Region 4 elk LEH

[nelsonob1]

Local CO claims that R4 considering LEH elk only. Anyone else heard this?

[savage10]

Interesting…wouldn’t surprise me with the way things are going these days..

[jan.wi97]

Heard similar… I was told the option might be bow only and last two weeks of October rifle

[ydouask]

And what makes you think the CO's know what the Ministry will or willo not do ????

[j270wsm]

I’ve been hearing the same thing.

[nelsonob1]

And what makes you think the CO's know what the Ministry will or willo not do ????

If I thought the CO knew everything, what would be the point of my post?

[nelsonob1]

I’ve been hearing the same thing.

Do you think there would be a consultation period before such a big decision is made? It would be nice to hear the reasons and opportunity to comment.

[savage10]

I wonder what the plan is for R8 then. If 4 goes leh…all hell will break loose in 8…and 7 too.

[Bugle M In]

F”em!
if they do that, say hello to the beginning of the end for hunting in BC!
Doesnt surprise me.
But that’s what happens when nothing else is done but to restrict hunters.
He can kiss his job goodbye one day too then.

[high horse Hal]

Do you think there would be a consultation period before such a big decision is made? It would be nice to hear the reasons and opportunity to comment.
check what the local clubs have to say
we used to have a saying that if you hadn't heard a good rumour by morning coffee break, then start one
Maybe the CO confidant was just stirring the sh!+ pot

[J_T]

Local CO claims that R4 considering LEH elk only. Anyone else heard this?
The CO is not correct. Why we always believe what CO's say is beyond me. There is a proposal to create LEH Youth/Senior opportunities on private land.
For the rest of the region, the overwhelming demand from a certain organization to move the WK to LEH is correct. However, neither the Ministry staff responsible, nor the many other stakeholders involved in the discussion are supporting a move to LEH. Consultation is ongoing and occurring. There will eventually be a posting on Engage BC for comments.

[dakoda62]

If the natives get heavily involved it's almost an absolute.

[Bugle M In]

I can understand the “rumour”.
The elk situation up there isn’t great.
And if it continues without the proper issues not being addressed to turn things around, I could see an Leh.
But if that happens, then kiss it all good bye.
If we can’t fix that, a main area for many to hunt elk for generations of the past, then I don’t see how we fix anything for the future.

[jan.wi97]

What about an LEH for 3pt or better?

[HappyJack]

Local CO claims that R4 considering LEH elk only. Anyone else heard this?

I heard the outfitters have been pressuring them to put all big game under LEH, province wide.

[j270wsm]

What about an LEH for 3pt or better?

Or we could follow the model that the Americans use…..allow people to harvest across the entire age group with a 6week bow season for any bull then have a late leh rifle season.

[jan.wi97]

Or we could follow the model that the Americans use…..allow people to harvest across the entire age group with a 6week bow season for any bull then have a late leh rifle season.

that is exactly what my brother in-law was saying… the model in the states works… why not here as well?

[j270wsm]

Because the ministry isn’t smart enough to do anything that would increase wildlife/fish populations. They’re too busy pandering to special interest groups.

[sakohunter]

We were talking about LEH changes/implementation. Name one area or animal where it has made an improvement. We were at a loss to name one. Just saying!

[j270wsm]

Don’t take my comments as leh is our saving grace. Leh can be a great tool that could allow hunters to target old bulls after the rut.
The ministry needs to start dumping money( aerial surveys and wolf culls, general pred reduction, habitat improvements, change logging practices, close a ton of roads….etc ) into our wild life before we’ll see any drastic improvements. West kootenay elk was leh for a long time and had a ton of huge bulls and over all great genetics….opened it for gos 6pt+ and what do they have now? Don’t forget that states like colorado are 1/3 the size of Bc yet they have 4-5times more elk. Obviously the wildlife model the states uses is working.

[bwhnter]

Elk population in BC 15,000 - 40,0000. Elk population in Colorado over 280,000. There is no way we can model our elk seasons the same way they model theirs.

[jan.wi97]

Elk population in BC 15,000 - 40,0000. Elk population in Colorado over 280,000. There is no way we can model our elk seasons the same way they model theirs.

And that is purely do to topography etc? Or years of subpar management? Genuinely curious

[Bugle M In]

I heard the outfitters have been pressuring them to put all big game under LEH, province wide.
They wouldn’t support LEH proposals if “they also had to apply “!, vs being allocated regardless what the rest of us have to deal with.

[LBM]

We were talking about LEH changes/implementation. Name one area or animal where it has made an improvement. We were at a loss to name one. Just saying!

as mentioned WK elk was better when on leh

[GreyDog]

There is no question that elk numbers are way down in the EK. I think that shortening the season would help. Quit hunting in the rut (to include archery). Limit motorized access and off-road vehicle use. Enhance winter range. While we're at it, we've reduced whitetail populations more than enough as well. GD

[high horse Hal]

you guys are assuming there is a problem with the elk pop numbers at what they are now
the holding capacity of Anywhere-near-people B.C. has changed in 20 yrs, they may be resistance to just growing more elk for the sake of just having more
to say the Min of Elk is incompetent makes it sound like they have a higher goal they are not achieving, I think they are satisfied with the way numbers have dropped and the related problems have diminished
Prove me wrong, where are the efforts or pressure to increase pop numbers?

[high horse Hal]

There is no question that elk numbers are way down in the EK. I think that shortening the season would help. Quit hunting in the rut (to include archery). Limit motorized access and off-road vehicle use. Enhance winter range. While we're at it, we've reduced whitetail populations more than enough as well. GDyou figure there is a shortage of bulls in the ratio? why curtail opportunity just to grow older elk?

[HappyJack]

Don’t take my comments as leh is our saving grace. Leh can be a great tool that could allow hunters to target old bulls after the rut.
The ministry needs to start dumping money( aerial surveys and wolf culls, general pred reduction, habitat improvements, change logging practices, close a ton of roads….etc ) into our wild life before we’ll see any drastic improvements. West kootenay elk was leh for a long time and had a ton of huge bulls and over all great genetics….opened it for gos 6pt+ and what do they have now? Don’t forget that states like colorado are 1/3 the size of Bc yet they have 4-5times more elk. Obviously the wildlife model the states uses is working.

How do predator numbers compare in Colorado to here? Just look at what a few wolves did to the elk populations in Yellowstone...

[HappyJack]

We were talking about LEH changes/implementation. Name one area or animal where it has made an improvement. We were at a loss to name one. Just saying!

I have to agree, we just don't see any upside to the LEH system in improving populations.

[HarryToolips]

Elk population in BC 15,000 - 40,0000. Elk population in Colorado over 280,000. There is no way we can model our elk seasons the same way they model theirs.

Where did you get those population estimates from?

This, according to the government website says 35,000 to 71,500... though that's quite the spread, it would be optimal if they put more funding, which subsequently leads to more aerial counts etc.. I don't exactly have alot of confidence in their estimates..but I'd assume it would be a lot higher than 15,000-40,000..

[Bugle M In]

you guys are assuming there is a problem with the elk pop numbers at what they are now
the holding capacity of Anywhere-near-people B.C. has changed in 20 yrs, they may be resistance to just growing more elk for the sake of just having more
to say the Min of Elk is incompetent makes it sound like they have a higher goal they are not achieving, I think they are satisfied with the way numbers have dropped and the related problems have diminished
Prove me wrong, where are the efforts or pressure to increase pop numbers?
Certainly we have lost a lot of winter range to development over the years.
But, there is also a lot less elk heading to the back country come spring.
Plenty of speculation for reasons on that.
I think also some of these elk herds contend with both BC and Alberta hunting regulations.
Depending which way those herds migrate if near the border.
Ministry certainly did a good job in reducing numbers in low elevation.
But they haven’t done squat for the rest of the elk who should be moving back high.

[KootenayKiller]

I would prefer LEH and any bull, I think. I've seen numerous mature-looking herd bulls this season and all were 5 points. I wonder if the current 6-point restrictions are creating selection pressure for bulls that don't have the genetic predisposition to grow more than 5 points, changing the genetic makeup of the overall population.

[#49]

Kootenay killer those have been my WK observations for the last few years as well

[high horse Hal]

Every 6 point out there has been spreading genes for years, its not as though they don't breed until they reach 6pts
6's don't last long, especially when thats what is available only, good thing they are developing some every year

[TheObserver]

I can't fathom how any hunter in this province would want more LEH, blows me away. I don't live there but where i'm at is 6 point only even during archery season has been for a long time and there are monster 6,'s 7's and 8's NESW trail cams don't lie.

They are just to smart for most even when fully rutted

[Elkaholic]

I can't fathom how any hunter in this province would want more LEH, blows me away. I don't live there but where i'm at is 6 point only even during archery season has been for a long time and there are monster 6,'s 7's and 8's NESW trail cams don't lie.

They are just to smart for most even when fully rutted


That might be the case up there, but why since the introduction of the 6 point season here in region 4 has the big game club had to continually decrease the minimum score of entry for elk? Because we do not have the class of animals that used to be out there. 6 point season has done nothing but create a shit storm for our herds. Herd bulls are the target constantly, 5 points getting shot every year over and over. How many bulls have died over the last 30 years due to that fact alone. The elk herd has done nothing but go down since 6 point as well. But when we can only manage to 9000 (thank ICBC and your local ranchers, but hey they can still put their cows on the range too, dont worry about it ;-)) elk in region 4 then you start to see why we will never see elk like we used to have. LEH, what has LEH ever fixed? How is region 4 moose coming along? That was only temporary, but here we sit still and honestly there are MU's that should not even have a season and they are on LEH. But here in BC hunters are too privileged to accept any other kind of management, should we try taking gun out of the rut for a 2 year cycle? Why not? See what happens? We are so entrenched in ONLY having a 6 point gun season in the rut that we cant give it up for the betterment of the damn elk we want to hunt. If better elk hunting means I don't have 30+ days to hunt then so be it. I can live with that if it is beneficial to the game over all, people are smart and we will adjust our tactics to the new season. But that is treason to most people I find and it blows my mind, do we want more elk or just to bitch about more elk. Let's try things beyond the usual play book, it hasn't been working.

If this ministry knew how to manage anything we would have game for the meat hunter, for the guy who wants to be selective, for everyone. But they put us all against each other instead of banding together and seeing what the real issues is, MOE or whatever damn acronym they have now (gun vs bow, leh vs open, doe seasons, indigenous/non-indigenous they don't care as long as we are divided). If they did their job with any kind of success then all of this goes away. There are so many examples, I even recently asked 2 of the local biologists about accountability and holding them accountable for the changes they make that screw up a game population, they wanted nothing to do with that conversation which says a lot in my mind. How can we do any of these game management processes if there is no accountability for any mistakes on their end of things. If I screwed up that bad at my job consistently I would suspect I wouldn't have a job any longer.

Just my .02 worth.

[jan.wi97]

That might be the case up there, but why since the introduction of the 6 point season here in region 4 has the big game club had to continually decrease the minimum score of entry for elk? Because we do not have the class of animals that used to be out there. 6 point season has done nothing but create a shit storm for our herds. Herd bulls are the target constantly, 5 points getting shot every year over and over. How many bulls have died over the last 30 years due to that fact alone. The elk herd has done nothing but go down since 6 point as well. But when we can only manage to 9000 (thank ICBC and your local ranchers, but hey they can still put their cows on the range too, dont worry about it ;-)) elk in region 4 then you start to see why we will never see elk like we used to have. LEH, what has LEH ever fixed? How is region 4 moose coming along? That was only temporary, but here we sit still and honestly there are MU's that should not even have a season and they are on LEH. But here in BC hunters are too privileged to accept any other kind of management, should we try taking gun out of the rut for a 2 year cycle? Why not? See what happens? We are so entrenched in ONLY having a 6 point gun season in the rut that we cant give it up for the betterment of the damn elk we want to hunt. If better elk hunting means I don't have 30+ days to hunt then so be it. I can live with that if it is beneficial to the game over all, people are smart and we will adjust our tactics to the new season. But that is treason to most people I find and it blows my mind, do we want more elk or just to bitch about more elk. Let's try things beyond the usual play book, it hasn't been working.

