New Poll on Reg. 4 elk hunting opportunity

[BCrams]

A new poll.

[rocksteady]

Not trying to start anything here, but since you started the poll, can you amend it to 2 other options:

You live in Reg 4 and are willing to look at other options besides a 3 pt regulation where there is no conservation concern....

and same as above, but Not Living in region 4.....

If you do that I will be willing to change my vote

[BCrams]

I believe the above options are very valid and concrete to show where things are at.

What are those other options that you are talking about?

We need concrete ideas that will achieve the same objectives as the 3 pt season or better.

[rocksteady]

Similar to what hunter1947 proposed....

- short 3 point season (week or 10 days)

-Maybe back the whole season down to a 5 point, rather than a 6...

- Who knows maybe a 6 point season for adults and a spike bull season for jrs only (the spikes are kinda stupid)......

I am more than willing to consider other options that people have may not suggested yet.....

[DWH]

Not trying to start anything here, but since you started the poll, can you amend it to 2 other options:

You live in Reg 4 and are willing to look at other options besides a 3 pt regulation where there is no conservation concern....

and same as above, but Not Living in region 4.....

If you do that I will be willing to change my vote

I vote for one of these options.

(From Trail but being currently, but hopefully only temporarily, transplanted elsewhere)

[BCrams]

I vote for one of these options.

You're from Trail .... that makes you a resident of the Koots who doesn't want the 3 pt season.

We can chalk it in as an imaginary number for you.

[rocksteady]

Thinking more about this, I think we should remove the "Live in region 4" or not.....

All that does is imply the original allegation of NIMBY.....

How about we change it to I hunt elk in Region 4...

Removes the us against them scenario and puts us all on the same team, just not the same line.......(no Canucks references please)

[budismyhorse]

I don't want to start it up again, but where did the option of a Limited 3pt season go?

why not a poll that has this option?

does it have to be 6pt blanket or 3pt blanket?

no option of a meet in the middle approach?

I'm not sure how you can vote any other way besides yes if you are not a trophy hunter, since we all want what is best regarding conservation. what if the information points to a limited 3pt season? are all the votes for yes in this poll going to be on board with that scenario?

if so, then YES. but for now I am reserving my vote.

[BCrams]

Rocksteady. There are many hunters who live in the Kootenays right now who don't even bother hunting elk because its a pain in the arse for them to try and find a legal 6 pt bull that they don't bother.

Now - a three point season just might bring these hunters out of the wood work and buy elk tags again. So, no it does not make sense to change it to 'only elk hunters' The goal is to target hunters who may wish the opportunity to hunt elk but won't given the logistics, know how and time needed to hunt 6 pt bulls.

[rocksteady]

Okay...Was just a suggestion to try and create one less option in the wordings.....

Sent you a PM by the way....

[BCrams]

I don't want to start it up again, but where did the option of a Limited 3pt season go?

No conservation concern. Why do we need LEH and if you've read the Zeman report, you'd know that LEH is one of the most detrimental things you can do to decrease hunter numbers.

why not a poll that has this option?

See above. Anything with no conservation concern doesn't need to go to LEH.

does it have to be 6pt blanket or 3pt blanket?

no option of a meet in the middle approach?

We have not heard any 'concrete' ideas to meet in the middle. For exampe: LEH for 3 pt elk is a non-starter. Need to do better. But that said, I am sure valid options which will meet the same objectives as a 3 pt season will be looked at fairly.

I'm not sure how you can vote any other way besides yes if you are not a trophy hunter, since we all want what is best regarding conservation.

Trophy hunters typically are avid hunters and they will still continue to hunt and kill trophy animals. Big bucks and bulls aren't stupid and will still be there for those avid guys.

what if the information points to a limited 3pt season?

Its possible. Bottom line is all hunters and clubs need to start thinking outside the box for the long term good. You will never make everyone happy - but its clear we need to move away from the current management directives we are in right now.

[Seeadler]

I am in Region 4 and I don't have any problem with a 3 point season. I am not convinced though that after a few years of a 3 point season that the whining won't start all over again about how 3 point bulls are too hard to find.

Best thing that could happen IMO is a wider 3 point season (into the WK) with a coinciding moose season of some sort to spread the pressure out.

[brotherjack]

Rocksteady. There are many hunters who live in the Kootenays right now who don't even bother hunting elk because its a pain in the arse for them to try and find a legal 6 pt bull that they don't bother.


Yep, after 5 years of busting my butt, I'm about to be one of them. It's not like I've never had success (I've actually ate elk meat most of those years) - but now that I know what it takes to get a six point on the ground (50+ days of hunting time is our current track record among me and my hunting buddies), I'm comfortably concluded that the time and effort it takes to get that success under a six point season is just totally stupid and unjustifiable in my book.

[budismyhorse]

what if the information points to a limited 3pt season?

Its possible. Bottom line is all hunters and clubs need to start thinking outside the box for the long term good.

right on! lets do this, I am lookig forward to seeing what clubs are going to come up with.

You will never make everyone happy - but its clear we need to move away from the current management directives we are in right now.

Couldn't agree with you more.

[BCrams]

what if the information points to a limited 3pt season?

Its possible. Bottom line is all hunters and clubs need to start thinking outside the box for the long term good.

right on! lets do this, I am lookig forward to seeing what clubs are going to come up with.

You will never make everyone happy - but its clear we need to move away from the current management directives we are in right now.

Couldn't agree with you more.


Most certainly keen to see what the clubs come up with. The Kootenay clubs (which typically are made up of the more avid hunters rather than the average joes) actually vehemently opposed any 3 pt season or removal of the West Kootenay LEH season recently.

These clubs do not represent the majority of what the hunters want as clearly evident with these polls.

[Brambles]

Most certainly keen to see what the clubs come up with. The Kootenay clubs (which typically are made up of the more avid hunters rather than the average joes) actually vehemently opposed any 3 pt season or removal of the West Kootenay LEH season recently.

These clubs do not represent the majority of what the hunters want as clearly evident with these polls.


Of course not, everyone else just wants to come and pump and elk, where we want to preserve what is here.

I'm no biologist and I'm not going to dazzle you with studies and numbers, all I can say is if you open up LEH areas to open season and or reduce point minimums to 3 pts or better then the elk are going to get slaughtered.

I would consider supporting a short 3 point season in areas already offering a general season and/or increased LEH authorizations in traditional LEH areas.

Best to ease into things rather than jumping in with both feet.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Of course not, everyone else just wants to come and pump and elk, where we want to preserve what is here.

I'm no biologist and I'm not going to dazzle you with studies and numbers, all I can say is if you open up LEH areas to open season and or reduce point minimums to 3 pts or better then the elk are going to get slaughtered.

I would consider supporting a short 3 point season in areas already offering a general season and/or increased LEH authorizations in traditional LEH areas.

Best to ease into things rather than jumping in with both feet.

Think about "Baby Brambles"...."Baby Brambles":smile: and his future. Hopefully, there will be enough of his peers interested in hunting to keep it going:-(.

SSS

[BCrams]

Brambles .... this coming from a guy who has a hard enough time trying to find a West Kootenay big buck??? Let alone spend your life trying to win a WK bull elk draw?

