Antler Restriction/ Recruitments?

[bownut]

Here's a interesting Model:
Click On:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tOjmGAlYU

[bownut]

Here's Part 2
Interesting to see how Doe Harvest can really knock down the population

Click On:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buyiCU8TlwQ .

[Wild one]

Hunters in this area maybe supporting the restriction but it has been abandoned in most of North America for good reason

If you dig further you will find point restrictions have been abandoned in most places because it is poor for genetics and does not promote trophy animals.

Instead many places trying to promote larger trophies have found restricting the number of bucks harvested is a lot more effective

If BC goes to the proposed 1 mule deer limit for BC it is a step in the right direction

[steveo]

Even though I don't support this model it is some what interesting, comparing this to B.C is like comparing lemons to watermelons.

[bownut]

Even though I don't support this model it is some what interesting, comparing this to B.C is like comparing lemons to watermelons.

Breeding deer are breeding deer, our very own system is based on the numbers that Bio is speaking of. Funny to see how Doe Harvest is the best tool to quickly drop
the population. Interesting to see how most of the hunters would choose to back off on any buck just so they can participate in a older structure. It's not Trophy
Hunting it's more of a Selective way of thinking.
The climb in recruitment is what amazes me along with it's stability in population and constant harvest numbers. Don't forget they spend way more money on data
than we have ever done in our Province. That being said, your correct, "it's is like comparing Apples and Oranges".
Just something to wallow in..

[Fisher-Dude]

Antler restrictions are harvest restrictions that limit buck
harvest to animals that meet specific antler criteria. The
most common type of antler restriction is a point restriction.
Antler point restrictions have been used as a harvest strategy
with the hope they will increase the number of large-antlered
bucks in a mule deer population. Experience of many states
and provinces with antler point restrictions suggest this
harvest strategy has very limited potential to produce more
trophy bucks and could result in other unintended challenges.

BACKGROUND
Increasing the number of big-antlered bucks is typically the
basis for hunter demands to implement antler point restrictions.
The idea seems straightforward and promising; if we just don’t
allow hunters to harvest young bucks, they will grow older and
bigger and be available for harvest later. Most western states
and provinces have, at one point in time, employed some type
of antler point restriction attempting to increase the number of
“trophy” bucks in their herds.


THE GOOD
• Decreases hunter pressure and total buck harvest by discouraging some hunters who do not want to be
restricted to a particular antler-sized buck. This can be beneficial when harvest is heavy in relation to the
number of available bucks, but not heavy enough to warrant changing to limited quota seasons.
• In some cases, antler point restrictions have increased the proportion of bucks in the population, but this
effect may not be long-lasting.
• In remote areas with limited access, antler point restrictions have been used in combination with general
seasons to maintain hunter opportunity

THE BAD

• 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.

THE UGLY

• Antler point restrictions dramatically reduce hunter participation, harvest success, and total harvest.

• Antler point restrictions increase the number of deer shot and illegally left in the field; this can be significant,

and has been documented in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Nevada, and Montana.
• Antler point restrictions can cheapen the value of young bucks by changing the threshold for success from
“a buck” to a quest where only a big buck will do.
• Antler point restrictions may discourage hunters (especially beginning and young hunters) by increasing the

difficulty of locating and identifying legal deer.


CONCLUSIONS


After decades of use and many evaluations reporting disappointing results, most western states and provinces

have discontinued statewide antler point restrictions. The two main reasons for abandoning widespread antler

point restrictions are (1) unacceptable accidental-illegal kill, and (2) harvest mortality was increased (focused) on

the very age classes they intended to promote. 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. A few

jurisdictions still have limited areas with antler point restrictions, due to hunter preference. The use of antler point

restrictions in a combined strategy with general seasons is used in at least one case to maximize hunting opportunity.

There are additional reasons why the widespread use of antler point restrictions has not been successful. Research

has shown buck fawns born to does in poor body condition have difficulty outgrowing the effects of poor body

condition at birth, and may never reach their genetic potential for antler growth. Regulations protecting these

bucks from harvest are counterproductive to the intended benefit.


Most western states and provinces have concluded that sustainable improvements in buck:doe ratios and the number

of mature bucks can only be realized by reducing harvest through 1) a limited-quota license system that decreases

overall total buck harvest while allowing some level of doe harvest, or 2) setting a very short hunting season in early

fall when more mature bucks are less vulnerable.


It has been suggested while antler point restrictions may increase the proportion of bucks in certain populations with

low buck:doe ratios, there is no evidence they substantially increase the total number of adult (mature) bucks.

[boxhitch]

Then the best scenario is to compliment antler point restrictions with gos any-buck, for a good cross-sectional harvest. win win

[dana]

Come on FD, please don't lie! You know why we have antler restrictions in this province and it has nothing to do with 'trophy' deer. You play your little games but you get your butt handed to you every time.

Why do we use antler restrictions in this province? Simply, it is to give more hunter opportunity without worry about over harvest of game during times they are more vulnerable, like the Rut. The point count actually takes time, especially in a province full of trees. Being sure of your target means the rutting buck has a chance to clue in to the 'unsafe' situation and bail on the hunter. Young bucks in particular are really 'dumb' during the rut. They are so busy trying to get a piece of action all their safe guards are down. This is why hunters in this province complain that all they see is small bucks in Nov. because the average young buck doesn't know they should be hiding. Most of the hunter success in this province is during our anybuck seasons. By using a combination of anybuck seasons and point restrictions, we can see a harvest among all age classes and still allow hunter opportunity during times of year most other jurisdictions in the West are shut down or under a limited draw system to ensure harvest numbers are not too high.

Soo, FD there is your hunter opportunity. If we take away point restrictions, seasons will be shortened dramically. Choose your poison! I know you just want to see all the critters dead, but many in this province would like to see our hunting heritage continue from our childern to grandchildern to great granchildern. There is no place in wildlife management for selfish hunters like yourself that just want to kill everything right now.