If this ministry knew how to manage anything we would have game for the meat hunter, for the guy who wants to be selective, for everyone. But they put us all against each other instead of banding together and seeing what the real issues is, MOE or whatever damn acronym they have now (gun vs bow, leh vs open, doe seasons, indigenous/non-indigenous they don't care as long as we are divided). If they did their job with any kind of success then all of this goes away. There are so many examples, I even recently asked 2 of the local biologists about accountability and holding them accountable for the changes they make that screw up a game population, they wanted nothing to do with that conversation which says a lot in my mind. How can we do any of these game management processes if there is no accountability for any mistakes on their end of things. If I screwed up that bad at my job consistently I would suspect I would have a job any longer.

Just my .02 worth.

Just a solid amen to those .02 cents

[HappyJack]

""should we try taking gun out of the rut for a 2 year cycle? Why not? ""

Why just the gun, shut it down for the rut in region 4 maybe? I don't see any logical reason to allow bows and crossbows but ban gun hunters....unless you're a bow hunter suggesting it.

[Elkaholic]

""should we try taking gun out of the rut for a 2 year cycle? Why not? ""

Why just the gun, shut it down for the rut in region 4 maybe? I don't see any logical reason to allow bows and crossbows but ban gun hunters....unless you're a bow hunter suggesting it.



I didn't say anything about bow, I do like to archery hunt but I am fully able to suck up anything that might make our herds better overall. In saying that I do hope they make our archery season a little more than the 10 current days but that's small pennies in the grand scheme of we just need better elk management, whatever that looks like.

[TheObserver]

That might be the case up there, but why since the introduction of the 6 point season here in region 4 has the big game club had to continually decrease the minimum score of entry for elk? Because we do not have the class of animals that used to be out there. 6 point season has done nothing but create a shit storm for our herds. Herd bulls are the target constantly, 5 points getting shot every year over and over. How many bulls have died over the last 30 years due to that fact alone. The elk herd has done nothing but go down since 6 point as well. But when we can only manage to 9000 (thank ICBC and your local ranchers, but hey they can still put their cows on the range too, dont worry about it ;-)) elk in region 4 then you start to see why we will never see elk like we used to have. LEH, what has LEH ever fixed? How is region 4 moose coming along? That was only temporary, but here we sit still and honestly there are MU's that should not even have a season and they are on LEH. But here in BC hunters are too privileged to accept any other kind of management, should we try taking gun out of the rut for a 2 year cycle? Why not? See what happens? We are so entrenched in ONLY having a 6 point gun season in the rut that we cant give it up for the betterment of the damn elk we want to hunt. If better elk hunting means I don't have 30+ days to hunt then so be it. I can live with that if it is beneficial to the game over all, people are smart and we will adjust our tactics to the new season. But that is treason to most people I find and it blows my mind, do we want more elk or just to bitch about more elk. Let's try things beyond the usual play book, it hasn't been working.

If this ministry knew how to manage anything we would have game for the meat hunter, for the guy who wants to be selective, for everyone. But they put us all against each other instead of banding together and seeing what the real issues is, MOE or whatever damn acronym they have now (gun vs bow, leh vs open, doe seasons, indigenous/non-indigenous they don't care as long as we are divided). If they did their job with any kind of success then all of this goes away. There are so many examples, I even recently asked 2 of the local biologists about accountability and holding them accountable for the changes they make that screw up a game population, they wanted nothing to do with that conversation which says a lot in my mind. How can we do any of these game management processes if there is no accountability for any mistakes on their end of things. If I screwed up that bad at my job consistently I would suspect I wouldn't have a job any longer.

Just my .02 worth.

I haven't even hunted region 4, though I have wanted to since I was a boy and still want to at some point so I definitely don't know the situation there and should keep my mouth shut on certain things. I agree with you we need accountability for those making decisions (seems like that is a foreign idea these days be it provincial or federal) LEH scares me as I can see what it can turn into and like others here have said it could be the end of legal hunting as we know it, I would rather try an approach like you mentioned that some of the states have and seems to work well, the free range cattle and icbc thing just makes me sick. We need to form a group of resident hunters, because right now everything is done behind closed doors, apparently with our voice behing heard (laughable), and it seems to be at the detriment to both resident hunters and wildlife

[KBC]

I would love to see a longer archery season…

[Bugle M In]

We did have Caribou also, that went beyond LEH, to being outright closed, and we still managed they poor management, to kill them off.
I am all good ti replenish a herd that has taken a kicking.
I supported the reduction in cow permits back in the 90’s.
Not the 6pt restrictions, but they did that also!
And look where we are!.

I will add one other thing…
Many felt the elk #’s were coming back, with these restrictions.
I thought so also, but didn’t like seeing so many 5pts appearing to be the harem bull (but that’s a different thought).
BUT then, we suddenly all saw a huge collapse.
Only 2 things come to mind…
ICBC/Rancher Zone X hunt.
A study saying elk we’re staying low and not heading back up high.
And what was also occurring?
Well, we were losing to Selkirk herd of Boo.
Why, habitat changes and the Wolf.

So, fix that with a plan/strategy and I will support a different elk season to help with those changes.
Otherwise, imo, it ain’t going to matter what we as hunters do.
(except for not killing illegal sized bulls….
we got to get better with that folks!)

[Greenthumbed]

I would prefer LEH and any bull, I think. I've seen numerous mature-looking herd bulls this season and all were 5 points. I wonder if the current 6-point restrictions are creating selection pressure for bulls that don't have the genetic predisposition to grow more than 5 points, changing the genetic makeup of the overall population.
I agree with this

[Bugle M In]

Any bull Leh.
well, then I can see it now, after a few seasons, the locals complain that too many LM”s win the draws.
Isnt that the same issue currently up north with Moose!??
Think I have heard rumblings about that as well.
How about we just try to elk the right habitat and protection?
Wolf cull, Fences along Hwys (would help the sheep also), maybe r establish some winter range blah blah blah.

Maybe it’s a good thing I am closer to the end of my hunting than starting out.
Looks like many would rather limit hunting opportunity and just succumb to lower game numbers as the new acceptable approach to wildlife management.

I guess trying to fix the problems is too much of a stretch?
Easier to put fixes on paper instead.
Only problem is folks, we have done that for years!
And if anyone has paid attention, it hasn’t really worked.

[HappyJack]

I would love to see a longer archery season…

Archery seasons are already longer than rifle seasons, so do you mean an earlier opening or a long one? For sure you don't mean to remove rifle hunting in favour of more archery only?

[HappyJack]

Any bull Leh.
well, then I can see it now, after a few seasons, the locals complain that too many LM”s win the draws.
Isnt that the same issue currently up north with Moose!??
Think I have heard rumblings about that as well.
How about we just try to elk the right habitat and protection?
Wolf cull, Fences along Hwys (would help the sheep also), maybe r establish some winter range blah blah blah.

Maybe it’s a good thing I am closer to the end of my hunting than starting out.
Looks like many would rather limit hunting opportunity and just succumb to lower game numbers as the new acceptable approach to wildlife management.

I guess trying to fix the problems is too much of a stretch?
Easier to put fixes on paper instead.
Only problem is folks, we have done that for years!
And if anyone has paid attention, it hasn’t really worked.

It's like that with a lot of the LEHs. It shouldn't take 10 years or more to get a moose LEH in your home region. That whole system could use a re-write to make it a little more equitable for hunters vying for those LEHs.

[jan.wi97]

Archery seasons are already longer than rifle seasons, so do you mean an earlier opening or a long one? For sure you don't mean to remove rifle hunting in favour of more archery only?

For Elk in the EK? Sept 1-9 archery and Sept 10- Oct 20 or 5th (depending on MU) rifle

[jac]

A lot of the states are bow only during the rut. Seems to be working for them but obviously different environments and likely holds more elk.

Im in favour of anything that helps grow the populations. It’s hard to beat getting a bugle at 20 yards makes smile every time.

[HappyJack]

For Elk in the EK? Sept 1-9 archery and Sept 10- Oct 20 or 5th (depending on MU) rifle

EK archery Sept--Oct 20, there is nothing stopping archery hunting during the rifles openings is there?

[MadCat]

EK archery Sept--Oct 20, there is nothing stopping archery hunting during the rifles openings is there?

The reason for archery is because of the success ratio. Way lower success with archery then rifle. People still get to hunt but lower harvest numbers and if the harvest numbers allow you can do any bull which will get rid of the illegal harvest of bulls. I'm curious how many of the people pushing LEH have killed an elk before.

[jan.wi97]

EK archery Sept--Oct 20, there is nothing stopping archery hunting during the rifles openings is there?

The point is to limit rifle season until after the rut

[Bugle M In]

Hmmm, archery season.
Okay, I am more willing to entertain that than Leh!
And if it is 3 pt or better.
Are you folks thinking 6pt still?
2 reasons i would accept bow over Leh, is simple.
Everyone can still go (as long as xbow is allowed, some of us have bad shoulders).
And the GO’s would also have to have their clients use them as well.
Leh would mean some never get an opportunity with our current system.
More bitching about locals vs out of towners getting the draw, which just divides the hunting fraternity more.
And GO’s just don’t get their usual allotment and circumvent whst the rest of us deal with.

Just keep in mind folks, you want Leh…
You will have 100% GO support for that season!
Anybody recall much backlash from that group when RMBS went full Leh in R4!!??
Why is that?

Careful with Leh folks.
If the real issues are not addressed, you may end up sadly disappointed.
But then again, there is always FB to live vicariously thru to see how others faired while you sit at home.

[KBC]

Archery seasons are already longer than rifle seasons, so do you mean an earlier opening or a long one? For sure you don't mean to remove rifle hunting in favour of more archery only?
You are correct that I can still archery hunt in rifle season but I wouldn’t be upset if rifle season started later. As soon as September 10th hits, the antler restrictions hit 6 points for archery or rifle. September 1-9 archery only is usually hot and dry and only makes it harder to sneak up on something since it’s all so crunchy. There’s also the safety aspect. I could be under 100 yards from a bull with my bow and a guy with a rifle is 200 behind me taking a shot since he doesn’t see me.

From what I understand, most of the USA is archery only through September, I would be fine with that.

[jan.wi97]

Hmmm, archery season.
Okay, I am more willing to entertain that than Leh!
And if it is 3 pt or better.
Are you folks thinking 6pt still?
2 reasons i would accept bow over Leh, is simple.
Everyone can still go (as long as xbow is allowed, some of us have bad shoulders).
And the GO’s would also have to have their clients use them as well.
Leh would mean some never get an opportunity with our current system.
More bitching about locals vs out of towners getting the draw, which just divides the hunting fraternity more.
And GO’s just don’t get their usual allotment and circumvent whst the rest of us deal with.

Just keep in mind folks, you want Leh…
You will have 100% GO support for that season!
Anybody recall much backlash from that group when RMBS went full Leh in R4!!??
Why is that?

Careful with Leh folks.
If the real issues are not addressed, you may end up sadly disappointed.
But then again, there is always FB to live vicariously thru to see how others faired while you sit at home.


Exactly... LEH would just limit and cause friction but archery only during the rut could solve a lot of issues

[Elkaholic]

You are correct that I can still archery hunt in rifle season but I wouldn’t be upset if rifle season started later. As soon as September 10th hits, the antler restrictions hit 6 points for archery or rifle. September 1-9 archery only is usually hot and dry and only makes it harder to sneak up on something since it’s all so crunchy. There’s also the safety aspect. I could be under 100 yards from a bull with my bow and a guy with a rifle is 200 behind me taking a shot since he doesn’t see me.

From what I understand, most of the USA is archery only through September, I would be fine with that.

You don't even have to look south, look east to Alberta, when does their rifle open? Oct or later. I know a lot of guys that now go to Ab for their elk hunting.

[high horse Hal]

You are correct that I can still archery hunt in rifle season but I wouldn’t be upset if rifle season started later. As soon as September 10th hits, the antler restrictions hit 6 points for archery or rifle. September 1-9 archery only is usually hot and dry and only makes it harder to sneak up on something since it’s all so crunchy. There’s also the safety aspect. I could be under 100 yards from a bull with my bow and a guy with a rifle is 200 behind me taking a shot since he doesn’t see me.

From what I understand, most of the USA is archery only through September, I would be fine with that.any idea what the hunter numbers are or the participation in US vs here? They need more controls for a reason, and its not for elk pop control

[high horse Hal]

The point is to limit rifle season until after the rutwith what intent? there must be science you can point out?

[Rackmastr]

You don't even have to look south, look east to Alberta, when does their rifle open? Oct or later. I know a lot of guys that now go to Ab for their elk hunting.

