BCWF-Conservation group fears proposed regulations favour trophy hunt

[BCWF]

https://1acgtt12xmhd5laxc2saim4d-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/10962666_web1_copy_171016-CMA-M-moose.jpg


“It’s gone totally away from science-based decision making to more socially justified decisions,” he said.

“If it was a conservation issue, that’s a different story, but turning residents into trophy hunters doesn’t make sense.”


BCWF President Harvey Andrusak speaks on the proposed changes to the Skeena bull moose hunt.

Engage your MLAs to have your voices heard!

Find out more at the following link.

https://www.terracestandard.com/news/recent-bull-moose-hunting-regulations-favor-trophy-hunters-over-sustenance-hunt/

[eric]

It's easier to manage hunters, then it is to do the controversial thing, like manage the Wolf numbers.

[boxhitch]

Just like a hunter to inject the 'trophy' word into a discussion as though it is poison

[358mag]

Maybe Andrew Weaver has something to say about this in his address at the BCWF AGM

[dana]

Hmmm, If it walks like an Anti, sounds like an Anti and looks like an Anti, it is probably an Anti!!!

[hunter4life223]

Can’t spike fork bulls be harvested under the proposed changes as well as 3 brow points or 10 total points to a side. If that’s the case it can hardly be called a trophy hunt.
Looks like someone is either misinformed, can’t read the proposed reg change or is on a mission to stir up a fight.

[dana]

I have heard that the Fed is getting ready to ramp up the resident versus non- resident debate once again. They are virtue signaling to the anti crowd by saying hunting for a trophy is somehow morally wrong. The real push is to cut big money out of conservation in BC because Raincoast knows the Residents alone don't have the funds to fight them. Are the residents ready to fight another war with fellow hunters so they can loose it all to Raincoast?

[358mag]

I have heard that the Fed is getting ready to ramp up the resident versus non- resident debate once again. They are virtue signaling to the anti crowd by saying hunting for a trophy is somehow morally wrong. The real push is to cut big money out of conservation in BC because Raincoast knows the Residents alone don't have the funds to fight them. Are the residents ready to fight another war with fellow hunters so they can loose it all to Raincoast?
If the BCWF is signaling again to the anti hunting crowd about Trophy Hunting , are they still handing out awards to the Largest Trophys at the AGM ???

[Caribou_lou]

Can’t spike fork bulls be harvested under the proposed changes as well as 3 brow points or 10 total points to a side. If that’s the case it can hardly be called a trophy hunt.
Looks like someone is either misinformed, can’t read the proposed reg change or is on a mission to stir up a fight.

I bet I can guess who this might be... part of the process? Or should I say part of the problem...

[hunter4life223]

Can't disagree with you BcHunt ...but at least they spoke up ... apparently.

As for the troll by 223, I have a question ... rhetorical as it might be.

When less than 10% of yearling bull moose in North Skeena are spike/forks, and 0% of the two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten year old etc... bull moose are spike/forks ... how can you not agree that this regulation is not forcing BC resident hunters to target the older "trophy" bulls.

Add to that the fact this restriction is only proposed for the areas BC resident hunters prefer to hunt ... and what do you have!?

The answer is obvious!

Isn’t this regulation already in place in Region 7B?
How many bulls over 4 years old achieve tri palm/10 point status?
Maybe taking the crosshairs off of the percentage of bulls that are not spike fork, tri palm/10 point will stop them from disappearing off the landscape such as seems to be happening in many places.
The answer is very obvious that the management of wildlife such as we have historically seen in the past due to the steering of an organization that has been driven to live by the agenda of unhindered access and unlimited harvest oppurtunity has not worked.
Anyone can see what the wording of this article is leading up to. More division between hunters.
The BCWF has proposed resolutions on the table that will reopen the allocation war.
The BCWF has invited Andrew Weaver to be a speaker and partake in their AGM.
Someone has an agenda, they are on a mission to fulfill that agenda and they do not care if hunting exists in this province in the future.

[Wild one]

Wow just shaking me head right now

[Caribou_lou]

Maybe taking the crosshairs off of the percentage of bulls that are not spike fork, tri palm/10 point will stop them from disappearing off the landscape such as seems to be happening in many places.


So your saying moose numbers are declining from resident hunter bull harvest? What are the Bull to Cow ratios at?

Funny how one will point a finger at this article describing it as creating more division between hunters. Isnt that what government is best at?

Im also aware of region 7B regulations being fork and 10 point tri palm. What has the moose population done in 7B the last 5 years?

[hunter4life223]

So your saying moose numbers are declining from resident hunter bull harvest? What are the Bull to Cow ratios at?