Wouldn't you like to see your son come home from his grade 1 or grade 2 (and onwards through school) class and say - "Hey kiddo, hop in the truck, lets go see if we can pop an elk."

That is not going to happen with that attitude of yours. The first year or two will indeed be busy but it won't be an outright slaughter. You know darn well what that country is like and how tough it is. Then it will die down as everyone starts going back to places that are easier to hunt elk.

[Jelvis]

I say it's time for three point or bigger, in region 4 lots of elk in the area and the majority want it, give it a go and see, can always change it back later if needed. Jel yes

[eastkoot]

Yep, after 5 years of busting my butt, I'm about to be one of them. It's not like I've never had success (I've actually ate elk meat most of those years) - but now that I know what it takes to get a six point on the ground (50+ days of hunting time is our current track record among me and my hunting buddies), I'm comfortably concluded that the time and effort it takes to get that success under a six point season is just totally stupid and unjustifiable in my book.
__________________
"...the truth will make you free." John 8:32

Boo Hoo..I'm with Brambles.

[sawmill]

7 days spike or flat top.Nov.10 to Nov. 17.

[chevy]

leave the elk the way it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[BCrams]

I am seeing a few local Kootenay boys replying but not voting.

Even if you disagree with the poll questions and have other ideas, it still indicates you don't support the 3 point season.

[BCrams]

leave the elk the way it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Click on the poll that shows you live in the Koots and do not support a 3 pt season !!!

[Stone Sheep Steve]

One question.......What were the elk numbers like up north back before the Demarchi years?? Weren't the koots pretty much the only show in BC as far as elk goes?
We now have a VERY robust population of elk up north(7A and 7B) . Couple a 3pt season in the EK with one up north and that heavy pressure can be spread out over a very large area.

Something to ponder............................................ ......

SSS

[Fisher-Dude]

I'm adding this valuable tidbit to these threads for all to read:

There is another study that should be read, that was written by John Thornton of the Wildlife Branch:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/ds/docs/...onStrategy.pdf (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/ds/docs/070607_HunterRecruitment-RetentionStrategy.pdf)

One of his key findings:

"In general, wildlife managers should adopt a quantity over quality philosophy for deer, moose and elk. Hunting success is strongly related to continued participation, and there are far more hunters that are happy to shoot an average animal than there are hunters whose specific purpose is to bag a trophy. Really skilled hunters are capable of finding impressive animals if they put their minds to it, but hunters of lesser skill find their chances for success greatly limited by trophy management practices. Furthermore, managing for animals with impressive antlers pushes opportunity away from general open seasons and towards Limited Entry hunting, restricting participation even further."

[Poguebilt]

I think 5 point is a more realistic option to start with...

[Brambles]

Brambles .... this coming from a guy who has a hard enough time trying to find a West Kootenay big buck??? Let alone spend your life trying to win a WK bull elk draw?

Wouldn't you like to see your son come home from his grade 1 or grade 2 (and onwards through school) class and say - "Hey kiddo, hop in the truck, lets go see if we can pop an elk."

That is not going to happen with that attitude of yours. The first year or two will indeed be busy but it won't be an outright slaughter. You know darn well what that country is like and how tough it is. Then it will die down as everyone starts going back to places that are easier to hunt elk.


No, I would prefer things to stay the same, maybe some increased LEH draws but I think opening up west kootenay LEH areas to general season is a bad idea. Just my opinion. May not be a popular one but oh well.:cool:

[BCrams]

No, I would prefer things to stay the same, maybe some increased LEH draws but I think opening up west kootenay LEH areas to general season is a bad idea. Just my opinion. May not be a popular one but oh well.:cool:

Its your opinion!!! However facts say that it won't be a bad thing!! Big difference!!

[6616]

I am in Region 4 and I don't have any problem with a 3 point season. I am not convinced though that after a few years of a 3 point season that the whining won't start all over again about how 3 point bulls are too hard to find.

Best thing that could happen IMO is a wider 3 point season (into the WK) with a coinciding moose season of some sort to spread the pressure out.

I don't think that will be a concern if the overall population stays up around 25,000. That means about 15,000 calves hit the ground every spring, about 30% of these survive to recruitment age, half are males and, half will be three points at 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 years old. Yearlings are the most expendible component of any ungulate population, that's why the spike/fork moose season has been sustainable in Regions 5 and 8, and will be in region 4 as well.
I believe the biggest antler class to see increased harvested will be 5pts and there will be a dramatic resurgance in elk hunting interest.

[Kody94]

I don't think that will be a concern if the overall population stays up around 25,000. That means about 15,000 calves hit the ground every spring, about 30% of these survive to recruitment age, half are males and, half will be three points at 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 years old. Yearlings are the most expendible component of any ungulate population, that's why the spike/fork moose season has been sustainable in Regions 5 and 8, and will be in region 4 as well.
I believe the biggest antler class to see increased harvested will be 5pts and there will be a dramatic resurgance in elk hunting interest.

I don't disagree with your logic at all 6616. That's pretty much why I support starting with a 10 day 3pt season in September. Should be lots of great action, and some happy hunters.

BUT, I don't think we are ready for a full blown season-long 3pt season in the entire EK. I would like to see the almost 50% of the population that is not migrating recieve the brunt of the pressure. Provide the opportunity but focus on those animals for a while, and allow the migratory elk to continue to increase their numbers and occupy summer habitat that is way underutilized.

That's my considered preference.

Have you seen the Progress report for the Elk Monitoring Project (if you are who I think you are, I bet you have)? I worry that swinging the pendulum back to a full season 3pt regulation will not address that problem and will considerably lengthen the time for it to correct.

Cheers,
4ster

[hopsing]

BC Rams - I don't like your poll at all. Not even going to vote. I don't live there but I hunt and fish there a lot. The community should more input to manage the Region. Me...as a visitor and taking advantage of their resources is very thankful for the experience and opportunity.

[wetcoasthunter]

BC Rams - I don't like your poll at all. Not even going to vote. I don't live there but I hunt and fish there a lot. The community should more input to manage the Region. Me...as a visitor and taking advantage of their resources is very thankful for the experience and opportunity.

Quite frankly I don't give a flying f*** who's a local, who isn't. The animals in this province belong to ALL of us, not just the guys/gals that happen to live in the immediate vacinity of a certain animal population. Whenever I read/hear about this "locals first" BS it gets my blood boiling, get over yourselves, you're a BC resident, thats it.

[Mr. Dean]

No concern should = a Green light
Not red...

Hunting is a dying pastime. Wouldn't we be best served to utilize what we can, when we can; if we expect hunting to be carried on?

Whats been goin on, isn't working.
Why stockpile when the pantry's full?

I fail to see the sense.

[Brambles]

Its your opinion!!! However facts say that it won't be a bad thing!! Big difference!!

I'd use the term FACTS loosely because its just a guess what will happen. No one knows for sure. You can have as many bioligists and whomever else trying to predict the outcome but they don't have a perfect record in doing this either and have made bad calls before.