Really depends on the area. Sep 17, Oct 25, or Nov 1st depending on the areas. Some draw areas beginning of Sept and archery Aug 25 in some areas or Sept 6-8th in a lot of others

[J_T]

I would add, that there has been a concerted effort since about February 2023 to develop a very detailed Elk Stewardship Plan. As this ESP is getting close to complete, any regulation modifications SHOULD be in alignment with elk stewardship. Rather than social pressure.

While some of you have talked about elk populations. The present estimated population of elk in the population units is approximately 'where' the BC Gov would like it. The population in the trench is estimated at 10,000. We resident hunters would like more. Our term is 'increasing population', and 'upward trending'.

[KBC]

any idea what the hunter numbers are or the participation in US vs here? They need more controls for a reason, and its not for elk pop control
Obviously there are a lot more hunters in the USA. From my personal experience as as shitty Hunter, it’s pretty tough as an archery hunter in the archery only season. I’ll admit it is selfish of me to want more archery only opportunities as well. I won’t even get into the debate on crossbows vs compound vs traditional use in archery season, I’m sure the day will come I can’t draw and hold it anymore and will pick up a crossbow…

If you look around though, many states and provinces have longer archery seasons, a muzzle loader season, black powder and rifle seasons and less antler restrictions. Why in BC does the easiest tool to use have the longest season, right through prime rut time? Unfortunately it would be too hard to enforce but if the season was the same but put the 6 point only on rifle and any bull for archery, muzzleloader etc. it would be better.

Why does it seem BC is doing things differently and most of us are complaining about a lack of game and game management?

[bwhnter]

Maybe contact your local biologist and see what the target population number is. You may be surprised to find that their number is not the number you would like to see.

[HarryToolips]

I didn't say anything about bow, I do like to archery hunt but I am fully able to suck up anything that might make our herds better overall. In saying that I do hope they make our archery season a little more than the 10 current days but that's small pennies in the grand scheme of we just need better elk management, whatever that looks like.

What better management looks like is more funding towards the wildlife resource, work on resolutions to the issues with ranchers that doesn't involve any reductions of the herd #s (unless numbers are over the carrying capacity of the area, which should be determined with proper funding), habitat enhancement which should in theory, reduce conflicts with ranchers, and pred reduction... but it all starts with funding..

[j270wsm]

any idea what the hunter numbers are or the participation in US vs here? They need more controls for a reason, and its not for elk pop control

I haven’t looked at the hunter numbers in the states. How many elk can you kill in Canada in a yr? In the states you don’t need to be guided in neighbouring states. A lot of western states have over the counter tags meaning you could kill multiple elk every yr…..look at the guys from born and raised outdoors as an example.
My suggestion of longer gos any bull archery season would mean there is tons of opportunity to hunt any bull but it would lower success rates, removing rifle from the rut would help big bulls breed and pass on genetics. Short rifle season after the rut would allow for some of the old bulls to be taken out of the herd. A very small amount of leh tags is an after thought if the herd ever gets back to what it used to be…….after all who wouldn’t love the opportunity to hunt huge bulls late season.

Do you honestly think the regs in the states are designed only to control hunters and not to help control elk populations? As someone else mentioned….most western states have some sort of gos archery any bull season, rifle, muzzle loader, leh and cow seasons. Their harvesting all across the age spectrum and harvesting cows but up here we keep doing the same thing over and over and have no elk compared to 12yrs ago.

At what point do people give up their self righteous greed and make a few small sacrifices that could possibly make everything better for everyone.

[jac]

More Leh, longer archery season maybe 3pt not any bull.

inrease all the tags prices as long as the money stays on the mountain. I’m not saying increase tags prices to go into a general revenue for the government. I’m saying increase the tag fees by 2-4 times and put the money back into wildlife.

My friend just did a Montana elk hunt his tag as a non resident was over $500usd.

[Bugle M In]

So, this 10k elk in the trench is where the BC government wants it?
How did they determine this #?
And at what level did this # come from?
The premier?, Minister? Regional Bio advice?
Would be nice to know “who” exactly is responsible for this # being the level they want?
I understand we never never had a proper idea of how many elk we had in the trench, estimates of 25k were thrown around but no one really knew.
Reason I bring this up is because if the current situation is truly 10k currently, then we must of had a hell of a lot more then 25k back in the day.
Because some of these valleys held elk and they are near bone dry!
Even if you doubled the current situation, I don’t think you could fill those areas back up.
Dont get me wrong, I understand we do have capacity issues now compared to back then.
My opinion, there is lots of areas that could hold plenty of elk in the summer, that don’t right now.
It’s come winter that’s an issue for sure, bad winters any ways.
Also, are they trying to keep elk # at a low level yo help other species bounce back?
Or just the ICBC/rancher bs.

[GreyDog]

you figure there is a shortage of bulls in the ratio? why curtail opportunity just to grow older elk?
There is a shortage of elk; bulls and cows. In my locale, the population might be 25% of what it was twenty years ago. I will never see the population recover. GD

[high horse Hal]

get engaged, it all been done and redone
someone should write a best seller
So, this 10k elk in the trench is where the BC government wants it?
How did they determine this #?
And at what level did this # come from?
The premier?, Minister? Regional Bio advice?
Would be nice to know “who” exactly is responsible for this # being the level they want?
I understand we never never had a proper idea of how many elk we had in the trench, estimates of 25k were thrown around but no one really knew.
Reason I bring this up is because if the current situation is truly 10k currently, then we must of had a hell of a lot more then 25k back in the day.
Because some of these valleys held elk and they are near bone dry!
Even if you doubled the current situation, I don’t think you could fill those areas back up.
Dont get me wrong, I understand we do have capacity issues now compared to back then.
My opinion, there is lots of areas that could hold plenty of elk in the summer, that don’t right now.
It’s come winter that’s an issue for sure, bad winters any ways.
Also, are they trying to keep elk # at a low level yo help other species bounce back?
Or just the ICBC/rancher bs.

[Bugle M In]

Get engaged?
In what manner?
Doesnt sound like there is any lack of that in the EK from what I hear.
One issue is just like this thread, everyone has a different view.
Problem is, it all falls on deaf ears.
I would just like to know at what level in government does that occur.
Way up or early on?

Now, if you mean engaged in running for election, getting “politically involved”, then I fully agree.
I think that’s where the biggest disconnect is.
I have t as lied to Heyman a couple of times, face to face.
(I hope that is “engaged enough”?)
And I can say with absolute certainty, people like him are a big issue for us hunters!.
But, that is current.
Some if these issues started long before him, or the NDP.
So, it tells me that there may be a few “unelected” folks in the ranks that are maybe the big issue?
Just my gut feeling you could say.

[upnover]

Maybe we should ask Scoop Lake Outfitters (Darwin Cary) if we can have back the 75 east kootenay elk we lent him in 1984? Plus interest of course.

[Bugle M In]

I remember when they transplanted elk from Banff (don’t think it was Jasper) to KNP in the 90’s.
Those elk left the that park in one day and because of their being accustomed to humans were picked off within a couple of seasons.
Hell, I woke up one morning and had 20 elk sleeping beside my camper, damn best tripped over one going to take a piss.
The 6pt was picked off opening day.
Only a big 5pt with them all week.
Most had ear tags.
That was money well spent….not.

[J_T]

Get engaged?
In what manner?
Doesnt sound like there is any lack of that in the EK from what I hear.
One issue is just like this thread, everyone has a different view.
Problem is, it all falls on deaf ears.
I would just like to know at what level in government does that occur.
Way up or early on?

Now, if you mean engaged in running for election, getting “politically involved”, then I fully agree.
I think that’s where the biggest disconnect is.
I have t as lied to Heyman a couple of times, face to face.
(I hope that is “engaged enough”?)
And I can say with absolute certainty, people like him are a big issue for us hunters!.
But, that is current.
Some if these issues started long before him, or the NDP.
So, it tells me that there may be a few “unelected” folks in the ranks that are maybe the big issue?
Just my gut feeling you could say.
I would agree with your comment about the passion from hunters in the EK. To add, most hunters, most organizations are completely on the same page in the EK.
When I read threads like this, I realize how disconnected a lot of people are. And what they fall back to in discussion, are their own personal experiences. I have no issue with that and individual perspective and scenarios are important. Big picture in Reg 4, we developed a plan a strategy and have identified action items to consider and promote. There is very little difference of opinion from any resident hunters that are involved.

The collective group of resident hunters, guides, trappers etc are operating with the highest levels of local Government. I'm not sure the discussions, requests, plans and actions fall on deaf ears, but to be clear, while we all work well and respectfully together, we aren't always happy with the decisions Government comes to.

Someone mentioned elk populations in a post.
Historically, I can imagine back in the 70's there were a lot of wintering elk in the trench. During the 80's and 90's elk management was about arbitrary numbers and upward or downward trending populations.
The most accurate count of elk occurred in 2007 and identified 14,000 in the southern trench. At the present time the estimate is 10,000 elk. And, Government seem 'content' with this number. Most resident hunters would like to see more elk on the landscape.

[Bugle M In]

Maybe we should just ban game calling also while we are at it.
If you believe hunting is the big reason for declines.

I won’t be surprised if our new game plan is still only 10k of elk because of outside influences and a long bow season.
And who knows, a later rifle season.
(which is okay to allow big bulls to establish hierarchy and thus better breeding for now)
BUT, if 10k is the final #, then don’t expect anything compared to the old days.
And LEH will always be on the table and in back of mind for the ministry, imo.

Just a further erosion of hunting and it’s longevity as a lifestyle, imo.

[dapesche]

I'd love to see are restrictions (motor vehicle, area, elevation). Reduce our ability to drive into elk country in spots where we need the population to improve.

LEH should not happen.

Give us hunting opportunity, but make it harder on all of us.

Many would argue that CO's can't enforce the rules, but my hope is that we'd have some respect for the reg's that they come up with.

[J_T]

Bugle M In: I'm not suggesting resident hunters are ok with capping the elk population at 10k. We've openly stated we want double that. However, we're willing to land on, 10k, and increasing population trends, as we collar elk, create more winter range, manage road/rail kill and high fencing. There are a ton of actions we can take to increase capacity for elk. BUT, we need BC Gov to commit to the budget allocations.

Dapesche: I might have mentioned this, a recent poll by BHA of their members found 80% prefer road closure to opportunity loss. Maintaining opportunity is a key for all of us. LEH will be the death of the hunt.

[dapesche]

Dapesche: I might have mentioned this, a recent poll by BHA of their members found 80% prefer road closure to opportunity loss. Maintaining opportunity is a key for all of us. LEH will be the death of the hunt.


Thank you JT

[Bugle M In]

JT,
I fully understood what you were saying in a previous post.
I understand you also aren’t in with 10k, but that’s the current situation.
I am glad there is a study underway, as there are several questions that need answers to, vs theories.
What I want to know is, currently, Who is it that is thinking 10k is an adequate number now.
And not generally speaking, as I know folks could say it’s the NDP.
I want to know who is the “person” that is coming up with that in there.
Just like the xbow issue that arose, we know who had issues with them and “who” came up with that option that thankfully got dropped.
I would just like to know who it was.
Heyman is to out to lunch to have determined that in his own.
And I don’t suspect it came from hunters or the local R&G clubs.
Someone had a lot of clout and say.

[TheObserver]

I'd love to see are restrictions (motor vehicle, area, elevation). Reduce our ability to drive into elk country in spots where we need the population to improve.

LEH should not happen.

Give us hunting opportunity, but make it harder on all of us.

Many would argue that CO's can't enforce the rules, but my hope is that we'd have some respect for the reg's that they come up with.


Bugle M In: I'm not suggesting resident hunters are ok with capping the elk population at 10k. We've openly stated we want double that. However, we're willing to land on, 10k, and increasing population trends, as we collar elk, create more winter range, manage road/rail kill and high fencing. There are a ton of actions we can take to increase capacity for elk. BUT, we need BC Gov to commit to the budget allocations.

Dapesche: I might have mentioned this, a recent poll by BHA of their members found 80% prefer road closure to opportunity loss. Maintaining opportunity is a key for all of us. LEH will be the death of the hunt.

Couldn't agree more, LEH is very, very dangerous. Of course there is the odd special circumstances in certain areas, but this hunt going LEH, say goodbye.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Local CO claims that R4 considering LEH elk only. Anyone else heard this?