Funny how one will point a finger at this article describing it as creating more division between hunters. Isnt that what government is best at?

Im also aware of region 7B regulations being fork and 10 point tri palm. What has the moose population done in 7B the last 5 years?

Its seems there was another article in print concerning these proposed regulation changes and the regional biologist Conrad Thiesson giving his rational.
Maybe someone can post up the link to it.
Caribou_lou, there’s no point in you and me bickering over bull/cow ratios or what’s happened to cause the decline in the Region 7B moose population.
Instead of defending the past, you tell me how we can prevent a rapid decline from happening in the few parts of the province that still has a decent moose population.
Rallying the troops for unimpeded access and unlimited oppurtunity sure hasn’t worked, maybe Thiesson the paid government biologist knows best.

[Caribou_lou]

All bickering aside. I strongly feel the Bull to Cow Ratios is one of the stats that can't be ignored. We can agree we want more Moose. Everyone would like more Moose. Regulating Resident Bull harvest will only make more Bull Moose. And previous flights have shown there isn't a concern with the number of Bull Moose.

Reason for the changes are fear that a shortened regular season in South Skeena will push more hunters north. I believe that was in the article. Why are people afraid of more hunters going north? Limited access and Bull only harvest with a high Bull to Cow ratio... What's to fear? This is all to please the FNs and Guides. The only ones getting the axe are the residents hunters.

As for trusting our paid Bios. Why are we where we are? If I'm correct Resident AAH in South Skeena took a hit when FNs were given a certain number of Resident Bull permits. To encourage them to hunt Bulls. Which isn't happening. So again Residents lose out and zero problems solved.

[HarryToolips]

^^^yes and according to the article, the FN's are hoping these changes will alleviate what they believe is too much hunting pressure, yet they continue to deny that they are the main problem with all their unregulated harvest. When will the government finally do what's right, and stop this before the First Nations ruin it for everybody, including their own future generations..

[Caribou_lou]

I also read that FNs support CI for Resident and Non Residents (Guided). Which I support also. Solid harvest numbers are much more useful than anecdotal. But FNs refuse to report their own harvests... That speaks volumes of where we have problems.

[Caribou_lou]

Our Bios wanted to get rid of a Rut Bow Hunt for Bull Moose. What data were they working off of to support this Proposal? Anecdotal data. I don't have much confidence in our Bios these days.

[gcreek]

^^^yes and according to the article, the FN's are hoping these changes will alleviate what they believe is too much hunting pressure, yet they continue to deny that they are the main problem with all their unregulated harvest. When will the government finally do what's right, and stop this before the First Nations ruin it for everybody, including their own future generations..

It has been my experience to watch a very healthy and populous west Chilcotin moose herd be depleted to few in my nearly 40 years here.

The slaughter started with an unregulated GOS on newly opened logging roads where it was common to witness a hundred different vehicles go by my door daily during season in the mid 80’s. Couple this with a 10day cow or calf season at the same time for a period of 4 years. MOE’s reasoning was that other areas were shot out and resident hunters needed somewhere to go. This ended only when LEH was adopted.

During the same time and still happening, Natives are exercising their right to hunt as per provisions given them. Many are being encouraged to shoot only bulls and chastised by band members if they shoot cows or are in the business of selling meat.

Add an ever increasing population of predators to top it off.

If you ever shot a moose in your life, you are part of the equation as to where we are now.............

[HarryToolips]

^^^^if your hunting only bulls, and the ratio is not below 30 bulls:100 cows I'd say your wrong....female and juvenile survival is what drives populations, not excess bulls and excess sperm supply...if FN's are the ones depleting mooose across all sex and age classes, then they are the primary problem, along with heavy predation of course...

[40incher]

I've killed many bull moose ... and don't consider myself as part of the problem!

The real problem is, and you can quote me on this, know-it-all bureaucrats (KIABs) who push their own agenda, despite what the long-suffering local hunters say.

We had to reign in the KIABs many years ago when they forced us to kill cows, calves and too many bulls. "We" designed our own conservative regulations and they were forced by the politicians to enact them.

Now they have the upper hand with their "sky-is falling" rhetoric and phony justifications.

Don't be fooled as to who the problem really is!

[two-feet]

The justification to lower bull harvest in skeena south is that our anual allowable harvest has been exceeded last several years. And moose numbers, bull and cow, are declining.

The justification for the changes in skeena north to spike fork or "soft 10" are purely social, pressure from first nations. Nothing to do with conservation.

[Caribou_lou]

Well its easy to make it appear we have harvested over our AAH when they lowered our AAH!