Wildlife Management, BC vs US

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

I hear "the US manages fish and wildlife much better than BC" a LOT. I am not at all suggesting that's not true(!), in fact, from the little I know about the subject I tend to agree, but does anyone have any references that put hard data behind that? I know the libs are continuously defunding the relevant departments, I see what is going on with political decision making rather than science based (grizzly, salmon, now the anti-moose hunting campaign), etc etc

I also recognize it probably doesn't make sense to compare BC the province to US the country.

All that said, does anyone have references to ANY reasonable comparison/study that shows measures taken in the US (state?) solved a certain problem better than here in BC? Or maybe evenn between provinces here in Canada?

[Fella]

Well for one many states actually use money from tags to fund their f&w departments. Plus a certain percentage of money from the purchase of guns and ammo goes to fund f&w country wide...

[jac]

I do much prefer the leh point system vs the lottery.

[Jimbob]

Every State is different, some are much better than others. Simply saying the US manages better than BC doesn't make any sense. You need to compare to individual states.

The grass is always greener on the other side is a wise saying. We have it amazingly well here in BC yet people think its sucks. Moving here to BC I feel like I hit the hunting jackpot yet a bunch of others are complaining. I'm sure it can be tweaked and fixed and we need to be careful where we are headed but to be a BC resident hunter and complain about tag opportunity is absolutely ridiculous. There are few other places with the opportunities that we have.

I can choose to hunt deer, caribou, STONE SHEEP, goats, moose, elk, bear, cougar all GOS this year if I want, that is flat out amazing.

One thing that we are lucky about in BC is that we do not allow other Canadians to come hunt here. Imagine any Canadian could come hunt our GOS areas? We would be over run with hunters. That is how many of the states manage their hunting, non-resident hunters dominate the landscape. It's the system they use and it brings a lot of money and opportunities but it sure drives up hunting pressure. So I'm glad BC doesn't do that.





Also, point creep is a horrible thing in many states. Imagine starting out as a young hunter knowing you will not draw for 25 yrs? The benefit of the lottery system is that you ALWAYS have a chance. I hear a lot of hunters that have a point system say they wish they didn't. Now, I'm sure it has some benefits as well but its not the magic pill and we need to be careful what we wish for.

[twoSevenO]

it's been posted here before, in various different ways. Do a search to find it.
But in a nutshell, they simply have way more money. They have a much higher percentage of hunters in their population, which translates to more revenue from sales of licenses and tags. They also have more people overall, so they make a considerably larger amount of money that can be put to studies and protection of animals.

They also have much much better wildlife wintering habitats and zones, and do a great job of protecting them. In BC, they just log the shit out of anything they want. While it is true that they log in Washington and Oregon, some of the better mule deer hunting places like Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona .... they don't really log that much. Take a look at their Google Earth imagery. You will not see clear cuts like you see in the west. This certainly helps.

Predators are also a factor. The lower 48 don't have anywhere near the predators we have in BC. Bears, wolves, cougars ..... they are nowhere near in numbers compared to up here. Again, having more money means they do more studies, means they manage it better than up here.

Last but not least, their hunting is not as liberal as it is here. Their "open" zones are crap. Tons of people. Tons of private land to deal with. Their "good" zones are all on a draw system and can be very difficult to get draws considering the number of hunters they have competing for them.

Having said that, the hunting in the lower 48 seems worse for anything but deer or turkeys, when compared to BC.
They don't have nearly as many moose, goats, bears and of course sheep. I don't think they have an open season on any of those anywhere in the lower 48.

[Eastbranch]

They are better, and it boils down to the Pittman Robertson and Dingell Johnson Acts, which are taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act)

Montana is a great example. They have 1/5 the human population of BC, twice as many hunters, a fraction of the "public" land and as much or more hunting and angling opportunity, as well as greater diversity in that opportunity. They also have huge research and harvest survey/creel programs for most of their hunted and fished populations, which allows them to make much better informed management decisions. They have over 700 full time employees and an annual budget north of a hundred million.

[325]

They are better, and it boils down to the Pittman Robertson and Dingell Johnson Acts, which are taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act)

Montana is a great example. They have 1/5 the human population of BC, twice as many hunters, a fraction of the "public" land and as much or more hunting and angling opportunity, as well as greater diversity in that opportunity. They also have huge research and harvest survey/creel programs for most of their hunted and fished populations, which allows them to make much better informed management decisions. They have over 700 full time employees and an annual budget north of a hundred million.