[Steeleco]

Come on FD, please don't lie! You know why we have antler restrictions in this province and it has nothing to do with 'trophy' deer. You play your little games but you get your butt handed to you every time.



And this from the guy who wants the site to go back to the old ways? Play nice or play somewhere else!

[Wild one]

Come on FD, please don't lie! You know why we have antler restrictions in this province and it has nothing to do with 'trophy' deer. You play your little games but you get your butt handed to you every time.

Why do we use antler restrictions in this province? Simply, it is to give more hunter opportunity without worry about over harvest of game during times they are more vulnerable, like the Rut. The point count actually takes time, especially in a province full of trees. Being sure of your target means the rutting buck has a chance to clue in to the 'unsafe' situation and bail on the hunter. Young bucks in particular are really 'dumb' during the rut. They are so busy trying to get a piece of action all their safe guards are down. This is why hunters in this province complain that all they see is small bucks in Nov. because the average young buck doesn't know they should be hiding. Most of the hunter success in this province is during our anybuck seasons. By using a combination of anybuck seasons and point restrictions, we can see a harvest among all age classes and still allow hunter opportunity during times of year most other jurisdictions in the West are shut down or under a limited draw system to ensure harvest numbers are not too high.

Soo, FD there is your hunter opotunity. If we take away point restrictions, seasons will be shortened dramically. Choose your poison! I know you just want to see all the critters dead, but many in this province would like to see our hunting heritage continue from our childern to grandchildern to great granchildern. There is no place in wildlife management for selfish hunters like yourself that just want to kill everything right now.


This is the correct reason BC has point restrictions ^^^

[dana]

And this from the guy who wants the site to go back to the old ways? Play nice or play somewhere else!

I am playing nice! If you don't think this is nice, then you better ban many members because there is a group here that get away with murder and you guys allow it. Same rules should apply to everyone. Deal with the bullies and you will see this site return to a hunting site again. Targeting those who stand up to the bullies while letting the bullies continue is a good way to see the membership of the site die off.

[HappyJack]

Hunters in this area maybe supporting the restriction but it has been abandoned in most of North America for good reason

If you dig further you will find point restrictions have been abandoned in most places because it is poor for genetics and does not promote trophy animals.

Instead many places trying to promote larger trophies have found restricting the number of bucks harvested is a lot more effective

If BC goes to the proposed 1 mule deer limit for BC it is a step in the right direction

Is there any science to back up that statement? I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of hunters only get 1 mule deer per season, if that, already. At least I read alot of 'tag soup' posts after the seasons are over.

[dana]

Is there any science to back up that statement? I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of hunters only get 1 mule deer per season, if that, already. At least I read alot of 'tag soup' posts after the seasons are over.

Yes, there is science behind it. A science that many seem to ignore on this site when they spout off 'science'. This is based on human science. The managers are not only managing animals, they are also managing hunters. It isn't all just about what is good for the wildlife. There is also a lot of what is good for the hunters. This science is practiced in surveys and imput on regulation changes etc. What they are finding is a large segment of hunters value the Experience more than the harvest. Hunters don't find it a fun or desired experience to have opportunity just for opportunity's sake. Bouncing large numbers of hunters from one area to another all jam packed in like sardines, trying desperatly to find game but all they see is more hunters and more hunters. When all those hunters have seen little to nothing for game it is not a quality experience. And the hunters of this province have expressed that and managers are responding. There are many here that try to discredit this science. Because they have misinterpreted what it is that hunting is all about. Will moving to a 1 mule deer limit increase the deer herds? Nope. That isn't why they are doing it. It is to reduce overcrowding and make the experience of the hunt much better.

[Wild one]

Is there any science to back up that statement? I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of hunters only get 1 mule deer per season, if that, already. At least I read alot of 'tag soup' posts after the seasons are over.

restricting overall buck harvest is a common managmet tool used across North America done by bag limit( most place are 1 mule deer buck a year) and/or LEH, and season length are how they do so. Many places gave up point restrictions for this style and have had great results in comparison

I am not saying BC hunters on average take more then 1 buck a year but there is a good portion that do as well

I have also seen when hunters know they are only allowed 1 buck a year some become more selective because they know it there only tag

Myself I lack copy and paste skills but if you choose to search you will find examples of how many places restrict overall harvest

[Bugle M In]

So, down in Oregon, they have something going on, with 2 test groups.
One group, only 6 pts are harvested/hunted.
Other group, 3 to 5 pt.
So far I was told the 3 to 5pt is doing better...but hey.. it's just some stupid study in the states:roll:

[boxhitch]

........ Will moving to a 1 mule deer limit increase the deer herds? Nope. That isn't why they are doing it. It is to reduce overcrowding and make the experience of the hunt much better.More likely doing it to make the impression they are doing something about the so-called crowding, to please a few whiners. It has been shown that most all hunters are happy with one buck and most would be happy getting that one buck , let alone managing for two.
Many of the two-buck areas also have a wt season, so the reduction in traffic will be minimal. smoke and mirrors

[boxhitch]

........Myself I lack copy and paste skills but if you choose to search you will find examples of how many places restrict overall harvestCouldn't help but notice how many times someone has asked you for that info source. Must be hard to track down

[Wild one]

Couldn't help but notice how many times someone has asked you for that info source. Must be hard to track down

My memorey is a lot better then computer skills been asked twice on HBC for sources on that subject so not much actually

Want to see limiting harvest with mule deer to achieve more trophy class buck look to the east Alberta and Saskatchewan

Examples are easy to find but it seems to be very difficult for those who do not support this style of management

[338win mag]

If someone would make desirable habitat for Mule deer in this province there wouldn't be a problem with the 3 mule deer buck bag limit in BC.

[Wild one]

If someone would make desirable habitat for Mule deer in this province there wouldn't be a problem with the 3 mule deer buck bag limit in BC.