Yup ! Nobody EVER thought Region 5 moose would be LEH only did they :?: Reg 4 will be LEH only with in the next 2 more years . JMO :?RJ

[j270wsm]

Bugle M In: I'm not suggesting resident hunters are ok with capping the elk population at 10k. We've openly stated we want double that. However, we're willing to land on, 10k, and increasing population trends, as we collar elk, create more winter range, manage road/rail kill and high fencing. There are a ton of actions we can take to increase capacity for elk. BUT, we need BC Gov to commit to the budget allocations.

Dapesche: I might have mentioned this, a recent poll by BHA of their members found 80% prefer road closure to opportunity loss. Maintaining opportunity is a key for all of us. LEH will be the death of the hunt.

where does the east kootenay trench start/end?

[J_T]

where does the east kootenay trench start/end?
I have an image of how the population units are divided. I'm not going to attempt posting the image on here.
There are seven population units:
1-Elk Valley
2-Flathead
3-North Trench
4-South Trench
5-Creston
6-West Kootenay North
7-West Kootenay South

To answer your question, EK trench divide between north and south is Radium, south and radium north.

There is a lot of information. The stewardship plan takes into account:
1) The health of elk populations
2) Estimates of the carrying capacity
3) Harvest mortality
4) Highway Mortality (23% of elk mortality in the Elk valley is due to vehicle incidents)
5) Conflict (agriculture and ranching)
6) Available winter range and potential to make more
7) Road density

Population Estimates (And to be clear, we believe these can and should be, much higher in almost all population units)

1-Elk Valley
Population Estimate - 1700
23% of elk mortality in the Elk valley is due to vehicle incidents
16% of elk mortality is due to starvation
2-Flathead
No population estimate at this time
3-North Trench
Population Estimate - 360
Agricultural lands, human disturbance (ORV's) and highway / railway are primary causes of mortality
4-South Trench
Population Estimate - 9500
Approx 120 elk die to highway mortality each year
Predation is a key factor in herd health and mortality
50 illegal harvests (on average per year) the past 5 years (and looking the same this year)
5-Creston
Population Estimate - 700
Predation is a concern in this unit
Habitat Loss, habitat fragmentation
6-West Kootenay North
No current population Estimate
Very minimal winter range
Predation is a factor
Caribou recovery areas also a habitat factor
7-West Kootenay South
Population estimate is a poor estimate at this time. In 2011 there was a count of 800 elk.
Human disturbance, highway mortality and predation are all factors

And apologies for getting on a roll here. But within the elk stewardship plan we are working on targeted action items (with effort and cost estimates) in every 'key' identified to be included in the ESP. Whether it's road kill, habitat quality, road density, the availability of critical range and high value landscapes
There is a ton of work to get this going, under a plan of action.

We meet frequently and almost all resident hunter groups have representation on the committees. Of which there are many.

[HappyJack]

Obviously there are a lot more hunters in the USA. From my personal experience as as shitty Hunter, it’s pretty tough as an archery hunter in the archery only season. I’ll admit it is selfish of me to want more archery only opportunities as well. I won’t even get into the debate on crossbows vs compound vs traditional use in archery season, I’m sure the day will come I can’t draw and hold it anymore and will pick up a crossbow…

If you look around though, many states and provinces have longer archery seasons, a muzzle loader season, black powder and rifle seasons and less antler restrictions. Why in BC does the easiest tool to use have the longest season, right through prime rut time? Unfortunately it would be too hard to enforce but if the season was the same but put the 6 point only on rifle and any bull for archery, muzzleloader etc. it would be better.

Why does it seem BC is doing things differently and most of us are complaining about a lack of game and game management?

Is there any evidence that rifle elk hunters are having a significant impact on the elk populations? Or are there other factors, like wolves and other predators, vehicle/train collisions and that sort of thing that are the issue?

[dapesche]

I have been told that a quarter to a third of the annual elk harvest is during the first week of rifle during the rut.

Based on harvest data in 2022 for region 4, 759 bulls taken.

So around 189 to 250 bulls are taken with a rifle from Sept 10 to 17th.

Eliminate rifle, and shift to bow and that number likely drops in half for that week.

Let archers educate and push the bulls for a couple weeks before rifle and rifle success drops as well.

Maybe if they prove out a new management plan, rifle could be extended further into October again if you can actually find the bulls.

Only concern about the late season coming back is when early snow arrives and it pushes them down into the cuts.

To protect them from that exposure, we need area restrictions and decommissioned roads in areas close to wintering grounds....

[HappyJack]

Does this mean 509 are taken with bow and 250 with rifle? If so perhaps it's the bow season that needs adjusting??

[high horse Hal]

you want to castrate the rut hunt opportunity just for the sake of putting a few more older bulls on the landscape?
Maybe come up with a fact as to how more big bulls will help the pop overall and that might sell the idea


I have been told that a quarter to a third of the annual elk harvest is during the first week of rifle during the rut.

Based on harvest data in 2022 for region 4, 759 bulls taken.

So around 189 to 250 bulls are taken with a rifle from Sept 10 to 17th.

Eliminate rifle, and shift to bow and that number likely drops in half for that week.

Let archers educate and push the bulls for a couple weeks before rifle and rifle success drops as well.

Maybe if they prove out a new management plan, rifle could be extended further into October again if you can actually find the bulls.

Only concern about the late season coming back is when early snow arrives and it pushes them down into the cuts.

To protect them from that exposure, we need area restrictions and decommissioned roads in areas close to wintering grounds....

[J_T]

Does this mean 509 are taken with bow and 250 with rifle? If so perhaps it's the bow season that needs adjusting??
I'm not sure where you got this data. Edit: I see, it was from the above post

Resident kills in WK South in 2017 was 92 animals/bulls. They estimate 30% during the BOS. There is no data if those bulls taken in archery BOS are 6pt or other. Given that most of us prefer a stewardship harvest model that is not just targeting one age class, i have to suspect the archery kills are acceptable from a herd stewardship perspective.

Resident kills (Bow and Rifle) in WK South in 2016 was 151 animals

Also important (WK South only) is that for the past 10 years of GOS, the resident hunter days afield averages 8 days per hunter and totals just under 20,000 hunter days afield/year.
That's a lot of time in the bush, and if the WK regs change, negatively those hunter days will land somewhere else. Hunters gotta hunt. Don't matter where. It's the opportunity to hunt that matters.

[KBC]

Is there any evidence that rifle elk hunters are having a significant impact on the elk populations? Or are there other factors, like wolves and other predators, vehicle/train collisions and that sort of thing that are the issue?
This seems like a rhetorical question. Why don’t you give us the answers I think you have?

[dapesche]

Big game harvest app:
https://kootenaywildlife.shinyapps.io/BCHarvestData/

[CAC]

Big game harvest app:
https://kootenaywildlife.shinyapps.io/BCHarvestData/

Great stuff, thanks for this!

[BearSupreme]

Does this mean 509 are taken with bow and 250 with rifle? If so perhaps it's the bow season that needs adjusting??

Thats just the first week, meaning the week after is probably close to that as well, archery elk probably make up 10% of thr total but thats just a guess.
BC always does things different and its clearly not working. Basically everywhere else does not do a point restriction. Basically everywhere else does not allow rifle hunting during the rut of any game animal.
The rut is for archery or muzzle loader or whatever combo of those 2 only, or just straight up closed for 2 weeks during the peak. Rifle is always the last season and makes sense to allow it then after they have all bread for the year, instead of taking out all the rutted up dummy breeders before they breed.

[dapesche]

you want to castrate the rut hunt opportunity just for the sake of putting a few more older bulls on the landscape?
Maybe come up with a fact as to how more big bulls will help the pop overall and that might sell the idea

Absolutely I would. Reassess in two years.

Other option is to leave as status quo and the take keeps dropping and people keep complaining a out numbers...

I am 100% all about opportunity. I'd prefer better numbers but would happy to keep hunting despite decreasing odds of success.

My partner and I hunt quite hard so I'd argue our odds are better than the average.

[snowhater]

Been in the EK and WK for decades and have seen a decline. However, giving an advantage to bow hunters in my opinion is bulls**t. Currently they have free range for any bull for 10 days. Hey, if you don't stick one then, by all means join the rest of us in the 6 point season.. I see here that a lot of bowhunters are lobbying for a longer season and trying to eliminate competition from the main stream. Hell, when 3 pt or better was open, there were lots of elk..Taking 6 pts does nothing as far a genetics, that is a myth. Any elk with the sperm does the job.. Because Dad was a three point means nothing. There are only so many 6 points to harvest and once that resource is depleted, yes, seems like the annual harvest is low..But there is still opportunity to hunt, and that is the main objective? Something we never want to loose.

[Bugle M In]

I would agree with your comment about the passion from hunters in the EK. To add, most hunters, most organizations are completely on the same page in the EK.
When I read threads like this, I realize how disconnected a lot of people are. And what they fall back to in discussion, are their own personal experiences. I have no issue with that and individual perspective and scenarios are important. Big picture in Reg 4, we developed a plan a strategy and have identified action items to consider and promote. There is very little difference of opinion from any resident hunters that are involved.

The collective group of resident hunters, guides, trappers etc are operating with the highest levels of local Government. I'm not sure the discussions, requests, plans and actions fall on deaf ears, but to be clear, while we all work well and respectfully together, we aren't always happy with the decisions Government comes to.

Someone mentioned elk populations in a post.
Historically, I can imagine back in the 70's there were a lot of wintering elk in the trench. During the 80's and 90's elk management was about arbitrary numbers and upward or downward trending populations.
The most accurate count of elk occurred in 2007 and identified 14,000 in the southern trench. At the present time the estimate is 10,000 elk. And, Government seem 'content' with this number. Most resident hunters would like to see more elk on the landscape.
My only concern is seeing it go LEH.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for helping populations bounce back on a healthy ratio etc.
If there was a strategy in place and the real problems addressed in that time period, then fine.
But, what I see is LEH out in place, one group is happy, business as usual while the other group sits at home.
And the worst thing is, government/ministry moves on, thinking they have accomplished their objective.
Just puts into question if their true objective was helping the species of concern, or if the objective is to remove hunting from BC, thus appeasing the 3rd group.
Just hate LEH, and how it’s been used.
For me, LEH is for an area and species that is running at a healthy capacity but still has too much hunter pressure as the big factor.
Anyways, all I can hope for is this study etc comes with some teeth in the end.
Rather then collect dust and hear about no money as the big issue.
When at times it’s a 3rd party influence thst nothing gets done.
At least one thing is certain on this thread,the consensus is we have an elk issue that needs to be looked at.

[high horse Hal]

Just puts into question if their true objective was helping the species of concern, or if the objective is to remove hunting from BC, thus appeasing the 3rd group.elk are not a species of concern , anywhere in BC


For me, LEH is for an area and species that is running at a healthy capacity but still has too much hunter pressure as the big factor.understood to mean a purely social adjustment made to please one group over another

cutting the bull harvest to make more bulls won't make anymore elk, will do virtually nothing to herd numbers
the portion of the herd taken by hunters under the 6pt restriction is likely less than 5% of the overall population
leaving them on the landscape for one or even three years will just make a few more older more mature bulls, the same number of calves will drop regardless

its not gov't trying to kill hunting, its hunters themselves and their selfish interests not based on science but on emotion and social desires
The 'We Want More' mantra is old

[dapesche]

cutting the bull harvest to make more bulls won't make anymore elk, will do virtually nothing to herd numbers.

Not sure I agree with that statement.

If there are older satellites and more 6pt+ prime breeders with the cows it will increase the likelihood of all cows being bred.

No doubt it's why biologists manage the bull to cow ratio to preferred level.

[HappyJack]

Absolutely I would. Reassess in two years.

Other option is to leave as status quo and the take keeps dropping and people keep complaining a out numbers...

I am 100% all about opportunity. I'd prefer better numbers but would happy to keep hunting despite decreasing odds of success.

My partner and I hunt quite hard so I'd argue our odds are better than the average.

In my experience when the harvests drop hunters will seek out greener pastures. We really noticed it this season, a huge drop in active hunters after the elk. The same thing happens with fishing, when they go fishing and hardly catch anything they will try another spot.

[high horse Hal]

totally agree
and IF there is a question about whether all cows are being bred it should be addressed, likely is already #1 on the list
Is something suggesting the cow/calf balance is outofwhack ?
Not sure I agree with that statement.