Totally. I hunted Montana about 3-4 years ago and was absolutely blown away with the number of animals. Also, the population of Montana is really hunter-friendly and take wildlife management seriously

[Browning 3\d]

Sorry to say that back in the good 70`s we had all money from tags and Licence. Go in too fish and wildlife They could afford to have management. Then the good OLD NDP came to power put all to general revenue and it all went to hell in a handbag .

[J_T]

I would add, the approach of most American states is to consult and work with "hunters". For the most part in our neighbouring states, the objective of wildlife management is to provide for hunting opportunity. All methods of hunting. This is a fundamental difference in why wildlife management is carried out. They likely have a baseline to begin with and an inventory of the wildlife and the habitat. They understand the pressure points, and the drivers of managing opportunity. They have an objective, a strategy, a species specific plan and the ability to monitor and measure the success of their efforts (actions on the ground), and make necessary adjustments.

[325]

I would add, the approach of most American states is to consult and work with "hunters". For the most part in our neighbouring states, the objective of wildlife management is to provide for hunting opportunity. All methods of hunting. This is a fundamental difference in why wildlife management is carried out. They likely have a baseline to begin with and an inventory of the wildlife and the habitat. They understand the pressure points, and the drivers of managing opportunity. They have an objective, a strategy, a species specific plan and the ability to monitor and measure the success of their efforts (actions on the ground), and make necessary adjustments.

Very well said

[boxhitch]

The U.S. also has mandates and legislation and budgets, both federal and statewide , to look after public lands
Bureau of Land Mnagement is responsible for huge tracts of land, on a relative scale to BC of course.
Logging companies are dictated to, not asked to self monitor

[Blockcaver]

Having bowhunted big game in Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Oregon, California, Wisconsin, Alaska and New Mexico, in general the archery opportunities are significantly better for white tails, mule deer and elk over the counter as applicable or via LEH in most of the states referenced.

Drawing tags are very good for elk, deer, goats and Bighorn or Desert sheep but can be difficult to get. That said some states still have over the counter tags for elk and deer. Montana has an over the counter Bighorn unit but success is extremely low. I think the season closes after a certain number of rams are taken, which is how most state’s cougar hunting is handled.

BC has excellent Stone Sheep, black bear and goat hunting. Maybe the best around in terms of numbers if not size. Too bad our caribou numbers and moose in many areas are low. But as JimBob says, all the different species sure make it a good place to be a hunter.

[Harvest the Land]

Its fairly straightforward. In most (if not all) of the big hunting States, they realize how important it is to invest in Wildlife Mgt & research because of the trickle down effects it has on the economies of many small towns. So many people travel from out of state and drop big $$ in these hunting states (guides, hotels, gas, restaurants, gear from local sporting goods stores, tags etc.) and if there's no animals to hunt then all of that precious out of state $$ goes to nil.

One example I can give is the state of Idaho. They have a population of just over a million people and their annual wildlife budget is just over $100 million/year. Here in neighboring BC, we have about 5 times the population and spend about $40 million (less than half of what Idaho spends) on Wildlife Mgt (and almost none of that is spent on the research side). So it stands to reason that if we cared as much as Idaho does about wildlife mgt & research, we should be spending at least $500 million per year. The difference in investment dollars between BC and US states is staggering. We're not even in the same league

[two-feet]

Every State is different, some are much better than others. Simply saying the US manages better than BC doesn't make any sense. You need to compare to individual states.

The grass is always greener on the other side is a wise saying. We have it amazingly well here in BC yet people think its sucks. Moving here to BC I feel like I hit the hunting jackpot yet a bunch of others are complaining. I'm sure it can be tweaked and fixed and we need to be careful where we are headed but to be a BC resident hunter and complain about tag opportunity is absolutely ridiculous. There are few other places with the opportunities that we have.

I can choose to hunt deer, caribou, STONE SHEEP, goats, moose, elk, bear, cougar all GOS this year if I want, that is flat out amazing.

One thing that we are lucky about in BC is that we do not allow other Canadians to come hunt here. Imagine any Canadian could come hunt our GOS areas? We would be over run with hunters. That is how many of the states manage their hunting, non-resident hunters dominate the landscape. It's the system they use and it brings a lot of money and opportunities but it sure drives up hunting pressure. So I'm glad BC doesn't do that.





Also, point creep is a horrible thing in many states. Imagine starting out as a young hunter knowing you will not draw for 25 yrs? The benefit of the lottery system is that you ALWAYS have a chance. I hear a lot of hunters that have a point system say they wish they didn't. Now, I'm sure it has some benefits as well but its not the magic pill and we need to be careful what we wish for.