We did get fires last year in time that will help

I agree with habitat improvements but consider the scale of habitat protects needed to make the mule deer haven many dream of. The number of years it will take to achieve results with habitat. What will it take to maintain this change in BCs habitat. It is worth while to improve habitat and a huge factor in wildlife but realism is need when approaching this

Personal belief is BC still needs change mule deer management habitat or not

Something to consider BC roughly 160 000 mule deer Alberta roughly 135 000 mule deer now look at the big difference in management. Yes very different places and yes mule deer are more wide spread in BC. Find anywhere in North America that has such liberal mule deer opportunity as BC

But this also depends of what one wants to see for the quality of BCs mule deer hunting. It is possible to keep the 3 mule deer bag limit but it is also a good way to watch history repeat it self

[horshur]

More likely doing it to make the impression they are doing something about the so-called crowding, to please a few whiners. It has been shown that most all hunters are happy with one buck and most would be happy getting that one buck , let alone managing for two.
Many of the two-buck areas also have a wt season, so the reduction in traffic will be minimal. smoke and mirrors
you posted the survey results. The majority of region three mule deer hunters were dissatisfied with the level of crowding.
not a few whiners. Social science.

[Wild one]

you posted the survey results. The majority of region three mule deer hunters were dissatisfied with the level of crowding.
not a few whiners. Social science.

My opinion we will see a slight decrease in crowding with a 1 mule deer limit but any buckis still going to busy as a large portion only hunt this season

In my opinion the best case out come is the 1 mule deer bag limit is effective enough to lengthen any buck season this would spread pressure. Back when it was 3 month any buck season it did help with crowds

As for boxhitches opinion WT season will keep it busy don’t agree. WT use different habitat for starters and True WT tactics make it easier for a larger number of hunters to inhabit an area. Many BC hunters will face a learning curve here. Already see this just with the wt doe seasons.

[Fisher-Dude]

More likely doing it to make the impression they are doing something about the so-called crowding, to please a few whiners. It has been shown that most all hunters are happy with one buck and most would be happy getting that one buck , let alone managing for two.
Many of the two-buck areas also have a wt season, so the reduction in traffic will be minimal. smoke and mirrors

You're correct about that.

When we examined mule deer harvest in region 5 to gauge the impacts of going from a 2 buck limit to a 1 buck limit, the percentage of hunters that actually shot their second buck was 4%.

[bownut]

So, down in Oregon, they have something going on, with 2 test groups.
One group, only 6 pts are harvested/hunted.
Other group, 3 to 5 pt.
So far I was told the 3 to 5pt is doing better...but hey.. it's just some stupid study in the states:roll:
How long are their seasons and when, weapon, restrictions?
The videos I posted on point restriction not only brought the hunter participation back up from the drastic declines, the game population and harvest were stable.
In BC we are barely maintaining our harvest numbers even after all the increases in opportunity and Doe Seasons, and I'm sure that re Participation is going to
show the decrease due to lack of interests. Tag soup is hard to justify to our wives if you know what I saying.
The Information that was posted by F/D is the model that we are presently living with, is it working as well as the charts on the videos? I am all for
staying the course only if the results are positive. What I see in those studies and changes down south is increasing opportunity from the declines, a stable harvest ,
and a sustainable population. Isn't this what the objective should be? Or do we want to try a chip out our own wheel?

Wildlife funding is the challenge, nothing we happen without it, Habitat,Access Issues,Predation Control,Forestry Practice, ect. will continue to haunt us.
What will Antler Restriction like this model costs us? If it works in Michigan it may work here, but many won't recognize this well funded and practiced model.
We would rather look at old data that has little positive results and point our fingers at everything else.
Regulations changes and Opportunity will continue to be debated, Point Restriction in areas that or hit with other drivers like Predation, Habitat Loss, ect.
need to be factored in.
All I am trying to expose is Management tool thats showing great results.

[bownut]

You're correct about that.

When we examined mule deer harvest in region 5 to gauge the impacts of going from a 2 buck limit to a 1 buck limit, the percentage of hunters that actually shot their second buck was 4%.

It's all about Hunting Pressure, not just harvest. Ask a Bio how the pressure can effect the rut, if there is nothing the shoot your always going to see a low percentage for a second harvest.
Shouldn't this set off some alarms?

[Wild one]

You're correct about that.

When we examined mule deer harvest in region 5 to gauge the impacts of going from a 2 buck limit to a 1 buck limit, the percentage of hunters that actually shot their second buck was 4%.

Thats just one region and odds are a small % of hunters involved in survey

Best way to see what results this achieve is put it into practice and see if theories play true. There is facts to support and oppose this change are there for both sides on this

Guess if only 4% take a second buck it rules out the fear you mentioned in another thread that increased buck numbers will lower overall populations. This also shows that it should be low impact on the hunting community as well

This should have your mind at ease

[bownut]

Heres the Update Video

Click On:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onwp1LmAGNY

[Fisher-Dude]

Thats just one region and odds are a small % of hunters involved in survey

Best way to see what results this achieve is put it into practice and see if theories play true. There is facts to support and oppose this change are there for both sides on this

Guess if only 4% take a second buck it rules out the fear you mentioned in another thread that increased buck numbers will lower overall populations. This also shows that it should be low impact on the hunting community as well

This should have your mind at ease

It wasn't a survey. It was an analysis of harvest returns by hunter number for several years, a large sample that gave solid results from an area that had a strong mule deer population that was growing close to 15% annually, even with a two buck limit and considerable antlerless harvest on LEH.

[Fisher-Dude]

It's all about Hunting Pressure, not just harvest. Ask a Bio how the pressure can effect the rut, if there is nothing the shoot your always going to see a low percentage for a second harvest.
Shouldn't this set off some alarms?

Hunting pressure is a social issue.

We shouldn't be managing game for social reasons.

And region 5 has a 10 day rut closure, but a longer season than all but region 3.

If we want to take human pressure off deer that might actually affect survival, we should be looking at the swarm of shed hunters looking to beat the next guy to the prize that are pushing deer around depleted winter range, during the last few weeks of winter when they are physically at their most vulnerable.

How many does abort from this pressure? How many guys are using unleashed dogs to find sheds, dogs that stress deer they encounter?