If there are older satellites and more 6pt+ prime breeders with the cows it will increase the likelihood of all cows being bred.

No doubt it's why biologists manage the bull to cow ratio to preferred level.

[high horse Hal]

I'm surprised at that. Would have thought with the closure of 1/2 the province Reg 7 moose that there would be a flood
In my experience when the harvests drop hunters will seek out greener pastures. We really noticed it this season, a huge drop in active hunters after the elk. The same thing happens with fishing, when they go fishing and hardly catch anything they will try another spot. I also wonder how SM is the new modern influence on hunters choices
making decisions based on what their feed tells them instead of from 1st hand experience

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I just quickly skimmed thru this thread(very fast)

Did anyone post up the post-season bull to cow ratios?? That's the most important thing to know to make an informed decision.
The rest is just smoke and mirrors

SSS

[Bugle M In]

Sounds like the study to be conducted hopefully will look into how many cows are bred?
As for “in the sperm genetics”, this is a true statement but there is a factor missing tgst I think some hunters, including myself, are starting to have concerns about.
I understand a bull that is a 6pt doesn’t mean he is a herd bull, a mature 5 pt certainly can be, but means there is a chance his genes are being passed.
I think many concerns is what is being witnessed out in the field.
That being that a mature herd bull, usually 6pt (I don’t think we want 5pt genetics passing on?), are being picked off early in the season, and yes they may have bred “some” cows in the first cycle before the hunting season began.
But we are starting to see 5 pt taking over the role of herd bull in their absence.
And those bulls haven’t established themselves a the healthy herd bull.
Dint win the role thru a sword fight you could say!
And due to the fact the numbers over all are low, and more importantly, a lack of mature bulls now, puts to question:
Are the best bulls, with the “best genetics” actually getting a chance to pass it on?
I hunk we all understand a 5pt might be that bull, in time, but how do we know any longer?

To me and others, it is starting to appear that if a young bull is in the right place at the right time, due to pressure on 6pt bulls, that some are passing on their genetics without going thru mother natures process of “natural selection”.

[LBM]

elk are not a species of concern , anywhere in BC

understood to mean a purely social adjustment made to please one group over another

cutting the bull harvest to make more bulls won't make anymore elk, will do virtually nothing to herd numbers
the portion of the herd taken by hunters under the 6pt restriction is likely less than 5% of the overall population
leaving them on the landscape for one or even three years will just make a few more older more mature bulls, the same number of calves will drop regardless

its not gov't trying to kill hunting, its hunters themselves and their selfish interests not based on science but on emotion and social desires
The 'We Want More' mantra is old

Explain this science you keep talking about.

[dapesche]

.....
These exact same surveys with the same biases used to find 45 bulls: 100 cows, and now were only finding about 13 bulls:100 cows

....

[j270wsm]

JT……your answer to my question didn’t make sense.

To answer your question, EK trench divide between north and south is Radium, south and radium north.

So radium is the middle of the trench north/south. So where is the eastern and western boundary?

Any chance there is a map that shows the kootenay tench?

[Bugle M In]

hmmm, didn’t realize we needed 1 bull for every 2 or so cows, but I would say it did seem like 1 bull for every 4 cows, but it sure does feel like 1 bull for every 8 cows now, and not many 6pts in that count either any more!
I just want to know why 10k is now a perfect number?
Whats the rationale?
Is it loss of winter range, or is it other groups with such big influence now.
We all know why ZoneX came to be, and it sounds like it achieved what they wanted!
Never did answer why elk were disappearing from the back country and I don’t think they really cared.
And that was happening ling before ZoneX came into play.
But back in the mid to late 90’s, they were concerned about not enough elk, why else would they have dropped most of the cow Leh permits and institute a 6pt restriction (which that I still feel was a GO request, imo)
Anyways, what changed?
Why now not the concern?
If that was the goal all along, they could have left it the way it was!
Something or someone changed.
The real answer being “both”.
And somebody ultimately had the power to steer it in that direction.
Just pisses me off.
I think it’s time to figure out who it is, call them out and get them out!

[J_T]

JT……your answer to my question didn’t make sense.

To answer your question, EK trench divide between north and south is Radium, south and radium north.

So radium is the middle of the trench north/south. So where is the eastern and western boundary?

Any chance there is a map that shows the kootenay tench?





PM me an email address and I can send you some maps. I'm not posting them on here. Thanks

[Bugle M In]

I just remember a report that I believe was made by a trapper?
Not sure what other roles he held?
But he made up a report with maps and hit zones that he believed would see the biggest impact on elk etc by wolves./predation.
Honestly, that report was bang on as far as the hot zones and quite honestly where you really don’t see elk anymore.
And it’s not just me saying that.
That cones from takings with guides, hunters and even some members on here, hbc, who hunt the same areas along the trench.
But all this doesn’t explain why 10k is now the proper population for elk.

[Moose63]

Ban the use of trail cams.....hunting technology today eliminates fair chase

[rageous]

Ban the use of trail cams.....hunting technology today eliminates fair chase

With all do respect, Did you mean using cameras to locate elk (bulls) or are your using cams to locate predators…



predators…how to manage predators? Gov or non gov? What can you do to help?
If you don’t have the ability yourself to get out there, contact and get to know the trapper.
There are things you (us) can do to help…

How many specifically target all predators?
Do go out and hunt wolves, bear, cougar, coyote,

[TheObserver]

Ban the use of trail cams.....hunting technology today eliminates fair chase

Trail cameras don't kill animals for you, if anything trail cameras let guys see whats truly out there and so they pass up and hold out. Banning trail cameras would probably increase people just taking the first legal they see.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Trail cameras don't kill animals for you, if anything trail cameras let guys see whats truly out there and so they pass up and hold out. Banning trail cameras would probably increase people just taking the first legal they see.

I have to agree with this one. It’s amazing to see what’s actually out there vs what’s perceived to be out there.

Whitetails and elk are two species that adapt well to pressure.

SSS

[KootenayKiller]

Been in the EK and WK for decades and have seen a decline. However, giving an advantage to bow hunters in my opinion is bulls**t. Currently they have free range for any bull for 10 days. Hey, if you don't stick one then, by all means join the rest of us in the 6 point season.. I see here that a lot of bowhunters are lobbying for a longer season and trying to eliminate competition from the main stream. Hell, when 3 pt or better was open, there were lots of elk..Taking 6 pts does nothing as far a genetics, that is a myth. Any elk with the sperm does the job.. Because Dad was a three point means nothing. There are only so many 6 points to harvest and once that resource is depleted, yes, seems like the annual harvest is low..But there is still opportunity to hunt, and that is the main objective? Something we never want to loose.
Sorry but you are wrong. If there are genotypes that only grow to 5 points, then selecting against 6 point or greater will drive the elk towards fewer points. That is population genetics 101 and basic statistics.

*IF there is no genetic variability for number of points, OR* if every single bull elk has the genetics to grow more than 5 points, then you would be correct. Obviously that is not the case.

Source: have taken a dozen undergraduate and graduate level courses in animal and quantitative genetics.

[high horse Hal]

isn't it just part of the rocky mountain trench, no mystery

"The Trench from Golden extending SE to the headwaters of the Columbia River at Columbia Lake is known as the Columbia Valley. Golden is the westerly portal to the Kicking Horse Pass on Highway #1 eastbound to Alberta.

The southernmost Canadian part of the Trench is the core of a region known as the East Kootenay, comprising the upper of the two Canadian portions of the valley of the Kootenay River. Here, near Cranbrook, British Columbia, the Trench is much wider than to the northwest, forming more of a broad basin than the U-shaped valley which typifies most of the Trench elsewhere from Columbia Lake northwards to the Liard. This segment bifurcates near Wasa 100 km north of the US border. The off-shooting western fork contains the City of Cranbrook affords access to the nearby City of Kimberley. Elko is the westerly portal to the Crowsnest Pass on Highway 3 eastbound to Alberta.

The southward transborder extension of the Trench into Montana is the primary containment for Lake Koocanusa, a Kootenay River reservoir created by the Libby Dam near Libby, Montana."


JT……your answer to my question didn’t make sense.

To answer your question, EK trench divide between north and south is Radium, south and radium north.

So radium is the middle of the trench north/south. So where is the eastern and western boundary?

Any chance there is a map that shows the kootenay tench?

[high horse Hal]

Sorry but you are wrong. If there are genotypes that only grow to 5 points, then selecting against 6 point or greater will drive the elk towards fewer points. That is population genetics 101 and basic statistics.

*IF there is no genetic variability for number of points, OR* if every single bull elk has the genetics to grow more than 5 points, then you would be correct. Obviously that is not the case.

Source: have taken a dozen undergraduate and graduate level courses in animal and quantitative genetics.Obviously? are you suggesting there is proof that 5pt elk can be genetically selected for? that somewhere there is a herd of old dying over-mature 5pt'ers ? Really?

[snowhater]

Obviously never read ELK OF NORTH AMERICA, which I see as the bible.. And all are credible. Even Geist!! There is no proof that a 3 point does not carry the genes you think are mandatory for that future 6 point. A spike that breeds that has genes from a 6 cannot carry and pass the genes of that 6? Confused between phonotypes and genotypes maybe!!??

[HappyJack]

I'm surprised at that. Would have thought with the closure of 1/2 the province Reg 7 moose that there would be a flood I also wonder how SM is the new modern influence on hunters choices
making decisions based on what their feed tells them instead of from 1st hand experience

We were in 7B, so I think perhaps putting the moose on LEH there may have stopped a lot of guys from going to just hunt elk.

[Bugle M In]

^^^^i see the same thing up where I hunt MD.
We are running into more and more big 3 pt bucks.
If we are lucky, as they age they develop legal stickers.
But not all.
And stickers are more rare in elk from what I have experienced.

[Bugle M In]

As long as they aren’t satellite trail cams, one has to walk in to check, I think they e are all good.
Getting a notification like an Arlo home security notice that a big bull just triggered might be a bit much!
Just my thoughts on that.
But it’s far from what the real issues are up there.

[KootenayKiller]

Obviously? are you suggesting there is proof that 5pt elk can be genetically selected for? that somewhere there is a herd of old dying over-mature 5pt'ers ? Really?
You're right, I don't have any proof of this and it is an assumption. It seems like there's a fair amount of anecdotal evidence of big 5 point bulls, but I accept the possibility that they may simply not have grown to their potential yet and that 100% of them will grow to 6 points given enough time. I feel this is unlikely but that could be the case.


Another thing to consider is that selection pressure against 6 point or greater elk would occur even if some elk simply take longer than others to reach the 6 point status, since that would give the slower-dwveloping males more breeding years before they are hunted. Over time this would lead to bulls who take more seasons to grow big racks, and probably eventually to them never reaching 6 point status.

[PYGuy]

The “other” genetic influence on elk antlers is the DNA and health of the cow. It may not be exactly 50/50 but certainly a large contribution. So while I think it’s arguable and feels intuitive to make the 5 point gene argument much of it is anecdotal to us hunters. Of course therein lies the real problem. Resource managers/biologists do not have good data. Whether that is because they are not curious to know why things are as they are or there is not enough funding. We need good data based on sound research proposals to understand how to move forward. I fear continued workshops and the need to satisfy each and every user group will end up poorly for both the elk and hunters.

[KootenayKiller]

Selection pressures applied to one sex of an animal species will still alter the population's genetics, it will just take longer to arrive at the outcome. It's true that you need data to make informed decisions, and without solid numbers its just a guessing game.

[TheObserver]

I have to agree with this one. It’s amazing to see what’s actually out there vs what’s perceived to be out there.

Whitetails and elk are two species that adapt well to pressure.

SSS

They are for sure, after starting to use cams last year I have seen how the same can be true about Blacktails as well. Big Bucks living in areas where most would think if they spent time there throughout the year, maybe the odd Doe and small buck, but there are lots of Bucks and good sized ones too in some of these areas, they are masters at hiding and evading. People wouldn't know it unless they got by chance to run into one during the aggressive pre rut/rut or they were very proficient at calling/rattling.

But they are there, and the cams don't lie. In some areas right where a lot of human activity goes on and even pressure

[j270wsm]

PM me an email address and I can send you some maps. I'm not posting them on here. Thanks

Tried to pm you the other night but your in box was full.




Just tried again……Still too many stored messages

[J_T]

Tried to pm you the other night but your in box was full.