What I do know is that a lot of the big bulls will get shot and you'll end up making the west kootenays even harder to hunt. The bulls that end up learning will hold up in even uglier country than they do now.

The west kootenay elk have traditionally been managed for animal quality, NOT hunter opportunity. I support 4 point mulie seasons and I support the 6 pt or better season. There are lots of places you can go to hunt bull elk, you don't need to sabotoge the work of the west kootenay bio's and Rod & Gun clubs just because some guys are bitching and moaning about not being able to find a 6 point bull in the okanogan or east kootenays. Or some guy who stopped hunting and blames it all on " no hunter opportunity" could be he's the shittiest hunter alive.

Back when it was 3 pt or better you'd be excited to shoot a 300" bull, now that is the benchmark, most bulls are over 300". (I'm talking west kootenays here)

It wasn't too long ago that they opened up an area that was closed to elk hunting in the PG area. They slaughtered the big bulls out of that area.

They opened up 4-18 for a full season and guess what, big bulls got slaughtered out of there too.

Some guys aren't happy unless they are shooting everything they see or go after, and it seems to be these guys who are the "squeaky wheel". Hunting is a challange and if your not up to it, then stay home, nothing is a guarantee.

Its like everyone thinks elk are hiding behind every tree in the west kootenays, a few LEH areas this is close to being true but I know some LEH bull tags that never got filled this year and not for lack of trying. Elk are damn tough to find in this country, reducing the herd size isn't going to help that out.

I'm tired of typing, no doubt someone will pipe up with a completely different opinion, have at er.:cool:

[Brambles]

Quite frankly I don't give a flying f*** who's a local, who isn't. The animals in this province belong to ALL of us, not just the guys/gals that happen to live in the immediate vacinity of a certain animal population. Whenever I read/hear about this "locals first" BS it gets my blood boiling, get over yourselves, you're a BC resident, thats it.


Well let your blood boil away, that doesn't stop the fact that we do more to help out these animals than you do and therefore we should have more power in deciding how these animals are managed. I'm not saying you don't have the right to hunt these animals but it should be in accordance with our management plan, not yours.

We don't tell you how to manage your deer/elk/bear on the island.
I'd bet many more people actually leave the island to hunt the mainland then mainland hunters going to Van Isl to hunt your game so your outlook on hunting opportunity doesn't suprise me.

[hunter1947]

Im not going to go there ,its like repeating yourself from the other post ,6pt season vs 3pt season.:roll:.

[Fisher-Dude]

I'd use the term FACTS loosely because its just a guess what will happen. No one knows for sure. You can have as many bioligists and whomever else trying to predict the outcome but they don't have a perfect record in doing this either and have made bad calls before.

What I do know is that a lot of the big bulls will get shot and you'll end up making the west kootenays even harder to hunt. The bulls that end up learning will hold up in even uglier country than they do now.

Is it good having something "easy" to hunt at 100:1 odds when there's a resource that can be hunted on GOS by everyone? Besides those bulls that are snacking on Krestovian sunflower seeds, the rest of them are in tough country in the WK already.

For the true "trophy" hunters who thrive on a challenging hunt for big bulls, I think they will find that in the WK terrain where those hogs live with a GOS. What trophy hunter really wants to bail out of his truck and pop a 340 bull standing beside a Dhukobour's plywood shack in Goose Creek? Wouldn't a trip to the back country give that quality hunt he's looking for?

The west kootenay elk have traditionally been managed for animal quality, NOT hunter opportunity. I support 4 point mulie seasons and I support the 6 pt or better season. There are lots of places you can go to hunt bull elk, you don't need to sabotoge the work of the west kootenay bio's and Rod & Gun clubs just because some guys are bitching and moaning about not being able to find a 6 point bull in the okanogan or east kootenays. Or some guy who stopped hunting and blames it all on " no hunter opportunity" could be he's the shittiest hunter alive.

With the decline of hunter numbers and what it will mean to our sport, we need to question "traditional" management practices and look for hunter opportunity wherever we can. If we keep managing for animal quality, we will NOT be hunting at all - that's fact, that's the grim reality, that's why changes are on the table in these areas.

Have some big bulls and NO hunting in BC, or still have some big bulls and have hunting in BC - those are your choices.

I guess 100,000 people were the "shittiest hunter alive" because that is how many have quit. Lots of places you can go hunt elk - just not the WK ones eh? ;-)

Back when it was 3 pt or better you'd be excited to shoot a 300" bull, now that is the benchmark, most bulls are over 300". (I'm talking west kootenays here)

Over 90% of hunters will be excited to shoot any bull. If it's only bone that turns your crank, you'll still find it throughout BC. The number of 380 class bulls now coming from region 7 is rivalling the WK now - and 7 is on GOS. ;-)

It wasn't too long ago that they opened up an area that was closed to elk hunting in the PG area. They slaughtered the big bulls out of that area.

They opened up 4-18 for a full season and guess what, big bulls got slaughtered out of there too.

4-18 has been open (GOS) for years and it still produces whoppers.

Some guys aren't happy unless they are shooting everything they see or go after, and it seems to be these guys who are the "squeaky wheel". Hunting is a challange and if your not up to it, then stay home, nothing is a guarantee.

100,000 hunters HAVE decided to stay home. That's why YOUR continued ability to be able to go hunting for anything in BC is just about to be taken away from you forever.

Its like everyone thinks elk are hiding behind every tree in the west kootenays, a few LEH areas this is close to being true but I know some LEH bull tags that never got filled this year and not for lack of trying. Elk are damn tough to find in this country, reducing the herd size isn't going to help that out.

So if the guys who hold 100:1 gravy tags can't shoot an elk (I too watched some go unfilled) because the area is tough to hunt, how will your feared "slaughter" happen?

I'm tired of typing, no doubt someone will pipe up with a completely different opinion, have at er.:cool:

Here I am Jeff! :biggrin:



.................

[sawmill]

I'm adding this valuable tidbit to these threads for all to read:

There is another study that should be read, that was written by John Thornton of the Wildlife Branch:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/ds/docs/...onStrategy.pdf (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/ds/docs/070607_HunterRecruitment-RetentionStrategy.pdf)

One of his key findings:

"In general, wildlife managers should adopt a quantity over quality philosophy for deer, moose and elk. Hunting success is strongly related to continued participation, and there are far more hunters that are happy to shoot an average animal than there are hunters whose specific purpose is to bag a trophy. Really skilled hunters are capable of finding impressive animals if they put their minds to it, but hunters of lesser skill find their chances for success greatly limited by trophy management practices. Furthermore, managing for animals with impressive antlers pushes opportunity away from general open seasons and towards Limited Entry hunting, restricting participation even further."
YES!I only want meat,If it comes with a nice rack that is a bonus,and I do have a couple on the wall,but to me and my friends it is all about the smokies and garlic sausage you haul out at Christmas and the t bones on the grill and the best chile in the world made from the hamburger.

[Brambles]

Is it good having something "easy" to hunt at 100:1 odds when there's a resource that can be hunted on GOS by everyone? Besides those bulls that are snacking on Krestovian sunflower seeds, the rest of them are in tough country in the WK already.