I say restrict shed hunting until green up allows deer to spread out and have basic, critical nutrition at their disposal. Those kinds of rules are in place in many US states, and we've seen how much better their mule deer populations are doing.

[Wild one]

How long are their seasons and when, weapon, restrictions?
The videos I posted on point restriction not only brought the hunter participation back up from the drastic declines, the game population and harvest were stable.
In BC we are barely maintaining our harvest numbers even after all the increases in opportunity and Doe Seasons, and I'm sure that re Participation is going to
show the decrease due to lack of interests. Tag soup is hard to justify to our wives if you know what I saying.
The Information that was posted by F/D is the model that we are presently living with, is it working as well as the charts on the videos? I am all for
staying the course only if the results are positive. What I see in those studies and changes down south is increasing opportunity from the declines, a stable harvest ,
and a sustainable population. Isn't this what the objective should be? Or do we want to try a chip out our own wheel?

Wildlife funding is the challenge, nothing we happen without it, Habitat,Access Issues,Predation Control,Forestry Practice, ect. will continue to haunt us.
What will Antler Restriction like this model costs us? If it works in Michigan it may work here, but many won't recognize this well funded and practiced model.
We would rather look at old data that has little positive results and point our fingers at everything else.
Regulations changes and Opportunity will continue to be debated, Point Restriction in areas that or hit with other drivers like Predation, Habitat Loss, ect.
need to be factored in.
All I am trying to expose is Management tool thats showing great results.


Google why places like Alberta just to the east abandoned antler restrictions. Many sates also abandoned point restrictions as well

An example of antler restrictions being an issue also made a news article last year about the number of short bucks COs found last Nov in Lilooet.

only positive is antler restrictions can provide a GOS well restricting harvest but they come at a price

There is a bio here in BC that would love to increase bull moose LEH and do away with 2pt season because of wasted animals

Bownut I can respect you wanting to find solutions but urge you to dig deeper. You can always find info to support a theory but you also need to look at everything that shows its flaws


Lots of one sided info to flog agendas gets used on this forum and theories being past as fact. This goes for wildlife study and management info in general

[Wild one]

It wasn't a survey. It was an analysis of harvest returns by hunter number for several years, a large sample that gave solid results from an area that had a strong mule deer population that was growing close to 15% annually, even with a two buck limit and considerable antlerless harvest on LEH.


Not going to debate the harvest data collected in BC been done to death on this forum

But again a 1 mule deer BC limit should have no negative impact on both hunters and mule deer from this info. For this reason alone I see no risk in applying it to test the theory that it will spread hunter numbers.

Higher probability of at least a small improvement to improving hunt quality then it causing a negative impact

[Fisher-Dude]

Not going to debate the harvest data collected in BC been done to death on this forum

But again a 1 mule deer BC limit should have no negative impact on both hunters and mule deer from this info. For this reason alone I see no risk in applying it to test the theory that it will spread hunter numbers.

Higher probability of at least a small improvement to improving hunt quality then it causing a negative impact

Well, it is a 67% decrease in hunter opportunity for those who like to travel and eat mule deer.

Economically, it's going to sting for those small communities that rely on out-of-region hunters who come and spend money on motels, gas, food, restaurants, broken driveshafts, etc. Many of these communities have been hard hit by job losses in the forest industry and rely on substantial contributions from hunters in the fall. The small towns are really going to feel it.

I know that when my hunting partner and I go on a trip to region 5 for late season mule deer hunts, we drop $700 - 1000 each for a 4 or 5 day hunt. All those camo-clad patrons at the Hungry Bear or Hungry Herby's will decide to stay home when they've shot a deer at home and can't go elsewhere to try their luck on a late season hunt.

[Wild one]

Well, it is a 67% decrease in hunter opportunity for those who like to travel and eat mule deer.

Economically, it's going to sting for those small communities that rely on out-of-region hunters who come and spend money on motels, gas, food, restaurants, broken driveshafts, etc. Many of these communities have been hard hit by job losses in the forest industry and rely on substantial contributions from hunters in the fall. The small towns are really going to feel it.

I know that when my hunting partner and I go on a trip to region 5 for late season mule deer hunts, we drop $700 - 1000 each for a 4 or 5 day hunt. All those camo-clad patrons at the Hungry Bear or Hungry Herby's will decide to stay home when they've shot a deer at home and can't go elsewhere to try their luck on a late season hunt.

Still allowed 3 deer and odds are hunters will utilize WT opurtunity more. It is really just a shift in deer species and location to some

Hunters will still hunt and just adapt. Especially BC hunters as they travel beyond what hunters from others do in provs outside of BC. Already common practice for hunters here in BC to chase different opportunities. This will not take $ out of the economy more like shift where hunter $ are spent at the most

From someone living in a small town hunters travel to I can honestly say outside of fuel/food out of town hunters are not bringing much to the local economy. Reality of it is most of the $ spent by hunters is before they head out on their trip and spent in the area they live.

Plus you should be happy at the possibility of this increasing WT harvest you have been pushing for that for years now. No better way to encourage WT harvest then limiting mule deer opportunity

Way more possible positives then negatives

[brownmancheng]

From someone living in a small town hunters travel to I can honestly say outside of fuel/food out of town hunters are not bringing much to the local economy. Reality of it is most of the $ spent by hunters is before they head out on their trip and spent in the area

really? living in a small town qualifies you to judge the economy? gas station, restaurants, liquor stores and all the motels lined with hunting rigs are a huge boost to many businesses

[Fisher-Dude]

Still allowed 3 deer and odds are hunters will utilize WT opurtunity more. It is really just a shift in deer species and location to some

Hunters will still hunt and just adapt. Especially BC hunters as they travel beyond what hunters from others do in provs outside of BC. Already common practice for hunters here in BC to chase different opportunities. This will not take $ out of the economy more like shift where hunter $ are spent at the most

From someone living in a small town hunters travel to I can honestly say outside of fuel/food out of town hunters are not bringing much to the local economy. Reality of it is most of the $ spent by hunters is before they head out on their trip and spent in the area they live.