Just tried again……Still too many stored messages
Cleaned it up. Thanks.
Send again if you wish.

JT

[j270wsm]

Thanks for the info JT.

[stephane110]

So if these changes being discussed here happen, will it be for next season (Sept 2024)?

[Arctic Lake]

Don’t want to derail the thread but what are your recommended choices for elk in general books and hunting elk ?
Thank You
Arctic Lake

[snowhater]

Elk of North America, ecology and managenent.. If you can find and afford it.. https://www.amazon.ca/Elk-North-America-Ecology-Management/dp/0811705714

[Arctic Lake]

Thank You !
Arctic Lake
Elk of North America, ecology and managenent.. If you can find and afford it.. https://www.amazon.ca/Elk-North-America-Ecology-Management/dp/0811705714

[stephane110]

Anyone hear any new rumors on this lately?

[canucks6]

Where there is smoke there is usually a fire.

[antlerking]

How are the elk populations in Idaho and Montana? From what I’m hearing not great and any of the states that have reintroduced wolves aren’t doing good. Wait till the wolves Colorado just introduced expand you’re going to see a huge drop in elk numbers. Limited Entry, Bow Only or close the season all together,it won’t make a difference until the predator population is reduced.

[stoneramhunter]

How are the elk populations in Idaho and Montana? From what I’m hearing not great and any of the states that have reintroduced wolves aren’t doing good. Wait till the wolves Colorado just introduced expand you’re going to see a huge drop in elk numbers. Limited Entry, Bow Only or close the season all together,it won’t make a difference until the predator population is reduced.

Not sure about idaho but the elk in montana are doing very well

[stephane110]

Not sure about idaho but the elk in montana are doing very well

some quick googling shows:
Montana - 140,000 elk
Idaho - 107,000 elk
BC - 25,000-40,000 elk

BC has 2.5x the land as Montana too.

[Everett]

some quick googling shows:
Montana - 140,000 elk
Idaho - 107,000 elk
BC - 25,000-40,000 elk

BC has 2.5x the land as Montana too.

It's not about how much land you have it's about how much wintering range you have. Montana has loads and we have very little and it's getting worse with every passing year.

[dapesche]

It's not about how much land you have it's about how much wintering range you have. Montana has loads and we have very little and it's getting worse with every passing year.

bingo!

Unfortunately the best wintering range is ag land, and the liberal Cow LEHs, that a lot of hunters were happy to participate in, have now knocked back the populations.

Bravo cow elk hunters....bravo!

[Elkaholic]

bingo!

Unfortunately the best wintering range is ag land, and the liberal Cow LEHs, that a lot of hunters were happy to participate in, have now knocked back the populations.

Bravo cow elk hunters....bravo!

I don't play the game of blaming hunters for taking part in a legal hunt put out by the Ministry. The ministry should be held accountable for the decimation of our elk herds, the biologists here do not like the term accountability at all. If the season was not put in place would the cow have been shot? Nope.

[j270wsm]

bingo!

Unfortunately the best wintering range is ag land, and the liberal Cow LEHs, that a lot of hunters were happy to participate in, have now knocked back the populations.

Bravo cow elk hunters....bravo!

Hunters weren’t the sole reason for the reduction in elk numbers!!

[j270wsm]

It's not about how much land you have it's about how much wintering range you have. Montana has loads and we have very little and it's getting worse with every passing year.

20-25yrs ago the elkford rod and gun club spent some time out by line creek clearing brush on the elk wintering range……last summer Teck decided to re plant a few thousand trees in the wintering range in the Big ranch and the musil estate.

[mike31154]

I don't think Montana has the human population of BC in prime range country either. Alberta has good numbers too. A friend of mine has a ranching friend in Alberta who gets 4 tags for his property. A restaurant in Kimberley offers Alberta farmed elk on the menu. I'm inclined to think it's more of a ministry/population growth issue vs hunters. If not mistaken the Roosevelt Elk on Van Isle were introduced, i.e. non-native species. Take those numbers away & things would look even worse.

[IronNoggin]

... If not mistaken the Roosevelt Elk on Van Isle were introduced, i.e. non-native species.

Nope.
Roosevelt elk are indigenous to Vancouver Island.
They have been used to augment / create Rosie herds on the mainland from time to time, but they have always lived here.

Cheers

[Everett]

I don't think Montana has the human population of BC in prime range country either. Alberta has good numbers too. A friend of mine has a ranching friend in Alberta who gets 4 tags for his property. A restaurant in Kimberley offers Alberta farmed elk on the menu. I'm inclined to think it's more of a ministry/population growth issue vs hunters. If not mistaken the Roosevelt Elk on Van Isle were introduced, i.e. non-native species. Take those numbers away & things would look even worse.

Almost all of Montana's million people on wintering range they just have so much of it that it doesn't really matter.

[dapesche]

I don't play the game of blaming hunters for taking part in a legal hunt put out by the Ministry. The ministry should be held accountable for the decimation of our elk herds, the biologists here do not like the term accountability at all. If the season was not put in place would the cow have been shot? Nope.


Sorry. But that's ridiculous. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. To blame the ministry for you pulling your trigger with a cow in your crosshairs .... yikes.

[mike31154]

Nope.
Roosevelt elk are indigenous to Vancouver Island.
They have been used to augment / create Rosie herds on the mainland from time to time, but they have always lived here.

Cheers


Almost all of Montana's million people on wintering range they just have so much of it that it doesn't really matter.

Ok thx gents, I stand corrected on multiple fronts.... ;)

[Elkaholic]

Sorry. But that's ridiculous. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. To blame the ministry for you pulling your trigger with a cow in your crosshairs .... yikes.

If you build it they will come, its human nature, and these biologist cannot be so stupid as to think this stuff will not happen. People are people, but again they are doing nothing wrong, taking part in a legal season put out by the ministry. You may think different and may have person bias against said season but that is for you to deal with. But think about it, if they would actually manage our game properly instead of the BS they pull we should not be where we are. They make the sh!tty decisions and we shoulder the blame for their decisions. I prefer to deal in reality where this is exactly what will happen when you open a season such as this, not fantasy where we think everyone will exercise restrain. I know what you are saying 100%, but reality is far from that.

[koothunter]

I don't think Montana has the human population of BC in prime range country either. Alberta has good numbers too. A friend of mine has a ranching friend in Alberta who gets 4 tags for his property. A restaurant in Kimberley offers Alberta farmed elk on the menu. I'm inclined to think it's more of a ministry/population growth issue vs hunters. If not mistaken the Roosevelt Elk on Van Isle were introduced, i.e. non-native species. Take those numbers away & things would look even worse.

Alberta only allows for 1 tag. Only exception to this is WMU 212 I believe. I think the friend of a friend getting 4 tags is false. The restaurant is offering "farmed" Alberta elk, not wild. This has nothing to do with wild populations and/or winter range.

The elk numbers in R4 are down for many reasons. Predation, liberal cow seasons with no reporting/inspection, poor winter range due to forest ingrowth, highway/railway mortality, and nearly every rancher in the EK now has elk fencing. The comparison is also made to 30+ years ago when I believe numbers were likely over historical averages. 50-60 years ago there were no elk fences, less forest ingrowth, ranchers/guides/trappers used to shoot grizzly bears on sight (you may deny this, but it's a reality) these same ranchers/outfitters would poison wolves which kept their numbers in check. There was less road/industrial development in the bush. So many reasons have contributed to less game, but everyone wants to just blame one or 2. It's a cumulative effect that needs more than a band-aid one size fits all solution.

[J_T]

Actually, the elk numbers in the EK are about where Government would like to keep them. We as resident hunters are advocating for more elk.
And to be clear, R4 has had almost no, resident hunters, harvesting cow elk for some time. But, we continue to harvest many cows and calves by highways and railways. In addition to quality habitat, safe movement corridors, highway railway mortality, CWD and predation, elk have many bigger problems than being pursued by hunters.

There is a lot of work going on right now around the number of elk desired and the impacts of these issues I mentioned above. The development of a sound elk stewardship plan that identifies the issues facing elk and other ungulates, along with measurable objectives and stated actions required. Along with cost to achieve the objective.

The necessary activities to reduce elk mortality to these various causes will be where our energy is spent in the coming months, to secure healthy herds and upward trending populations.

What we might want to review, is rifle hunting elk in the rut.....

[ramshorn]

Wow, you’re way off on your last comment. All wildlife is or should be managed on the female species of that animal ( no exceptions), so hunting bulls in the rut is irrelevant

[dapesche]

Wow, you’re way off on your last comment. All wildlife is or should be managed on the female species of that animal ( no exceptions), so hunting bulls in the rut is irrelevant

I would argue against that. It seems that there is a bull to cow ratio that is targeted. We are seeing a lot of cows. Not as many bulls. If you want more bulls you need to do something. Giving some mature bulls a fighting chance for the next couple seasons might do a lot to help the total population.

My friend made a comment that he thinks if there were more bulls, you'd have more satellites, and you'll likely have more bugling action in the fall. The logic made sense.

With that said, I saw a lot of calves on cam and immature bulls too. If we continue with this nice el nino winter, the bull numbers might look real good over the next couple years.

It's not easy, but I also feel rifle during the rut needs to be reviewed. Especially in areas where the country is more open.

[HarryToolips]

Actually, the elk numbers in the EK are about where Government would like to keep them. We as resident hunters are advocating for more elk.
And to be clear, R4 has had almost no, resident hunters, harvesting cow elk for some time. But, we continue to harvest many cows and calves by highways and railways. In addition to quality habitat, safe movement corridors, highway railway mortality, CWD and predation, elk have many bigger problems than being pursued by hunters.

There is a lot of work going on right now around the number of elk desired and the impacts of these issues I mentioned above. The development of a sound elk stewardship plan that identifies the issues facing elk and other ungulates, along with measurable objectives and stated actions required. Along with cost to achieve the objective.

The necessary activities to reduce elk mortality to these various causes will be where our energy is spent in the coming months, to secure healthy herds and upward trending populations.

What we might want to review, is rifle hunting elk in the rut.....

Glad to hear efforts are being made, and resources devoted towards an elk recovery plan... question related to your last sentence: is the bull:cow ratios below the ministry objective of 20 bulls:100 cows to warrant concerns over the currant rifle season? And if so, is the over harvest of bulls due to too many 6 pts being taken, or due to too many mistakes being made I.e. 5 points or less shot during the 6 pt season? Ultimately, it would be nice if we had more resources devoted to enforcement as in COs to discourage ppl from making those mistakes..

[J_T]

Glad to hear efforts are being made, and resources devoted towards an elk recovery plan... question related to your last sentence: is the bull:cow ratios below the ministry objective of 20 bulls:100 cows to warrant concerns over the currant rifle season? And if so, is the over harvest of bulls due to too many 6 pts being taken, or due to too many mistakes being made I.e. 5 points or less shot during the 6 pt season? Ultimately, it would be nice if we had more resources devoted to enforcement as in COs to discourage ppl from making those mistakes..
Perhaps because it's morning and I haven't had sufficient caffeine...I'm not entirely sure how to answer your question. In the WK the hunting organizations residing there are pushing for LEH. I along with many others, disagree. The guide simply wants less hunters in his area.... But, I tend to focus less on the hunting harvests and more about all the other elk mortality causes that I've mentioned previously. If we talk about 'opportunity' itself, I have always been a proponent that supports the maintaining of opportunity over the 'hunter management' LEH system. Hunters need to, want to, will, hunt. Why would anyone support LEH unless there is a genuine conservation concern. If we deny an opportunity to hunt in one area, those hunter days (IE 18,000 in WK) will shift to some other MU/Region. What are the impacts. A balanced landscape also means balancing the quality of a hunt, the opportunity to hunt and not the closure of opportunity.

Regarding the 5 point. CO's wont help. But an information and awareness program can help. Working with the BCWF, I'm optimistic we can develop an awareness program. Perhaps that is something someone wants to become involved in.
And having listened to the CO's on the illegal harvests, there is no pattern. It is not new hunters, old hunters, local hunters or hunters coming in to the region. It is all of them. People make mistakes.

Before I reply to the bull to cow ratios, I'd like to look at some of the documentation I have - to be accurate - and then reason it out into a response. Apologies.

[dapesche]

a ratio I was told this Spring in the Nelson area was 13:100. Supposedly in the same area, they used to find 45:100.
Now I am not sure if the 45:1000 was during LEH days, but I would assume it was.