For the true "trophy" hunters who thrive on a challenging hunt for big bulls, I think they will find that in the WK terrain where those hogs live with a GOS. What trophy hunter really wants to bail out of his truck and pop a 340 bull standing beside a Dhukobour's plywood shack in Goose Creek? Wouldn't a trip to the back country give that quality hunt he's looking for?

100:1 odds is on the high side, the draws odds are high and in some years may approach or meet the 100:1 in some select areas but its not the norm.

Doesn't matter if its beside some shack in Goose Creek or a road closure or a public access FSR or private land. The elk in that area arn't use to being hunted and behave much the same.



With the decline of hunter numbers and what it will mean to our sport, we need to question "traditional" management practices and look for hunter opportunity wherever we can. If we keep managing for animal quality, we will NOT be hunting at all - that's fact, that's the grim reality, that's why changes are on the table in these areas.

Have some big bulls and NO hunting in BC, or still have some big bulls and have hunting in BC - those are your choices.

I guess 100,000 people were the "shittiest hunter alive" because that is how many have quit. Lots of places you can go hunt elk - just not the WK ones eh? :wink:

You make it sound like elk hunting and LEH is the only reason why hunter recruitment is down, peoples lives are busier and family values have been lost along the way. Just opening up ELk LEH areas to GOS won't bring 100,000 hunters back.



Over 90% of hunters will be excited to shoot any bull. If it's only bone that turns your crank, you'll still find it throughout BC. The number of 380 class bulls now coming from region 7 is rivalling the WK now - and 7 is on GOS.

Good then go to region 7 and hunt 380 class elk in GOS, no need to bother us in region 4 then. They must have all the answers up there.

4-18 has been open (GOS) for years and it still produces whoppers.

Yes 4-18 has a limited GOS, it always has. It can't be judged the same as some select LEH areas, its a massive and rugged MU and quite a bit is taken up by Kokanee Park.


100,000 hunters HAVE decided to stay home. That's why YOUR continued ability to be able to go hunting for anything in BC is just about to be taken away from you forever.

So the only reason you want more hunters is because you want more votes, I don't like politics, don't know much about politics. All I know is politicians will screw you around and lie, cheat and steal to get what they want and ask skewed questions in which they will manipulate the answers to in order to meet their own agenda.

So if the guys who hold 100:1 gravy tags can't shoot an elk (I too watched some go unfilled) because the area is tough to hunt, how will your feared "slaughter" happen?


These unfilled tags weren't in areas I"m worried about, but you start a trend and then nothing is safe. I'm all for some change but it should be slow. People are saying that if it ends up being a mistake then they can change it back, why go that far. Ease into it and evaluate each year, so we arn't faced with the problem of having to bring a herd back into shape.



Here I am Jeff! :biggrin:

Hello Pat:smile:



................


And thats all I have to say about that..........at this moment

[wetcoasthunter]

Well let your blood boil away, that doesn't stop the fact that we do more to help out these animals than you do and therefore we should have more power in deciding how these animals are managed. I'm not saying you don't have the right to hunt these animals but it should be in accordance with our management plan, not yours.

We don't tell you how to manage your deer/elk/bear on the island.
I'd bet many more people actually leave the island to hunt the mainland then mainland hunters going to Van Isl to hunt your game so your outlook on hunting opportunity doesn't suprise me.

Thank you masta sir, can I pleases hunt your elk. Ya, remember how I said get over yourselves. Its obvious that you are in it for yourself and the other 10% of hunters (trophy hunters) out there, don't make it out like you are out there saving those elk for a selfless reason.

"I'd bet many more people actually leave the island to hunt the mainland then mainland hunters going to Van Isl to hunt your game ", don't need to be einstein to figure that out, and why? OPPERTUNITY! Increase oppertunities and you'll get more hunters out there, which is good for all of us.

As a trophy hunter I would think you'd like the supposed increased challenge once all of us outsiders come and take all YOUR elk. For the other 90% of us, if we get a bull over 300 than thats great, if its under 300, we'd still be happy. I'm sure before the 6pt rule was put in there were plenty of big elk coming out of the koots.

Yes, changing from a 6pt season to a 3 pt. season will not solve the problem of hunter retention or recruitment, but it will help, as little as you may think, which at this point is better than doing nothing, which you support. It will take a combination of relaxing regulations in many areas, access changes, etc, etc to really make a change. Gotta start somewhere.

[aggiehunter]

Keep 6point as is but allow bowhunters to take 3pt or better during the GOS, now we're talking about opportunity!!!

[6616]

I don't disagree with your logic at all 6616. That's pretty much why I support starting with a 10 day 3pt season in September. Should be lots of great action, and some happy hunters.

BUT, I don't think we are ready for a full blown season-long 3pt season in the entire EK. I would like to see the almost 50% of the population that is not migrating recieve the brunt of the pressure. Provide the opportunity but focus on those animals for a while, and allow the migratory elk to continue to increase their numbers and occupy summer habitat that is way underutilized.

That's my considered preference.

Have you seen the Progress report for the Elk Monitoring Project (if you are who I think you are, I bet you have)? I worry that swinging the pendulum back to a full season 3pt regulation will not address that problem and will considerably lengthen the time for it to correct.

Cheers,
4ster

I agree, the pendulum has to be swung in increments with monitoring, not full swing in one move. I've seen the progress report and the preliminary percentage of non-migratory elk south of Cranbrook is alarming. All I am promoting at this time is a 10 day GOS on 3pts for a start, and then we'll see where that goes and make future changes as required. The season could be early to impact the non-migratory population or it could be late to reduce the harvest.

[6616]

One question.......What were the elk numbers like up north back before the Demarchi years?? Weren't the koots pretty much the only show in BC as far as elk goes?
We now have a VERY robust population of elk up north(7A and 7B) . Couple a 3pt season in the EK with one up north and that heavy pressure can be spread out over a very large area.

Something to ponder............................................ ......

SSS

Very good point SSS, and considering the grain and hay field depredation levels in the Peace that would probably be welcomed up there.

[rocksteady]

100,000 hunters HAVE decided to stay home. That's why YOUR continued ability to be able to go hunting for anything in BC is just about to be taken away from you forever.



I think this borders on paranoia:confused::confused:....My .02

[Brambles]

Thank you masta sir, can I pleases hunt your elk. Ya, remember how I said get over yourselves. Its obvious that you are in it for yourself and the other 10% of hunters (trophy hunters) out there, don't make it out like you are out there saving those elk for a selfless reason.


I'm talkin about west kootenay LEH areas, I most likely will not draw a tag for 20 years or so, of course I have been putting in religiously for many years. If I was selfish I would demand the ability to hunt them just like you are. My concerns are for the elk and not the hunters. And read carefully, my concern is for the traditional LEH areas that haven't had a GOS, not the already existing GOS areas. Feel free to put in for an LEH tag, and if drawn, feel free to hunt them as much as you want, you'll probably get your bull if your truely a meat hunter.

"I'd bet many more people actually leave the island to hunt the mainland then mainland hunters going to Van Isl to hunt your game ", don't need to be einstein to figure that out, and why? OPPERTUNITY! Increase oppertunities and you'll get more hunters out there, which is good for all of us.