Plus you should be happy at the possibility of this increasing WT harvest you have been pushing for that for years now. No better way to encourage WT harvest then limiting mule deer opportunity

Way more possible positives then negatives

Do you seriously think I'll travel to region 5 to chase a whitetail now when I have way more of them 5 minutes from my house?

Not a chance.

Hunters are traditional people. The annual trip to their favourite spots has an allure that goes back generations in some families.

Taking away 67% of opportunity from those hunters for purely social reasons (crowding? WTF!) won't help deer and won't help the suffering economies that depend on those family trips.

[Wild one]

really? living in a small town qualifies you to judge the economy? gas station, restaurants, liquor stores and all the motels lined with hunting rigs are a huge boost to many businesses

Nope but the business owners who told me they see little benefit from out of town hunting might know something. They would much rather promote fishing as they say it brings more to the community.

[Bugle M In]

Nope but the business owners who told me they see little benefit from out of town hunting might know something. They would much rather promote fishing as they say it brings more to the community.

Well, you haven't been to Cache Creek Come November.
Most of the motels are filled with hunters.

[limit time]

My opinion we will see a slight decrease in crowding with a 1 mule deer limit but any buckis still going to busy as a large portion only hunt this season

In my opinion the best case out come is the 1 mule deer bag limit is effective enough to lengthen any buck season this would spread pressure. Back when it was 3 month any buck season it did help with crowds

As for boxhitches opinion WT season will keep it busy don’t agree. WT use different habitat for starters and True WT tactics make it easier for a larger number of hunters to inhabit an area. Many BC hunters will face a learning curve here. Already see this just with the wt doe seasons.

well... if it’s all about “overcrowding” then make reg 3,4and 8 four point only, all season. Done and done.

[Wild one]

Do you seriously think I'll travel to region 5 to chase a whitetail now when I have way more of them 5 minutes from my house?

Not a chance.

Hunters are traditional people. The annual trip to their favourite spots has an allure that goes back generations in some families.

Taking away 67% of opportunity from those hunters for purely social reasons (crowding? WTF!) won't help deer and won't help the suffering economies that depend on those family trips.

Nope don’t think you will travel to region 5 but bet you will see an increase of hunters to your area for WT promoting the economy there. Economy argument is not valid it will be a shift to other areas that could benefit

Some hunters are very traditional but a ton of BC hunters chase opportunity as well

There is only one negative to this change and that is the 4% of hunters you mentioned can now only shoot 1 mule deer

So other then it does not fit your agenda of max hunter opportunity not much to argue.

Straight up you just don’t like it but reality is a most hunters will go unaffected

[Wild one]

Well, you haven't been to Cache Creek Come November.
Most of the motels are filled with hunters.

And that may not change

[Bugle M In]

85' to 1996, b4 6 pt restriction, we took 10 bulls, all but 1 were 6pt, the other was a 5pt, biggest 7pt.
Now, only 6pt, but now everyone is hunting them down, all of us.
Ask H47, aint easy as it was.
Best thing they did back then, was remove the huge Cow LEH allocation, which showed huge signs of improvement.
But then, something came along and messed that up.
Wolves? beetle kill and windfall (bad habitat)?, that's my view on that issue.
Wolves causing elk to stay all year round at the farmers/ranchers fields and near highways.
ICBC and farmers not happy (understandable), and the intro of zoneX.
Voila....all F'd up now.
(yes LBM, still elk around, but it could be a hell of a lot better then it is!!)

[Wild one]

well... if it’s all about “overcrowding” then make reg 3,4and 8 four point only, all season. Done and done.

Negitive side effects of point restrictions mentioned already. You have been around long enough to read them many times

[Bugle M In]

And that may not change

Nope, not until R5 gets there act together, or, dates for mulies come into alignment.
And if that means reducing bag limit on mule deer, I am ok with it (but that is me, I only need 1 deer...sometimes!)
Then traffic will balance out again.
Sorry, can't stop LM'rs from visiting where some of you live...deal with it!

[HappyJack]

Not going to debate the harvest data collected in BC been done to death on this forum

But again a 1 mule deer BC limit should have no negative impact on both hunters and mule deer from this info. For this reason alone I see no risk in applying it to test the theory that it will spread hunter numbers.

Higher probability of at least a small improvement to improving hunt quality then it causing a negative impact

Seriously, we hunt mule deer in 7 in October and 4 pointers in Region 5 in November. THERE ARE NO TO NONE whitetails where we hunt, cutting us back to 1 per year will kill one of our hunts and we won't be spending money in those communities. Not to mention that by cutting us back you are just leaving more for the FNs.

[Wild one]

Nope, not until R5 gets there act together, or, dates for mulies come into alignment.
And if that means reducing bag limit on mule deer, I am ok with it (but that is me, I only need 1 deer...sometimes!)
Then traffic will balance out again.
Sorry, can't stop LM'rs from visiting where some of you live...deal with it!

Lm’rs welcome in my opinion I was one for years

[Bugle M In]

Lm’rs welcome in my opinion I was one for years

I'll bring the wiser's and beer;-)

[Wild one]

Seriously, we hunt mule deer in 7 in October and 4 pointers in Region 5 in November. THERE ARE NO TO NONE whitetails where we hunt, cutting us back to 1 per year will kill one of our hunts and we won't be spending money in those communities. Not to mention that by cutting us back you are just leaving more for the FNs.

No lack of WT in 5 and 7 actually some really big ones taken this year too. Real Cranker taken just south east of pg and another west of Quesnel

Look in the right places you will find them even in eastern 6

[Wild one]

I'll bring the wiser's and beer;-)

Vodka is more my style lol

[limit time]

Negitive side effects of point restrictions mentioned already. You have been around long enough to read them many times

Not worried about side effects. I’m strictly talking “overcrowding”.