J_T seems to be in the loop as well, so if 20:100 is the target, the Nelson area is below target.

[J_T]

From 2011:

The Ministry of Natural Resource Operations (MNRO) conducted Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus canadensis) composition surveys in portions of West Kootenay Management Units (MUs) 4-15, 4-16 and 4-17 during January and February 2011. The objective of these surveys was to measure bull ratios after a “6-point or greater ”general open season (GOS) was implemented in fall 2010 to Management Units that had been formerly hunted on the Limited Entry Hunting (LEH; lottery) system. Elk composition data are also included from stratified random block surveys conducted in the South Selkirk (MU 4-07 and 4-08) and South Monashee (MU 4-32) MUs. Observation data were corrected for incomplete sightability using the Hiller 12-e elk model in the program Aerial Survey.
All areas were surveyed in a Bell 206 B Jet Ranger with 3 observers. Combined survey time was 53 hours and 7 minutes. There were 843 elk observed, including 487 cows,122 calves, 31 spike-bulls, 87 raghorn bulls, 85 ≥6-point bulls and 31 elk that could not be classified to sex or age class. Estimated bull ratios ranged from41-58:100 cows and ≥ 6-point bull ratios were 7-29:100 cows (Table 1).

Yeah, I still can't insert the table as an image. if anyone has any ideas. I can email you the image.

Despite bull ratios declining in West Kootenay MUs that were surveyed before the GOS was implemented (MU 4-16, 4-17 and 4-08), objectives for post-hunting season bull ratios (more than 20:100 cows) were exceeded in all survey areas and a measurable number of ≥6-point bulls escaped the hunt despite heavy hunting pressure. This suggests the hunt was sustainable in this first year; however the long-term impact of the hunt will take 4-5 years to evaluate because we expect hunting pressure to decline as bull ratios decline. High localized harvest is expected in areas with good road access, which may explain the low≥6-point ratios estimated near Nakusp.

[HarryToolips]

Perhaps because it's morning and I haven't had sufficient caffeine...I'm not entirely sure how to answer your question. In the WK the hunting organizations residing there are pushing for LEH. I along with many others, disagree. The guide simply wants less hunters in his area.... But, I tend to focus less on the hunting harvests and more about all the other elk mortality causes that I've mentioned previously. If we talk about 'opportunity' itself, I have always been a proponent that supports the maintaining of opportunity over the 'hunter management' LEH system. Hunters need to, want to, will, hunt. Why would anyone support LEH unless there is a genuine conservation concern. If we deny an opportunity to hunt in one area, those hunter days (IE 18,000 in WK) will shift to some other MU/Region. What are the impacts. A balanced landscape also means balancing the quality of a hunt, the opportunity to hunt and not the closure of opportunity.

Regarding the 5 point. CO's wont help. But an information and awareness program can help. Working with the BCWF, I'm optimistic we can develop an awareness program. Perhaps that is something someone wants to become involved in.
And having listened to the CO's on the illegal harvests, there is no pattern. It is not new hunters, old hunters, local hunters or hunters coming in to the region. It is all of them. People make mistakes.

Before I reply to the bull to cow ratios, I'd like to look at some of the documentation I have - to be accurate - and then reason it out into a response. Apologies.

Hey no worries at all, you don't have to apologize... and I agree regarding the leh, it should be avoided and only be used as an absolute last resort.. the awareness program sounds like a great idea, if there's any way I can help let me know... unfortunately I don't live in elk country but love to hunt 6 pts every season..

[HarryToolips]

From 2011:

The Ministry of Natural Resource Operations (MNRO) conducted Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus canadensis) composition surveys in portions of West Kootenay Management Units (MUs) 4-15, 4-16 and 4-17 during January and February 2011. The objective of these surveys was to measure bull ratios after a “6-point or greater ”general open season (GOS) was implemented in fall 2010 to Management Units that had been formerly hunted on the Limited Entry Hunting (LEH; lottery) system. Elk composition data are also included from stratified random block surveys conducted in the South Selkirk (MU 4-07 and 4-08) and South Monashee (MU 4-32) MUs. Observation data were corrected for incomplete sightability using the Hiller 12-e elk model in the program Aerial Survey.
All areas were surveyed in a Bell 206 B Jet Ranger with 3 observers. Combined survey time was 53 hours and 7 minutes. There were 843 elk observed, including 487 cows,122 calves, 31 spike-bulls, 87 raghorn bulls, 85 ≥6-point bulls and 31 elk that could not be classified to sex or age class. Estimated bull ratios ranged from41-58:100 cows and ≥ 6-point bull ratios were 7-29:100 cows (Table 1).

Yeah, I still can't insert the table as an image. if anyone has any ideas. I can email you the image.

Despite bull ratios declining in West Kootenay MUs that were surveyed before the GOS was implemented (MU 4-16, 4-17 and 4-08), objectives for post-hunting season bull ratios (more than 20:100 cows) were exceeded in all survey areas and a measurable number of ≥6-point bulls escaped the hunt despite heavy hunting pressure. This suggests the hunt was sustainable in this first year; however the long-term impact of the hunt will take 4-5 years to evaluate because we expect hunting pressure to decline as bull ratios decline. High localized harvest is expected in areas with good road access, which may explain the low≥6-point ratios estimated near Nakusp.

Thanks for posting... I'm assuming no other more recent studies that you're aware of?

[J_T]

^^^ I do have more data up to 2022. Still trying to post the image.

[HarryToolips]

^^^^no worries, if you need a hand, PM me and I'll give you my email....and like I said, let me know if there's any way I can help with the initiation of the awareness program, as nothing pis ses me off more than GOS's potentially being closed due to ignorant and/or unethical morons....

[dapesche]

From J_T:
https://i.imgur.com/Xgvs6GSh.png

[high horse Hal]

With a Jan/Feb survey, those calves would be yearlings almost?
Assuming all cows are bred, Calf survival should have a management target and be dealt with as needed
Should recruitment be above 30 %

[KootenayKiller]

From J_T:https://i.imgur.com/Xgvs6GSh.pngThanks for sharing. Would be curious to see similar data for the East Kootenays.

So, what is behind this precipitous decline in 6 pt bulls? It would be nice if they provided data on 5pt bull ratios, I wonder if there is an inverse trend there. Or if the hunting pressure has simply increased to a point where 6 pt bulls are all killed in the same season they become legal.

[J_T]

^^ I do have some information for the EK "South" Trench. I've emailed it for someone to post it. Seems my format is to large.

[dapesche]

From J_T:

http://i.imgur.com/SfwOT8gh.png (https://imgur.com/SfwOT8g)

[high horse Hal]

those would actually be '-to-100 cows', correct?

interesting that in several instances, for each survey where the recruitment is above 35, the following survey has an increase in population, and when the number is below 30 the next has a decline
cherry picking stats, I know

[Walking Buffalo]

A good place to analyze any potential theories is to start by reviewing the surveys themselves for factors such as landscape conditions (eg. snow levels), area surveyed, weather during survey, population estimate formulas.... this will get one closer to the cherry.

[HarryToolips]

From J_T:
https://i.imgur.com/Xgvs6GSh.png

The bull and 6 pt ratio data for 2020 and 2022 appears a little flawed to me...

[high horse Hal]

we can hope the survey accuracy is better than 50%, more likely just an indicator not hard numbers

[KootenayKiller]

we can hope the survey accuracy is better than 50%, more likely just an indicator not hard numbers
Without having access to the statistical analyses, it seems pretty fair to assume either:

- The number of 6-point elk has decreased over the past decade
- The standard error for these datasets is too large for the information to be useful

In either case, it seems concerning. Although maybe the land managers don't care that they are imposing artificial selection for elk with fewer points.

[high horse Hal]

Is there such a thing? Have never seen any info that antlers can be selected like that, on any ungulate
seems 5's will most always become 6's, with the odd freak of course

[dapesche]

In my 7 years of hunting elk around Nelson, I have not seen one really big mature 5pt bull.
I've been elk every year and if it is a 5pt it is younger bull.

[Walking Buffalo]

Hunters need to aware and very careful of the implications when claiming hunting induced genetic selection under regulated seasons.

Anti-hunting advocates are actively using this genetic selection argument, and investing large sums of money trying to obtain evidence.
It's been an arduous task to counter this unproven hypothesis.

Please do not espouse unfounded claims of hunting induced genetic selection for the sake of wanting regulation changes.
The change you receive may be the end of hunting.

[J_T]

In my 7 years of hunting elk around Nelson, I have not seen one really big mature 5pt bull.
I've been elk every year and if it is a 5pt it is younger bull.

For many years now, we talk about the WK bulls and its clear, given the climate, habitat and health, a 2 or 3 yr old bull can be a 6 point. Which, does suggest a high harvest hunt of bulls under a point restriction may not be sustainable. I'm not saying it isn't sustainable, but it is something to pay attention to. We need to know more about elk in the WK.

[Ron.C]

given the climate, habitat and health, a 2 or 3 yr old bull can be a 6 point..

I'd beleive it. My last bull (albeit an EK not WK bull) was a 5x6 and he had a small thin rack and was a small bodied bull compared to most other 6pts I've seen.

He definitely looked like a very young bull

[J_T]

^^^ Yup, my last EK bull was a 6x6, 525lbs hanging. By my estimation he was a 3 year old. I'm not sure we have many 6, 8, 12 year old bulls.

FYI, I don't believe in the whole "tooth for the truth" stuff for aging, but when you look at the teeth of an animal and the gums, you get a pretty good sense of their age. We can always tell when a dog is a pup, in it's prime, or older. Same with bulls and bucks.

[IronNoggin]

Is there such a thing? Have never seen any info that antlers can be selected like that, on any ungulate
seems 5's will most always become 6's, with the odd freak of course

Kechika River.

[HarryToolips]

I don't live in elk country, however where I hunt elk in the WK from my observations, the bull:cow ratio has been fine, and with sightings combined with trail cam pics (last time we had a cam up there was 2018 however), the ratio of 6 pts or greater being approximately 73%... I wonder if when they conducted these studies it was in an area that sees a tonne of pressure or, they just couldn't find the bachelor groups during the aerial survey?

[KootenayKiller]

Hunters need to aware and very careful of the implications when claiming hunting induced genetic selection under regulated seasons.

Anti-hunting advocates are actively using this genetic selection argument, and investing large sums of money trying to obtain evidence.
It's been an arduous task to counter this unproven hypothesis.

Please do not espouse unfounded claims of hunting induced genetic selection for the sake of wanting regulation changes.
The change you receive may be the end of hunting.

Noted but I think you misunderstand what is implied by 'artificial selection'. When humans eliminate a subset of a population based on a genetically-linked trait, that is by definition artificial selection and not disputable. The amount of change that occurs could be undetectable or could be large, depending on something called the 'selection coefficient'. If we accept the idea that there is zero genetic variation for antler size, then there would be no expected change to the population. These are just the basic principles of population genetics that apply to any organism.

Like others that I've spoken to, I've seen absolute tank 5x5 bulls with harems of 20-50 cows in non-migratory herds. Perhaps a localized issue in easy-to-hunt areas in the EK trench. I think it is reasonable to wonder if there is a change occurring in response to hunting pressure, but make no claim to whether or not this is actually occurring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_coefficient#:~:text=In%20population%20ge netics%2C%20a%20selection,genotype%20frequencies%2 0attributable%20to%20selection.

The data presented by JT is interesting but incomplete, you can't really draw conclusions without more information including statistical analyses. Anyone can try to skew the narrative one way or another to further their agenda, whether they are for or against hunting, but they are operating on mere assumptions without this. I wish access to the data were available, I tried accessing recent surveys to better understand them myself and could not.

[KootenayKiller]

I just listened to a podcast that I found very informative on the situation in region 4, with Pat Stent who is one of the wildlife biologists managing elk in the area. It is from 2022 but recent enough to be quite relevant to the discussion. A great listen.

In short, he said that the number of 6 point elk is declining. Illegal harvest of 5 point elk is not helping, apparently representing 10% of all harvested bulls in 2021/2022. Herds are not recovering to 2008 levels despite eliminating cow/calf GOS, which he suggested is due to reduced wintering habitat in the trench from development of these key habitats.