And you call me selfish, try thinking about the animals for a chance and not your stomach.

As a trophy hunter I would think you'd like the supposed increased challenge once all of us outsiders come and take all YOUR elk. For the other 90% of us, if we get a bull over 300 than thats great, if its under 300, we'd still be happy. I'm sure before the 6pt rule was put in there were plenty of big elk coming out of the koots.

Apparently you haven't hunted the West Kootenays, the elk are barely huntable right now. Increased pressure is going to drive them into areas that you can't hunt. Horses are no good here, access is limited, lots of road closures. After the slaughter you'd have better luck going back to the East Kootenays or okanogan. So then why kill off the elk in the name of hunter numbers. There are surely other ways to bring back hunter numbers rather than on the backs of vulerable LEH elk.

Yes, changing from a 6pt season to a 3 pt. season will not solve the problem of hunter retention or recruitment, but it will help, as little as you may think, which at this point is better than doing nothing, which you support. It will take a combination of relaxing regulations in many areas, access changes, etc, etc to really make a change. Gotta start somewhere.

Sure, what else can we do for you to make your hunt easier. Do you want me to chip in for your gas to. Will that help hunter recruitment.
The hunting population got older and never passed down the joys of hunting to their children, people became happy and fat in their own little lives eating Mcdonalds. There is plenty of opportunity to hunt, I'm sure the regualations aren't totally to blame. Blame Ronald McDonald.:wink:

[wetcoasthunter]

I still can't figure this one out. So there is going to be a "slaughter" if they relax the regs, then what took place before the 6pt rule was put in? Was there a slaughter for decades?? With many more hunters?? How do you think the elk population could sustain such a thing?

[Kody94]

I agree, the pendulum has to be swung in increments with monitoring, not full swing in one move. I've seen the progress report and the preliminary percentage of non-migratory elk south of Cranbrook is alarming. All I am promoting at this time is a 10 day GOS on 3pts for a start, and then we'll see where that goes and make future changes as required. The season could be early to impact the non-migratory population or it could be late to reduce the harvest.

We are on the same page. I see some upside to the late season, but given the preliminary results of the study, I am promoting the early season in order to start reducing that segment of the population while minimizing the risk of increasing the impact to the migratory segment.

Cheers,
4Ster.

[Brambles]

I still can't figure this one out. So there is going to be a "slaughter" if they relax the regs, then what took place before the 6pt rule was put in? Was there a slaughter for decades?? With many more hunters?? How do you think the elk population could sustain such a thing?


There never was a season in those areas, traditionally it has been LEH

[KevinB]

Apparently you haven't hunted the West Kootenays, the elk are barely huntable right now. Increased pressure is going to drive them into areas that you can't hunt. Horses are no good here, access is limited, lots of road closures. After the slaughter you'd have better luck going back to the East Kootenays or okanogan. So then why kill off the elk in the name of hunter numbers. There are surely other ways to bring back hunter numbers rather than on the backs of vulerable LEH elk.

Just curious...On one hand, if I'm understanding you right, you're saying that the ground is so tough, that it is very difficult to successfully hunt elk in the WK. I don't doubt that, I haven't hunted there but I know the country a little bit and yup it is pretty tough ground. But you also seem to be saying that a GOS would somehow result in some kind of mass slaughter. If the ground is so difficult, and the elk "barely huntable", do you really think that all the extra hunters that may or may not flock to the WK for elk are going to actually kill enough bulls to call it a "slaughter"? I think what you are trying to say is that because these bulls in the WK see little huinting pressure now, they will be more vulnerable than bulls that are used to higher hunting pressure? Makes sense, but I think they'll learn pretty fast! Yes the bulls will probably be a little harder to hunt once they get educated...well then it shouldn't that help balance out the higher number of hunters? I'm just asking is all...
If there really is no conservation concern, then the only reason to not open up a GOS is because of your desire to maintain your idea of quality hunting (using "you" in the general sense here, not "you") and not because of your conservation concerns. Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that there really is a conservation concern. And by all means you're as entitled to that as anyone else. But it doesn't sound like that's what the data is saying from what I am reading here and in the other threads.

[Brambles]

Just curious...On one hand, if I'm understanding you right, you're saying that the ground is so tough, that it is very difficult to successfully hunt elk in the WK. I don't doubt that, I haven't hunted there but I know the country a little bit and yup it is pretty tough ground. But you also seem to be saying that a GOS would somehow result in some kind of mass slaughter. If the ground is so difficult, and the elk "barely huntable", do you really think that all the extra hunters that may or may not flock to the WK for elk are going to actually kill enough bulls to call it a "slaughter"? I think what you are trying to say is that because these bulls in the WK see little huinting pressure now, they will be more vulnerable than bulls that are used to higher hunting pressure? Makes sense, but I think they'll learn pretty fast! Yes the bulls will probably be a little harder to hunt once they get educated...well then it shouldn't that help balance out the higher number of hunters? I'm just asking is all...
If there really is no conservation concern, then the only reason to not open up a GOS is because of your desire to maintain your idea of quality hunting (using "you" in the general sense here, not "you") and not because of your conservation concerns. Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that there really is a conservation concern. And by all means you're as entitled to that as anyone else. But it doesn't sound like that's what the data is saying from what I am reading here and in the other threads.

My concern is that they won't learn fast enough and in the first year or two a lot of the prime bulls will be gone and it will take many many years to recover once people realize a mistake has been made.

They did it with 4-18 10-12 years ago, opened it up for a full GOS season. So many bulls got shot the first year they had to shut the season back down. This was an area that already had a previous limited GOS, imagine the affect on an elk population that has always been high odds LEH. It would be 10 times as bad.:shock:


Its not even about the quaility of the hunt, with limited draws avaliable a person doesn't get much chance to hunt these big bulls, its more about undermining the efforts and sacrifices made in the past to produce these big bulls and then selling them off for the hopes of increased hunter numbers just because to govt wants more dollars injected into the economy. Of course the govt wants 20,000 more hunters, do you know how much money that would mean to the economy and govt ministries.

Lets open up all the LEH sheep too so they can all get slaughterd. I too think that would be a bad idea.

Some resources just need to be protected from human greed more than others.

Most importantly we haven't heard from anyone on what exactly "no conservation concerns" actually means. If you open up a 3 pt or better season under the umbrela "no conservation concerns" does this mean the ministry is happy as long as there is a sustainable number of 3 points? Say good bye to the 4's 5's and 6ers?
The term "no conservation concerns" sounds loaded to me. Maybe someone can explain it in its entirety.


All my comments are regarding the traditional LEH areas in the West Kootenays, not the current running GOS's and certainly not the East Kootenays. I don't live there and I don't pretend to have answers to their problems. What I do know is that its a bad idea to try and solve declining hunter numbers on the backs of the West Kootenay LEH bull elk. There are plenty of other places to hunt elk GOS that you don't have to sabotage the work that has gone into these areas. The herds can withstand some increased LEH authorizations but lets not jump into it with both feet and go GOS.