[HappyJack]

No lack of WT in 5 and 7 actually some really big ones taken this year too. Real Cranker taken just south east of pg and another west of Quesnel

Look in the right places you will find them even in eastern 6

I've never seen a WT where we hunt in 5 and in our 7 spot we've seen a couple of does which are closed until oct. 10th. IF we are expected to hunt whitetails in our spots it would be quite a stupid thing to undertake, waste of time and money.

[Wild one]

I've never seen a WT where we hunt in 5 and in our 7 spot we've seen a couple of does which are closed until oct. 10th. IF we are expected to hunt whitetails in our spots it would be quite a stupid thing to undertake, waste of time and money.

Often the case when not targeting them only stating the opinions are there in those regions. I also don’t doubt you’re mule deer locations don’t hold good WT numbers

[Wild one]

Not worried about side effects. I’m strictly talking “overcrowding”.

Lots of options if that is the only goal in mind

[HighCountryBC]

well... if it’s all about “overcrowding” then make reg 3,4and 8 four point only, all season. Done and done.

Or adjust 4 and 8 to mirror R3 would be even better. Harvest across all age classes which is much better for mule deer in the long run.

[TexasWalker]

I'd like to see all mule deer on LEH, generous open WT seasons.

[HappyJack]

I'd like to see all mule deer on LEH, generous open WT seasons.

Dumbest idea in the world. I'd have to take up poaching mule deer if that ever happened because I sure as hell wouldn't get drawn in the crooked leh crapfest.

[charlie_horse]

Seriously Wildone? more people are going to go focus on white tail? I still won't be going for white tail, I'm just going to get the gf to get her core done, come with me for any buck and shoot Bambi while wiping the tears from her eyes so I can still focus on being unsuccessful at shooting a mature buck and have a deer in the freezer. I just freakin love mule deer hunting and have no desire at all to invest money into a different species that I don't know how to properly hunt, since after all most of us aren't true white tail hunters anyways, I have no desire to invest money into going to a different area that I don't know and spend years learning it and mastering the ways of the "true" white tail hunter. I also prefer muley meat to white tail.

[Wild one]

Seriously Wildone? more people are going to go focus on white tail? I still won't be going for white tail, I'm just going to get the gf to get her core done, come with me for any buck and shoot Bambi while wiping the tears from her eyes so I can still focus on being unsuccessful at shooting a mature buck and have a deer in the freezer. I just freakin love mule deer hunting and have no desire at all to invest money into a different species that I don't know how to properly hunt, since after all most of us aren't true white tail hunters anyways, I have no desire to invest money into going to a different area that I don't know and spend years learning it and mastering the ways of the "true" white tail hunter. I also prefer muley meat to white tail.


Dont expect everyone to have the same reaction and if mule deer are your only true interest can understand your response

A lot of hunters will just make use of other opportunities or be more selective about the mule deer they tag

[Fisher-Dude]

Dont expect everyone to have the same reaction and if mule deer are your only true interest can understand your response

A lot of hunters will just make use of other opportunities or be more selective about the mule deer they tag

What happens when all those alternative opportunities go the way of the grizzly bear hunt?

What's the alternative then?

We already have groups in the Kootenays lobbying government with big money, and threatening biologists personally, that want to see restrictions on whitetails. No WT does, 3 point or better WT bucks, etc. Close the elk hunt. Close spike/forks.

Opportunity is disappearing fast. Governments are bending to anti-hunting voices, voices that are backed up by groups of hunters that call for less hunting, just like the antis.

The unintended consequences will be shocking and dramatic if we fall into the trap of giving the anti hunting forces even more traction by calling on more and more emotion-based restrictions on hunting.

It's happening, quickly.

[Wild one]

What happens when all those alternative opportunities go the way of the grizzly bear hunt?

What's the alternative then?

We already have groups in the Kootenays lobbying government with big money, and threatening biologists personally, that want to see restrictions on whitetails. No WT does, 3 point or better WT bucks, etc. Close the elk hunt. Close spike/forks.

Opportunity is disappearing fast. Governments are bending to anti-hunting voices, voices that are backed up by groups of hunters that call for less hunting, just like the antis.

The unintended consequences will be shocking and dramatic if we fall into the trap of giving the anti hunting forces even more traction by calling on more and more emotion-based restrictions on hunting.

It's happening, quickly.


Nothing like grizz hunt or catering to antis. Don’t want to get into the grizz hunt issue with me more than pissed here

As for the group in the koots well been saying it for years hunting groups in BC need to consider some give and take

Like it or not years of pushing against anything that’s not max harvest opportunity and not listening to different hunters of BC has caused backlash.

A divided group of hunters has been created and now you are seeing them rise in frustration do I agree with all they are pushing for no but understand the frustration

Should have learned to play nice in the sandbox I know for a fact a lot of hunters are pissed seeking change

BC will change yes but you are being a fear monger in hopes people will follow your view

[Fisher-Dude]

Nothing like grizz hunt or catering to antis. Don’t want to get into the grizz hunt issue with me more than pissed here

As for the group in the koots well been saying it for years hunting groups in BC need to consider some give and take

Like it or not years of pushing against anything that’s not max harvest opportunity and not listening to different hunters of BC has caused backlash.

A divided group of hunters has been created and now you are seeing them rise in frustration do I agree with all they are pushing for no but understand the frustration

Should have learned to play nice in the sandbox I know for a fact a lot of hunters are pissed seeking change

BC will change yes but you are being a fear monger in hopes people will follow your view

I was called a fear monger when I said that if we elected the NDP, it would be the end of the grizzly hunt, too.

How'd that work out?

[sthdslayer]

I don't post much but follow regularly . I am involved quite heavily with the fishing side of things and if anything I've learned is that once you lose opportunity you are unlikely to get it back. It is easier for the gov't to regulate hunters that is to actually do something. In my opinion LEH should be an absolute last resort. You talk overcrowding yet my experience is those that want solitude will find it if overcrowding is the issue. Things change with predator numbers at an all time high mule deer are particularly vulnerable. Wolves Cougars and coyotes are taking their toll. I used to not bother with coyotes when hunting deer but given the current state of affairs i will interrupt my hunt by taking the shot.