Fair, but to see the loss of animals and opportunity over the last several decades is heart breaking. As a kid we had a 2 month any bull GOS, now it is 3 days. We could assume that if we spend time on the rivers we would do well with salmon, now the rivers do not even open to white folks. I would say that this is a result of mismanagement more than anything else. Yes, we live in the best place on earth but at the rate things are going my kids will not hunt moose or fish salmon, which have both been family traditions for many many generations.

[Jimbob]

I hear ya there. I would rather make comparisons to the past and critique what we are doing than compare with how States manage. The US is so different that comparing to them seems crazy. I'm sure we can learn a few things though.

Seeing moose, caribou and salmon numbers go down is disheartening for sure.

More money always seems like the answer but where does the money come from?

[twoSevenO]

I hear ya there. I would rather make comparisons to the past and critique what we are doing than compare with how States manage. The US is so different that comparing to them seems crazy. I'm sure we can learn a few things though.

Seeing moose, caribou and salmon numbers go down is disheartening for sure.

More money always seems like the answer but where does the money come from?

Federal grants. Canadian governments cannot compare to the amount of money that the US government grants to various states for managing wildlife.

[twoSevenO]

Totally. I hunted Montana about 3-4 years ago and was absolutely blown away with the number of animals. Also, the population of Montana is really hunter-friendly and take wildlife management seriously

self hunt or guided? How did you do? Did you ever post about it? Would love to read up on a trip like this

I drove to Montana some years ago. Truly a beautiful place.

[303savage]

Well for one many states actually use money from tags to fund their f&w departments. I thought that was why we have LIC. and tag costs

[325]

self hunt or guided? How did you do? Did you ever post about it? Would love to read up on a trip like this

I drove to Montana some years ago. Truly a beautiful place.

Self-guided. My hunting partners brother lives in Montana, and we went down and hunted with him. It's really easy for non-residents to hunt there.

I never posted about it. I just can't deal with the difficulty posting photos on this site, lol.

[Bugle M In]

I would add, the approach of most American states is to consult and work with "hunters". For the most part in our neighbouring states, the objective of wildlife management is to provide for hunting opportunity. All methods of hunting. This is a fundamental difference in why wildlife management is carried out. They likely have a baseline to begin with and an inventory of the wildlife and the habitat. They understand the pressure points, and the drivers of managing opportunity. They have an objective, a strategy, a species specific plan and the ability to monitor and measure the success of their efforts (actions on the ground), and make necessary adjustments.

J-T,

Just wanted to ask (maybe you might have some insight)
How do they down there work with the resource sectors "Any differently" that may also make a difference??, if they do at all.
I guess also another question is, is there any differences with the cattle ranchers etc down there??

Just trying to figure out "what actually is working down there" to make a difference at times compared to here.
What is different and what is the same, to eliminate things that cant be change and change those that can be and can help.

[two-feet]

I think anybody moderately educated on the subject will agree that the excise taxes south of us are a huge contributor to the success of wildlife management.

However, there was a discussion on this site in the near past posing the question: would BC hunters support an excise tax in this province? The answer from a surprising majority was a flat NO.

I understand a mistrust of government money management, but if as a group we cannot get behind a proven winning strategy the future may be bleak.

[Keta1969]

[QUOTE=two-feet;2184450]I think anybody moderately educated on the subject will agree that the excise taxes south of us are a huge contributor to the success of wildlife management.

However, there was a discussion on this site in the near past posing the question: would BC hunters support an excise tax in this province? The answer from a surprising majority was a flat NO.

I would be in favor of a similar funding model to what works in the U.S. states. Lets start with our Licence fees, leh fees,and tag fees to start with as was proposed by the previous Govt.But I believe to raise the funds necessary we need to look at the taxation model in the states, and because we are paying it gives us a voice. Better protections for wildlife must be built in to the forestry act particularly in regards to winter range and spur road deactivation.It doesn't feel to me like anyone speaks for wildlife in a meaningful way at the Forest Service. Ranchers and developers also have to get on board in this regard. Every year there is less and less wild land in B.C. for wildlife. Can't have one without the other.

[Bugle M In]

Maybe have the Fees go to a Society.
Example, the Freshwater Society, that basically comprises of Bios and members who all fish.
Need the same for Wildlife, that comprises of hunters mainly, or "pro hunting".

Last thing I want is it going to a society that is full of antis.
At least Hunters would try to ensure good #'s of game for hunting which also benefits everyone else who wants to view them etc.

All the money would have to change hands, not stay in the political coffers, and then be managed from there.
Everyone would have access to the #'s, everyone would have access to where every $ was spent and how.
"All above board".
And a environmental tax/fee on all outdoor equipment for all purposes, whether hunting or hiking type recreation etc, should be instituted.
But, only when we have a Society "INPLACE"!