the problem. Management for the purpose of creating opurtunity without proper data on our populations and a portion of our MUs run on guessing instead of proper counts is an issue. With little to no effort put in to adjust management when minimums are not being met in a population is a problem

Management for the purpose of opportunity well keeping game populations in mind involves a more in-depth knowledge of our populations and closer management then presently used in BC. We presently have a blanket management system that is more about trying to keep things simple for hunters then working with our game populations.

Want to free up more $ combination of of conservative management and opportunity management helps. Conservative management has more give when it comes to game populations. This can take concern of some locations and funding can be directed to maintaining counts on areas managed for opportunity

Multi tier systems have more advantages then blanket management for both expenses and game populations

BC is actually managed with old school thinking

Dont worry I do more then talk to MLAs

[Wild one]

Look at the history of locations outside of BC and you will find they all started with max opurtunity goals

Changes that took place outside of BC are not all about special interest groups as many suggest her in BC and many areas experienced problems with game numbers under management involving liberal opurtunity

So what is old school thinking

[HarryToolips]

You want more money! who is going to spend this money and on what?
I've seen first hand how Fish and Wildlife spend money. I wouldn't give them a dime to run a pay toilet.
Even if we had just the $$$ from all of our hunting revenue go back into the resource rather than into general revenue, and this $$ was controlled by competent people who were accountable, and it could be put into things like habitat restoration such as controlled burns, pred management, aerial counts, studies such as the tick survey that they're conducting right now on moose, and on projects like FSR spur road deactivation, we would see a vast improvent in our wildlife situation in the coming years...it would be a lot more effective than cutting back hunting seasons....remember we're conservationists first but, we all like hunting and want opportunity for not only ourselves, but for our kids, so let's stop shooting ourselves in the foot..

[HarryToolips]

Funding for wildlife enhancement , COs, and collecting data to keep better track of our game populations is needed

Running our present system without the above is part of the problem. Management for the purpose of creating opurtunity without proper data on our populations and a portion of our MUs run on guessing instead of proper counts is an issue. With little to no effort put in to adjust management when minimums are not being met in a population is a problem

Management for the purpose of opportunity well keeping game populations in mind involves a more in-depth knowledge of our populations and closer management then presently used in BC. We presently have a blanket management system that is more about trying to keep things simple for hunters then working with our game populations.

Want to free up more $ combination of of conservative management and opportunity management helps. Conservative management has more give when it comes to game populations. This can take concern of some locations and funding can be directed to maintaining counts on areas managed for opportunity

Multi tier systems have more advantages then blanket management for both expenses and game populations

BC is actually managed with old school thinking

Dont worry I do more then talk to MLAs
That's great, I'm glad your more than talking to them, you've obviously got passion for wildlife that I too have, thanks for doing that...hope your pushing them for what we really need, funding..