[Wild one]

I was called a fear monger when I said that if we elected the NDP, it would be the end of the grizzly hunt, too.

How'd that work out?

90% agreed with you on the NDP myself included

i have no problem giving when you’re right even if it’s painful at times lol

Now I don’t see you admit when you are wrong though lol

[Wild one]

I don't post much but follow regularly . I am involved quite heavily with the fishing side of things and if anything I've learned is that once you lose opportunity you are unlikely to get it back. It is easier for the gov't to regulate hunters that is to actually do something. In my opinion LEH should be an absolute last resort. You talk overcrowding yet my experience is those that want solitude will find it if overcrowding is the issue. Things change with predator numbers at an all time high mule deer are particularly vulnerable. Wolves Cougars and coyotes are taking their toll. I used to not bother with coyotes when hunting deer but given the current state of affairs i will interrupt my hunt by taking the shot.

Actual proposal on the table for mule deer is a bag limit of one for BC not LEH

[HappyJack]

Actual proposal on the table for mule deer is a bag limit of one for BC not LEH

So I guess the way around it is to buy the wife a tag...gives us a 2 per year limit. I say leave it alone, we need more opportunity not less. There are lots of mule deer out there.

[Wild one]

So I guess the way around it is to buy the wife a tag...gives us a 2 per year limit. I say leave it alone, we need more opportunity not less. There are lots of mule deer out there.

Bios say they are on the decline and many hunters see it as well but not everywhere is the same

A 1 mule deer bag limit is very common management practice in North America and BC would still provide more mule deer opportunity than anywhere in Canada and bet most if not all western North America

And yes get your wife out to hunt is an option

[bownut]

Actual proposal on the table for mule deer is a bag limit of one for BC not LEH

Hey just wondering, does that one M Deer Bag limit include Blacktails?

[Wild one]

Hey just wondering, does that one M Deer Bag limit include Blacktails?

The proposal is on govt site check it out

basically the proposal is a 1 mule deer limit for 3,4,8,5,6,7 combined Excluding 1,2 and assume QCI as they are excluding BT dominated regions ( and really QCI is a really high deer population)

The goal seems to be mule deer only

[bownut]

The proposal is on govt site check it out

basically the proposal is a 1 mule deer limit for 3,4,8,5,6,7 combined Excluding 1,2 and assume QCI as they are excluding BT dominated regions ( and really QCI is a really high deer population)

The goal seems to be mule deer only
Are the Blacktail Harvest numbers holding?
Funny how the worry is about Region 3-8 M-Deer declines, but you can still shoot a Blacky and still head to the trouble zones.
Doesn't seem like very good way to disperse hunters. There must be a reason?

Kind of off topic to my original thread on Point Restrictions and Recruitment , but it seems all threads seem to head this way.
Those study areas in Michigan are showing great results but BC still worries about the loses and never getting it back.
More guys are heading to Alberta every year with their short seasons and return with crazy good stories and good times.
Very similar to the Michigan Changes on those Videos. Are they Correct and BC Wrong?

[TexasWalker]

Are the Blacktail Harvest numbers holding?
Funny how the worry is about Region 3-8 M-Deer declines, but you can still shoot a Blacky and still head to the trouble zones.
Doesn't seem like very good way to disperse hunters. There must be a reason?

A lot of people jump between 3, 8, and 5 for Mule deer.
I've been doing it for years and know a lot of guys who do the same.

[Wild one]

Are the Blacktail Harvest numbers holding?
Funny how the worry is about Region 3-8 M-Deer declines, but you can still shoot a Blacky and still head to the trouble zones.
Doesn't seem like very good way to disperse hunters. There must be a reason?


Betting the reason for it is the proposal was to pull pressure away from mule deer as that was the species in mind as they are the main target of most BC deer hunters

Mule deer hunting wise I don’t doubt it will spread pressure over regions more then present regulations and also don’t doubt it will cause some hunters to consider what buck they use the tag on as well.

Truth of the matter is the true results will not be known unless it is put in place

I can speculate from hunting Alberta’s 1 buck WT prov limit( exceptions for some areas)

[Wild one]

The other deer species are a whole different issue but no proposals on them

[limit time]

Nothing like grizz hunt or catering to antis. Don’t want to get into the grizz hunt issue with me more than pissed here

As for the group in the koots well been saying it for years hunting groups in BC need to consider some give and take

Like it or not years of pushing against anything that’s not max harvest opportunity and not listening to different hunters of BC has caused backlash.

A divided group of hunters has been created and now you are seeing them rise in frustration do I agree with all they are pushing for no but understand the frustration

Should have learned to play nice in the sandbox I know for a fact a lot of hunters are pissed seeking change

BC will change yes but you are being a fear monger in hopes people will follow your view

First off... no mule deer to any non resident also. Period. ( yes that goes for all outfitters)

[blacklab]

well... if it’s all about “overcrowding” then make reg 3,4and 8 four point only, all season. Done and done.
This isn't about overcrowding! In region 3 it's to cover for the fact that mule deer and white tail have been hammered in the southern MU's. If the harvest numbers go further down they can just blame it on fewer hunters because they got a buck some where else.
If they were concerned about over crowding they would rethink being the only region in the province where you can shoot two white tail fawns.
I don't think any of the Kamloops wildlife staff know there is a new highway that will put you from Surrey to Merritt in two and and a half hours.

[bownut]

Betting the reason for it is the proposal was to pull pressure away from mule deer as that was the species in mind as they are the main target of most BC deer hunters

Mule deer hunting wise I don’t doubt it will spread pressure over regions more then present regulations and also don’t doubt it will cause some hunters to consider what buck they use the tag on as well.

Truth of the matter is the true results will not be known unless it is put in place

I can speculate from hunting Alberta’s 1 buck WT prov limit( exceptions for some areas)

Thats what I am getting at, if you want to take some pressure off of the M Deer and the BlackTails fall under the same species in the Regs then why should we look at them like a sub species?
You shoot a Black Tail, your done. That would take the pressure off of some of the hot zones. I am sure I just made a Whole bunch of friends on the coast but it all about choices, if you
want a interior M Deer, then focus on that for the season. A little give goes along way.