Just my opinion of course.:smile:


One guy accused me of being selfish, but it seems like i'm the only one fighting for the elk, everyone else is fighting for themselves. That is a total shame.:oops:

[rocksteady]

"i'm the only one fighting for the elk"


You are not alone on this one...That is where most of us from the EK are coming from, not from the "selfish" POV...

[mcrae]

I am going to agree with Brambles on this one as much as I would like to go out and hunt elk in a three point or better open season locally I don't think it would be a good idea long term for the West Kootenay LEH area's Elk herds. I am not a trophy hunter and would just as likely harvest the first three point I came across so its not about trophy quality for me these hunts in these zones are special.

I was one of the lucky few that had the LEH draw for 4-16 last year. I saw five legal bulls on the first day(three or better on the LEH) and heard a couple more bugling but never got a good look. I harvested a nice 6x6 the following day. In the area I was hunting I doubt any of those bulls would have survived a GOS there just is not any hunting pressure on them and they have not developed any of the wariness the E.Koot elk have in regards to bugling etc...

I think that is also what makes these areas so special because when you do get the draw you are hunting a basically "virgin" group of animals that act and respond just like you dream about. It was my first serious elk hunt and I was able to bugle all those bulls in and get to experience first hand the rush of elk hunting... I am just not sure that will survive if the herd is opened up to GOS.

That being said I do believe there are enough Elk to issue more than the eight draws every year. I know local guys that have applied for 20+ years and never been drawn. If the govt figures there is enough elk to support a GOS why not expand the LEH draws instead so that a guy actually has a chance at hunting these awsome areas every 3-4 years instead of once in a lifetime! I believe that the quality of this hunt is more important than the need for a GOS and if the LEH draws were increased it would basically allow everyone an opportunity to hunt elk in these spots. Like Brambles has pointed out there is plenty of other areas to hunt elk in GOS...

Just my 2 cents...

[KevinB]

Hey Brambles

Thanks for your comments. I'll be the first to admit that I know little about elk and little about either the EK or the WK. so forgive me if I'm not familiar with the history of the area.:wink:

When they opened up 4-18, was it for a full-on any bull GOS? And was it concurrent with any other GOS opening, or was it the only one in the WK? if it was the only one they opened, well I wouldn't be surprised that they got more pressure than they were reckoning for. If, for instance they opened up a single MU in region 3 to any muley buck for the entire season, without any neighbouring MU's following suit, you can bet that it would serve to concentrate everyone in the same relatively small area and it might be a bit of a gong show. But iff the population was high enough that it could sustain the resulting harvest, so what? I'm not sure though if it is anything like that, that is being proposed for the elk...it sounds like there is (or was?) a proposal for a more broad-scale GOS on 3-point bulls...do you think that would lessen the effect that happened in 4-18? Do you really think it would be "10 times worse" if you opened up the EK and WK to a GOS 3-pt season, and all the prospective elk hunters could go where they wished? Do you think that with a lot less hunters in BC now than when there was a GOS in the EK, which sounds like it was completely sustainable and had been for many years, that there would somehow be way more elk hunters being more successful than ever before? I'm kinda leaning with FD and GG on this one, I think the bigger worry is that we no longer have enough prospective hunters to hunt all of our animals, as long as you liberalize seasons in a broad way (where sustainable) and spread out pressure over huge areas. Or at least we're well on our way to having that problem.

I interpret the phrase "no conservation concern" to mean exactly what it says...it means that the elk pops. can sustain the proposed 3-pt. GOS and the heards would be expected to remain healthy, and at high population levels, and that more than enough breeding bulls would survive keep things going. Otherwise I think you'd see the phrase "some" or "limited" conservation concern. Of course, that is if you trust what the Bio's and stats say...but that's a whole other issue.

"One guy accused me of being selfish, but it seems like i'm the only one fighting for the elk, everyone else is fighting for themselves. That is a total shame."

I really don't see that you are the only one worrying about the elk...maybe from your point of view that's the way it is, but c'mon, that's pretty unfair. All the 3-point GOS proponents have stressed pretty strongly right from the start that is should only ever be considered where it can be clearly sustained by the population...no-one is in any way saying "lets let everyone shoot all the elk, just for the sole purpose of gaining hunter numbers, no matter if the elk can take it or not". At least that's not what I read into it.

just my opinion of course, as well! :wink:

cheers, and good luck on your LEH this year. I truly hope you get drawn!

[KevinB]

If the govt figures there is enough elk to support a GOS why not expand the LEH draws instead so that a guy actually has a chance at hunting these awsome areas every 3-4 years instead of once in a lifetime! I believe that the quality of this hunt is more important than the need for a GOS and if the LEH draws were increased it would basically allow everyone an opportunity to hunt elk in these spots. ...

I think that's the whole point (or one of the big points) of all of these threads...that LEH and restrictive seasons have no place, where there is no need for them from a conservation standpoint (as opposed to from a "hunt quality" standpoint). I think there is a philosophical difference here, that can't really ever get reconciled. The thing is, hunting in B.C. is managed for opportunity not trophy quality or hunting "quality" (whatever that might happen to mean to a given person) and that's the bottom line. At least that's how I understand it, correct me please if I'm wrong. Maybe it should all be managed for trophy and "hunt quality". Might be some great quality hunting for the avid and skilled hunters for awhile...but we'd be the last generation to enjoy the seasons that we do have right now...

Like any other resource. Say I like backpacking (and I do), and say I enjoy it more and it is more personally satisfying to me to not see very many other hikers. I see more animals, hear less noise, have a more personally satisfying and enjoyable hike (and all that is very true as well). BUT - the only way that the number of backpackers that uses a given trail system should be limited, is if there is a concern with impact etc. I have no right to say that the number of people using that resource should be limited just to satisfy my idea of what kind of enjoyment I or other people should get out of it. What's the difference??

[Brambles]

When they opened it up it was a full 6pt or better season. People weren't shooting 3's and 4's or 5's. All 6 point bulls. Just imagine if it was "any bull" or "3pt and better".


Like I said before, I'm not talking about current WK GOS, and certaily not the EK GOS. I'm talking about historic LEH areas in the west kootenays. And yes, if you opened up a GOS 3pt or better season in these areas it would have a very very bad outcome IMO.

The LEH areas I'm talking about are 4-08, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17. There are still plenty of areas that offer GOS in the WK and some did have 3 pt or better seasons in the past. I'm not sure why they stopped them but I'm guessing that there WAS a conservation concern.

I'm still not convinced on the " no conservation concerns" wording, I'm still waiting for someone in "the know" to shed some light on this

[eastkoot]

I think the reason the "locals" in the EK call the elk "ours" is not because we own them or think we own them. In my case it's because I spent countless hours planting trees, ripping out barbed wire fences and the like at the Big Ranch. Many hours falling poplar trees for winter feed as well as fencing swamps that elk were dying in at Grave Prairie .. Counting elk on our own time and gas money and setting up feeding stations when the winters were harsh. "locals" have a stake in the population and I(we) don't want to jeopardize what we helped establish.