Podcast: The Hunter Conservationist with Mark Hall
Episode: Illegal Elk Harvest with Pat Stent

[J_T]

^^ Only to provide background on your comment. Pat is the Senior wildlife biologist and is in charge of elk management

When we meet to discuss hunting regulations, typically we hear, "hunting is the most effective way to manage elk", which is Government speak for "the easiest way to manage elk" results in reduced opportunity for hunters.

Pat is correct, that winter habitat is very important. What WE would like Government to acknowledge are all of the other factors affecting elk populations.
Elk movement corridors are equally as important as winter habitat. How do the elk, safely move about.

While hunters harvest somewhere between 500 and 1000 elk in R4, elk fall prey to so many other factors that we need to address. Highway and railway are likely the biggest factors, and they are indiscriminate, trucks are not taking out bulls, they take out cows and calves. We probably take out 500 - 1000 elk a year by highway and railway. Let's address that.
We are requesting attention and actions toward the following:


actions and budgets to address, quantify and action;

Climate disruption
Wildfire risk
Highway mortality
Railway mortality
Predation
Invasive species
Habitat loss and degradation
Wildlife health and disease
Human disturbance
Habitat fragmentation
Agriculture conflict

[Walking Buffalo]

Climate disruption?
What does that even mean?

What should suggest wildlife managers do to reduce or eliminate "climate disruption"?

[KootenayKiller]

Right... If pregnancy rates are acceptable and only bulls are hunted, logic would dictate that a poor population recovery is not the result of hunting. Such a shame that the path of least resistance is to reduce hunting opportunity to compensate, instead of correcting the root issues causing population decline.

Highway 93 in Kootenay National Park has some impressive wildlife fencing and artificial corridors to prevent vehicular collisions. I wonder if this would be feasible south of Invermere along the highways/railways where the elk overwinter.

[KootenayKiller]

actions and budgets to address, quantify and action;



Climate disruption
Wildfire risk
Highway mortality
Railway mortality
Predation
Invasive species
Habitat loss and degradation
Wildlife health and disease
Human disturbance
Habitat fragmentation
Agriculture conflict



I thought that wildfire is beneficial to elk habitat, because they thrive on the vegetation that regrows following forest fire?

[dapesche]

Climate disruption?
What does that even mean?

What should suggest wildlife managers do to reduce or eliminate "climate disruption"?

Pretty straight forward.

The world is getting warmer. WK summers are damn hot, and we can go a couple months without precip.

Elk need water and bedding areas typically North aspects, so Foresters should keep that in mind when building their site plans.
If elk don't have the food, cover and water, then they will be disrupted.

If you wipe out their typical bedding spots, maybe they have to water and feed at night and then cross a highway to bed...

[dapesche]

I thought that wildfire is beneficial to elk habitat, because they thrive on the vegetation that regrows following forest fire?

all depends on the temp that a fire burns at. That's why prescribed burns are typically in the Spring. Cooler fire. Doesn't burn too deep.
that's my understanding from my father and sister, who are RPFs and silviculturists.

[HarryToolips]

^^ Only to provide background on your comment. Pat is the Senior wildlife biologist and is in charge of elk management

When we meet to discuss hunting regulations, typically we hear, "hunting is the most effective way to manage elk", which is Government speak for "the easiest way to manage elk" results in reduced opportunity for hunters.

Pat is correct, that winter habitat is very important. What WE would like Government to acknowledge are all of the other factors affecting elk populations.
Elk movement corridors are equally as important as winter habitat. How do the elk, safely move about.

While hunters harvest somewhere between 500 and 1000 elk in R4, elk fall prey to so many other factors that we need to address. Highway and railway are likely the biggest factors, and they are indiscriminate, trucks are not taking out bulls, they take out cows and calves. We probably take out 500 - 1000 elk a year by highway and railway. Let's address that.
We are requesting attention and actions toward the following:


actions and budgets to address, quantify and action;

Climate disruption
Wildfire risk
Highway mortality
Railway mortality
Predation
Invasive species
Habitat loss and degradation
Wildlife health and disease
Human disturbance
Habitat fragmentation
Agriculture conflict



Thanks for the update... I'm sure there would be quite a few hunters who would contribute additional funding towards addressing the above issues if feasible...for example, safe wildlife corridors to mitigate the mortality from roads and railways - would it help if we started some kind of a 'go fund me' that could raise additional $$ that could be used for those kind of endeavors?

[koothunter]

Thanks for the update... I'm sure there would be quite a few hunters who would contribute additional funding towards addressing the above issues if feasible...for example, safe wildlife corridors to mitigate the mortality from roads and railways - would it help if we started some kind of a 'go fund me' that could raise additional $$ that could be used for those kind of endeavors?

Funding is an issue with nearly all of the issues JT mentioned. One main issue I have is that the population counts (of all species) are not done to a very high degree of detail/reliability. These population studies should be done every year or two at least. Better data would mean better decisions regarding measures to help the populations. Once again, the issue here is that the MOE is underfunded. Every jurisdiction in the US puts way more money into their wildlife management and it shows.

[J_T]

^^ Continuing on, the plan; is to get these impacts to 'elk' into the stewardship plan, and once we have them, then using the RWHAC (Regional wildlife Habitat advisory committee) to specify projects that work towards all of those items on that list and then work to find and form partnerships to achieve a deliverable in any of those areas. It's a ton of work, but we're optimistic we can make a difference.

Regarding a request to Government for funding.... we ride them pretty hard as it is right now. Our expectations of Government are demanding... more money.

[HarryToolips]

I agree guys....I'm sure most of us wouldn't mind paying double or more for tags, as long as we know that it all goes directly back into the resource... can we propose that for a start?

[j270wsm]

Didn’t the gov agree to put a lot more money back into wildlife…..oh ya that was the liberals just before the ass hats…I mean ndp were voted in.

[J_T]

Didn’t the gov agree to put a lot more money back into wildlife…..oh ya that was the liberals just before the ass hats…I mean ndp were voted in.
Actually it was the NDP under Horgan who made grandiose promises of more money into Wildlife. ($10million/yr) not enough... I'm not an NDP supporter, however, it is under the NDP that the "Together for Wildlife" initiative started to give wildlife some exposure. In terms of benefits to wildlife, we've come further with this Government than 'any' previous Government.

FYI, currently as most know, only the hunting 'surcharge' goes toward wildlife management. There is a current proposal to double the surcharge.

Regarding funding. I don't think we should wait, or rely on the "Government of the day" to act. It doesn't matter what party is in power, we will likely never see the commitment we want or expect. I believe, these upcoming, Regional Wildlife Habitat Advisory Committees (RWHACs) should reach out, take the initiative, stay focused on the needs, recommendations and actions of the stewardship plans and find partners to provide additional money toward the initiatives. Wildlife objectives, Linear features and securing critical wildlife habitat. It comes down to how hard residents/stakeholders want to work. Wildlife should not be cyclical, like elections and changing Governments.

[mikeman20]

Noted but I think you misunderstand what is implied by 'artificial selection'. When humans eliminate a subset of a population based on a genetically-linked trait, that is by definition artificial selection and not disputable. The amount of change that occurs could be undetectable or could be large, depending on something called the 'selection coefficient'. If we accept the idea that there is zero genetic variation for antler size, then there would be no expected change to the population. These are just the basic principles of population genetics that apply to any organism.

Like others that I've spoken to, I've seen absolute tank 5x5 bulls with harems of 20-50 cows in non-migratory herds. Perhaps a localized issue in easy-to-hunt areas in the EK trench. I think it is reasonable to wonder if there is a change occurring in response to hunting pressure, but make no claim to whether or not this is actually occurring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_coefficient#:~:text=In%20population%20ge netics%2C%20a%20selection,genotype%20frequencies%2 0attributable%20to%20selection.

The data presented by JT is interesting but incomplete, you can't really draw conclusions without more information including statistical analyses. Anyone can try to skew the narrative one way or another to further their agenda, whether they are for or against hunting, but they are operating on mere assumptions without this. I wish access to the data were available, I tried accessing recent surveys to better understand them myself and could not.

One thing to keep in mind, is that bulls and cows both carry the genes for antler size. With people 'selecting' for 6 point bulls, they are not doing so for any cows with those genes. Factor in bull:cow ratios, and the effect size of artificial selection we're actually working with is 1/6th-1/10th as much as it would seem at a first glance.

[high horse Hal]

It actually might be surprising to see how close the current population numbers are to the actual carrying capacity of the available safe winter habitat
All the other talking points are fine to have on a list, but matter little
^^ Continuing on, the plan; is to get these impacts to 'elk' into the stewardship plan, and once we have them, then using the RWHAC (Regional wildlife Habitat advisory committee) to specify projects that work towards all of those items on that list and then work to find and form partnerships to achieve a deliverable in any of those areas. It's a ton of work, but we're optimistic we can make a difference.

Regarding a request to Government for funding.... we ride them pretty hard as it is right now. Our expectations of Government are demanding... more money.

[j270wsm]

Actually it was the NDP under Horgan who made grandiose promises of more money into Wildlife. ($10million/yr) not enough...

I stand corrected…..I thought it was the liberals who made that promise just before being voted out.

[J_T]

I stand corrected…..I thought it was the liberals who made that promise just before being voted out.
I don't think you are entirely incorrect. We know during an election most politicians make a swack of promises to gain support. I'm sure the Liberals offered money money money for wildlife. Yet, we never see the word, environment, or wildlife in the Speech from the Throne.....

[KootenayKiller]

One thing to keep in mind, is that bulls and cows both carry the genes for antler size. With people 'selecting' for 6 point bulls, they are not doing so for any cows with those genes. Factor in bull:cow ratios, and the effect size of artificial selection we're actually working with is 1/6th-1/10th as much as it would seem at a first glance.

If selection pressure is applied to one sex of the population only, rate of change is generally reduced according to the male:female ratio in the population. Notably, the same end outcome occurs as if selection pressure were applied to both sexes, but it takes more breeding cycles and thus longer to reach that same end point.

This assumes that the laws of Mendelian inheritance are applicable, which isn't always the case, but is a good general idea of the sort of response you will see. For example, if 15% of the population is male and selection pressure is applied to males only, Mendel's law of independent assortment suggests that 15% of change will occur per breeding cycle compared to a situation where selection pressure is applied to both sexes. There are all sorts of exceptions to these rules in population genetics, this is just what you can normally expect.

[wideopenthrottle]

https://www.naelk.org/the_genetic_question.cfm

i just found this link i havent read it yet though...read it...looks like the debate isnt settled

[KootenayKiller]

https://www.naelk.org/the_genetic_question.cfm

i just found this link i havent read it yet though

Non-mendelian inheritance patterns can result in situations where one sex of the population has a stronger influence. For example, if there were genes affecting antler size found in mitochondrial DNA (which is passed down by females only), then the selection pressures applied to males would have no effect on inheritance of those genes. Another possibility is gene linkages, which is where the location of genes on a chromosome relative to others can affect inheritance; genes situated close to one another are more likely to be jointly inherited. A classic example of linkage is found in the domestication of silver foxes, where more than a dozen traits unique to dogs appeared because of linkage to genes relating to docile behavior - even though they were not being selected for. A good point touched on in the article you cited is that bigger cows probably give birth to bigger bulls, which would presumably is tied to antler size also. Genetics can be very complex, and fascinating!

My assumption is that antler size is polygenic (involving many genes) and so probably follows Mendeliance inheritance patterns +/- a certain level of error, accounting for any such exceptions. To say that change won't occur because cows carry genes that affect antler size is probably not accurate. What is likely true is that this would reduce the rate of change.

[Walking Buffalo]

Again, all Kootenaykiller is doing is postulating, theorizing and assuming in an effort to replace the absence of any factual evidence proving regulated hunting has caused ANY genetic selection towards inhibiting six point antlers within Region 4 Elk.

KootenarKiller,
I suspect you are naive towards the anti-hunting advocacy groups efforts forced upon wildlife managers through the concept of hunter induced genetic selection, and the countering efforts of many scientists, managers and hunting advocates to refute the unfounded claims.

I have spent many thousands of hours over 25 years helping coordinate pro hunting efforts at an international level in the fight against these unfounded claims.

While I appreciate your inquisitive nature, don't let your ego replace facts.

[KootenayKiller]

Yes, just a hypothesis. Not sure where you think I replaced any facts because of my ego. I was just looking to have open discussion on the biology of elk. Too bad to avoid it over fear that the conversation will be misrepresented by anti-hunting groups.