I am a avid bowhunter and I was asked in a past thread how I felt about loosing the Late Mule Deer Bow Season in my back yard, my reply was "if it will help the M Deer then I am all for it"
Thats how we have to start thinking if we want to see change...

[bownut]

This isn't about overcrowding! In region 3 it's to cover for the fact that mule deer and white tail have been hammered in the southern MU's. If the harvest numbers go further down they can just blame it on fewer hunters because they got a buck some where else.
If they were concerned about over crowding they would rethink being the only region in the province where you can shoot two white tail fawns.
I don't think any of the Kamloops wildlife staff know there is a new highway that will put you from Surrey to Merritt in two and and a half hours.

We also have a 3 Deer Regional bag limits that really helps! Build it and they will come..

[Wild one]

First off... no mule deer to any non resident also. Period. ( yes that goes for all outfitters)

Not a lot of non residents come to BC to hunt mule deer. Way better quality hunts they can spend $ on outside of BC

BC is not a deer hunting hot spot

[Wild one]

Thats what I am getting at, if you want to take some pressure off of the M Deer and the BlackTails fall under the same species in the Regs then why should we look at them like a sub species?
You shoot a Black Tail, your done. That would take the pressure off of some of the hot zones. I am sure I just made a Whole bunch of friends on the coast but it all about choices, if you
want a interior M Deer, then focus on that for the season. A little give goes along way.

I am a avid bowhunter and I was asked in a past thread how I felt about loosing the Late Mule Deer Bow Season in my back yard, my reply was "if it will help the M Deer then I am all for it"
Thats how we have to start thinking if we want to see change...

Most region 2 hunters hunt mule deer more then BT. Doubt you would see much change there

BT are truly there own species and in my opinion should be managed that way.

I do understand what your getting at though

[Weatherby Fan]

you should only be able to hunt deer in the MU you live in.....did I mention I have a place in area 3........but its not all about me.....really its not :lol:

[darkside]

Let’s , just do the survey and let the experts ,our province has hired to make the management decisions.

Everyone has a opinion, about how things can be better. I can’t wait till you can only hunt where your residents is more Roosevelt elk for me ..... lol

[limit time]

Not a lot of non residents come to BC to hunt mule deer. Way better quality hunts they can spend $ on outside of BC

BC is not a deer hunting hot spot

Besides the point. Not one should go to a non resident.

[limit time]

Thats what I am getting at, if you want to take some pressure off of the M Deer and the BlackTails fall under the same species in the Regs then why should we look at them like a sub species?
You shoot a Black Tail, your done. That would take the pressure off of some of the hot zones. I am sure I just made a Whole bunch of friends on the coast but it all about choices, if you
want a interior M Deer, then focus on that for the season. A little give goes along way.

I am a avid bowhunter and I was asked in a past thread how I felt about loosing the Late Mule Deer Bow Season in my back yard, my reply was "if it will help the M Deer then I am all for it"
Thats how we have to start thinking if we want to see change...

Dude.... I will take a BT over a mule any day :) Also, the islands will still have a generous season I’d think, so... three for me still ?

[limit time]

you should only be able to hunt deer in the MU you live in.....did I mention I have a place in area 3........but its not all about me.....really its not :lol:
For me that’s fine. Have you looked at the bag limits for reg 1 ? :0

[bownut]

Dude.... I will take a BT over a mule any day :) Also, the islands will still have a generous season I’d think, so... three for me still ?
Thats good news, there is one place in BC holding its own. Thanks for the info.
Happy trails and good luck this coming season.

[TexasWalker]

Besides the point. Not one should go to a non resident.

Why?
Mule deer are one of our most plentiful species.
Why wouldn't we sell mule deer hunts to non residents?

[limit time]

Why?
Mule deer are one of our most plentiful species.
Why wouldn't we sell mule deer hunts to non residents?
Ha Ha ! I almost fell for your trickery ;)

[TexasWalker]

Ha Ha ! I almost fell for your trickery ;)

Zero trickery.
I can't see any good reason not to sell mule deer hunts to non residents.

[Wild one]

Besides the point. Not one should go to a non resident.

You sure took to the anti GO non resident koolaid

[Fisher-Dude]

First off... no mule deer to any non resident also. Period. ( yes that goes for all outfitters)

They aren't allocated species. The 70 a year taken in the entirety of BC by NR hunters isn't worth bothering about, especially since they are unallocated. One cougar family will kill 70 deer a year.

Focus of time, money, and effort should be on big picture habitat issues to grow 70,000 or 700,000 more deer, not on who shoots 70 deer.

[limit time]

Zero trickery.
I can't see any good reason not to sell mule deer hunts to non residents.

Because the MD are in decline ? So they say.

[limit time]

You sure took to the anti GO non resident koolaid

I’ve always been that way. I believe residents come first. If animals are declining in numbers such as moose, I think only residents should get them.

[limit time]

They aren't allocated species. The 70 a year taken in the entirety of BC by NR hunters isn't worth bothering about, especially since they are unallocated. One cougar family will kill 70 deer a year.

Focus of time, money, and effort should be on big picture habitat issues to grow 70,000 or 700,000 more deer, not on who shoots 70 deer.

70 is 70.... but I agree with the big picture. All I’m saying, if they want to restrict resident hunters with whatever means, LEH, one MD whatever it is...(to make more animals or horn size or trophies, not to sure at this point what people want ) we need to stop letting non residents take residents animals, and not cater to this “overcrowding” bull crap I’m reading about.
Plain and simple I LOVE hunting, it is what I do, it’s what I live for. It’s not a sport or hobby to me.

[blacklab]

[QUOTE=darkside;1971549]Let’s , just do the survey and let the experts ,our province has hired to make the management decisions.

Read the rational for the changes to the region 3 and provincial bag limits and tell me we should leave it to the experts.