[Brambles]

The thing is, hunting in B.C. is managed for opportunity not trophy quality or hunting "quality" (whatever that might happen to mean to a given person) and that's the bottom line. At least that's how I understand it, correct me please if I'm wrong. Maybe it should all be managed for trophy and "hunt quality". Might be some great quality hunting for the avid and skilled hunters for awhile...but we'd be the last generation to enjoy the seasons that we do have right now...




Generally your correct, the majority of B.C. is managed for animal quantity not quality, which the reasoning for this is hard for me to grasp. If the ministry is saying that there isn't enough hunters to control the herds then why are they managing for quantity at this point????

The answer is $$$$$$$$$

The MU's I'm talking about have been put aside for quality elk, its a totally separate issue than the existing EK GOS and even some of the current WK GOS elk

[budismyhorse]

I'm still not convinced on the " no conservation concerns" wording, I'm still waiting for someone in "the know" to shed some light on this

This issue will not die until those reports are completed, and they are NOT. I am staring at the "PROGRESS REPORT" right now.

it is extremely easy to yell "no conservation concerns" but I still haven't seen anyone back it up. Which, to me, screams that it is opinion, or conjecture, but not fact YET.

On the other hand, it is just as easy to yell a blanket 3pt season "would be a slaughter", but obviously this can't be PROVEN either, only speculated upon (it would be though :wink:).

I am not sure why we can't all just agree that a limited 3pt season (not LEH BCrams!), would be the initial answer so we can monitor both increased hunter opportunity, and hunter success/elk populations and let the biologists responsible do their jobs. Then adjust the season as information progresses, and new results come to light.

That way everyone wins in the long run no??

[J_T]

There are so many threads going right now and each thread has multiple spins going on within them, assumptions have been made and discussions have flowed out of assumption. The only common them left in all of it, is elk hunters are passionate about elk.

[BCrams]

I am not sure why we can't all just agree that a limited 3pt season (not LEH BCrams!), would be the initial answer so we can monitor both increased hunter opportunity, and hunter success/elk populations and let the biologists responsible do their jobs. Then adjust the season as information progresses, and new results come to light.

Your local club guys in the Koots already 'shot down' a limited 10 day 3 pt season!!! Not once did I ever mention a 'blanket season'! Just a 3 pt season and I believe a 10 day 3 pt limited season is a great way to start.

That way everyone wins in the long run no??

Of course!! However .. refer to the above!


.............

[Kody94]

I think the reason the "locals" in the EK call the elk "ours" is not because we own them or think we own them. In my case it's because I spent countless hours planting trees, ripping out barbed wire fences and the like at the Big Ranch. Many hours falling poplar trees for winter feed as well as fencing swamps that elk were dying in at Grave Prairie .. Counting elk on our own time and gas money and setting up feeding stations when the winters were harsh. "locals" have a stake in the population and I(we) don't want to jeopardize what we helped establish.

I know exactly how you feel. I was one of those guys. And I put in A TONNE of time and effort raising money for elk habitat enhancement. With that kind of "sweat equity" invested in the animals, its hard not to feel some "ownership"....and at least some difficulty in listening to people that have not made that effort telling you how it should be!!

:)

Cheers,
4ster

[GoatGuy]

When they opened it up it was a full 6pt or better season. People weren't shooting 3's and 4's or 5's. All 6 point bulls. Just imagine if it was "any bull" or "3pt and better".


Like I said before, I'm not talking about current WK GOS, and certaily not the EK GOS. I'm talking about historic LEH areas in the west kootenays. And yes, if you opened up a GOS 3pt or better season in these areas it would have a very very bad outcome IMO.

The LEH areas I'm talking about are 4-08, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17. There are still plenty of areas that offer GOS in the WK and some did have 3 pt or better seasons in the past. I'm not sure why they stopped them but I'm guessing that there WAS a conservation concern.

I'm still not convinced on the " no conservation concerns" wording, I'm still waiting for someone in "the know" to shed some light on this

4-18 used to be managed on an any elk season in the early 80s and they were shooting 350+ bulls every year. Last year was not a slaughter and the best part was the people that were so opposed to it were in 4-18 hunting it and also hunting trout lake in the GOS. Seemed a little bizarre.

6 pt seasons are fail-safe - they were implemented to bring the elk population back in the EK when it was at an all time low and it worked. In the WK you could never shoot every 6pt and even if you did the cows would still get bred. It's extremely low risk.

The past biologist has stated those LEH and 4-18 seasons were for trophy only bulls. Conservation concern was not a word that came up.

The new biologist says very little risk.

[Brambles]

I had a long chat on this subject with my father, he use to be the president of the Nelson Rod and Gun club and elk/mule deer habitat is what he fought hardest for.

I have to say I have changed my standpoint A LITTLE. After talking to him in depth I could possibly be in favor of a POST RUT 6pt season w/compulsory reporting in the areas that were once traditional LEH areas:eek: That would be 4-08, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17 and I'm not sure about 4-9, can't remember if its LEH or not up there. This season would stay put for a few years giving the elk a chance to feel and adapt to hunting pressure. After a few years then the seasons may be adjusted.

I'm not against a GOS in the west kootenays I guess what I'm against is implementing a full scale season on animals that are, and never have been hunted with any kind of pressure.

A little history, these elk arn't the same elk you see in the East Kootenays, they didn't migrate here from the East Kootenays. These elk were transplanted from Banff many many years ago. They have many generations under their belts of no hunting pressure. Now some elk may have interbred with the east kootenay elk when they finally made it across kootenay lake and the Salmo Creston Pass but thats irrelevent.

[Brambles]

4-18 used to be managed on an any elk season in the early 80s and they were shooting 350+ bulls every year. Last year was not a slaughter and the best part was the people that were so opposed to it were in 4-18 hunting it and also hunting trout lake in the GOS. Seemed a little bizarre.


I'd like to know where you are getting your info from, its contradictory to what I"ve been told. I was told that there weren't even elk or very very few in this part of the West Kootenays in the early 80's.

I'm curious to find out more about this particular subject.

Oh and 4-18 didn't open till Sept 20, althought not as short as previous years it still doesn't encompass the peak rut. And these elk have been hunted for many years on a limited basis, hence my change of mind on the LEH areas, as long as its implemented slow and give the elk a chance to adapt I could possibly support such a regulation change.

[ElkMasterC]

Welll.....speaking only for myself, cause that's the only guy that mostly agrees with me, I like things the way they are. I hunt in one of the burned-over regions in the East Koots, and elk numbers have appeared to be quite good following the fires.
Last year things looked a little thinner, but given the increased hunting pressure, it's quite possible the Elk just stick to the black stuff until nightfall.
I know that was pretty much the case with the bull I finally got. I had to stick to the edge of the timber, and wait for the last usable light......but anyway, that's another story.
WE (This is the Royal WE) have opportunities now for an over-65 Cow/Antlerless tag, as well as an under 19 Cow/Antlerless OVER THE COUNTER tag.
That means that IF: You don't get awarded an LEH draw, of which there are literally HUNDREDS in Region 4, and
IF: You can't convince some nice retired gentleman to come along with you, and put some Elk meet on the ground for processing by eager pals ;-) and
IF: You don't have anyone 19 or younger to come along (These are better, cuz you can tell 'em anything, and make 'em work as well) and
IF: You don't bowhunt, and get to be in the woods early and shoot ANY bull, then


Well, I guess you're gonna have to man-'er up, wear out some boot leather like we have done every year for 8 years, kick some stumps, learn about the animal you are chasing, get suffused with an intense, deep respect, and maybe hope the Gods are smiling, and you don't blow the few, precious opportunities you are given, and you actually get to shoot a 6 point bull Elk.
8 Years in the Kootenays, and I have 2. Two in 8 years, and I am grateful beyond belief.
And you won't hear me complaining.
If it weeds out the faint of heart, roadhunters, the weak-willed, and outright silk-wearin' pantywaists.....then so be it.
More for the men and boys and women and girls that truly appreciate what it is to stand over your bull after all these years, and be truly humbled.
If you want to shoot a 3 point, learn how to shoot a bow.
Or stick to deer.
Maybe you shouldn't be out here.

[Kechika]

^^^^^^I like this guy:biggrin:

[chevy]

I say leave it because honestly if there was a 3 spike season think about it, everybody is gonna shoot the first bull they see, i mean i love eating elk just as much as most people but 3 spike and better just takes the fun out of hunting for the 6 and better ,key word hunting, you have to actually work to get a six or better 3 and better , you dont really have to work for , i have alot of pics of elk 3's 4's 5's and sixes but i myself love to get out and bugle and work hard , and when the bull comes n, and it is a 3 or 4 or 5, i pull out the camera and film if it is a six i shoot it, but to me getting a bull that is illegal to shoot on film as i bugle it in is quite the thrill to me and to me that is just as successfull, as killing a six, just my 2 cents thanks guys

[ElkMasterC]

I say leave it because honestly if there was a 3 spike season think about it, everybody is gonna shoot the first bull they see, i mean i love eating elk just as much as most people but 3 spike and better just takes the fun out of hunting for the 6 and better ,key word hunting, you have to actually work to get a six or better 3 and better , you dont really have to work for , i have alot of pics of elk 3's 4's 5's and sixes but i myself love to get out and bugle and work hard , and when the bull comes n, and it is a 3 or 4 or 5, i pull out the camera and film if it is a six i shoot it, but to me getting a bull that is illegal to shoot on film as i bugle it in is quite the thrill to me and to me that is just as successfull, as killing a six, just my 2 cents thanks guys

Well said.
A good photo is forever.
A steak is for dinner.

[Fisher-Dude]

I know exactly how you feel. I was one of those guys. And I put in A TONNE of time and effort raising money for elk habitat enhancement. With that kind of "sweat equity" invested in the animals, its hard not to feel some "ownership"....and at least some difficulty in listening to people that have not made that effort telling you how it should be!!

:)

Cheers,
4ster

Okay, don't ever come and harvest an animal in the Okanagan, as we put a TONNE of time and effort into fencing and brushing and relocation. And don't EVER come and catch a fish here either, because we've done a lot of enhancement projects and even run the stocking programs on some of our lakes.

Selfish. That's all that can be said of it.

[Fisher-Dude]

And you won't hear me complaining.
If it weeds out the faint of heart, roadhunters, the weak-willed, and outright silk-wearin' pantywaists.....then so be it.
More for the men and boys and women and girls that truly appreciate what it is to stand over your bull after all these years, and be truly humbled.
If you want to shoot a 3 point, learn how to shoot a bow.
Or stick to deer.
Maybe you shouldn't be out here.

I'll tell you who won't be out there with that attitude: YOU. Because without those other hunters, you won't be hunting. You need them. Hunting is close to being shut down in this province due to a lack of hunter numbers, and this assinine attitude still prevails.

[Gateholio]

Our club and many others on the coast have operated hatcheries for years.

No salmon fishing for you inlanders, either!:smile::-P

[ElkMasterC]

I'll tell you who won't be out there with that attitude: YOU. Because without those other hunters, you won't be hunting. You need them. Hunting is close to being shut down in this province due to a lack of hunter numbers, and this assinine attitude still prevails.

Perhaps you should read the whole post in context before you get too preachy, there, Padre. The opportunities are abundant, and readily available to all through LEH and Special Seasons. The opportunity to bag a great 6 or better is there too. I support seasons for new hunters, for the disabled, and for the "Few, we happy few", that have reached their great Happy Hour, and still get out and hunt. And Kudos to them!

And I am out there, living in the bush, every year, for at least 10 days for Elk alone, watching the embers die every night, and dreaming of the cold dawn, and the faint bugles I can chase......
That's before we get to Moose, Mule Deer, Whitetail Deer, Salmon and Trout.

Oh: And you spelled
"asinine"
wrong.

Which is ironic, yet beautifully poetic, in a twisted way. :lol:

Read the post again, my hunting brother, and chill out. Oh: And be very careful with the name-calling and insults, OK?

Peace
Chris

PS: Lovely Tagline and Signature, by the way. You are truly a class act. Congratulations!

[Fisher-Dude]

Perhaps you should read the whole post in context before you get too preachy, there, Padre. The opportunities are abundant, and readily available to all through LEH and Special Seasons. The opportunity to bag a great 6 or better is there too. I support seasons for new hunters, for the disabled, and for the few, we happy few, that have reached our great happy Hour, and still get out and hunt.

And I am out there, living in the bush, every year, for at least 10 days for Elk alone, watching the embers die every night, and dreaming of the cold dawn, and the faint bugles I can chase......
That's before we get to Moose, Mule Deer, Whitetail Deer, Salmon and Trout.

Oh: And you spelled
asinine


wrong.

Which is ironic, yet beautifully poetic, in a twisted way. :lol:

Read the post again, my hunting brother, and chill out.

Peace
Chris

Who cares what key sticks my worn-out keyboard.

Point is, for all your flowery poems, you don't understand the crisis facing hunting in the province, and you believe that "opportunity" exists through 50:1 LEH draws. What you don't understand is those draws and restrictive seasons are killing ALL hunting in the province. Yet you call someone who can't hike miles back a pantywaist.

By the way, they are "whitetailed deer", not "whitetail deer". :tongue: Learn how to spell, eh?

[dana]

Oh now the Sky is Falling is it FD. Our hunting privaleges are about to become extinct over the fact of 6 point versus 3 point elk seasons. Talk about over dramatic. It is indeed getting old. Selfish, selfish, selfish. Blah, blah, blah. Who's the selfish ones???? Don't see you railing against anything else other that areas YOU want to hunt. Maybe open up the West Koots so YOU might just have a chance at one of those monster bulls eh????? Keep throwing the words Hunter Recruitment out there to justify your own selfish goals maybe???? The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

[boxhitch]

Careful boys......we're all in this together.

[Fisher-Dude]

Oh now the Sky is Falling is it FD. Our hunting privaleges are about to become extinct over the fact of 6 point versus 3 point elk seasons. Talk about over dramatic. It is indeed getting old. Selfish, selfish, selfish. Blah, blah, blah. Who's the selfish ones???? Don't see you railing against anything else other that areas YOU want to hunt. Maybe open up the West Koots so YOU might just have a chance at one of those monster bulls eh????? Keep throwing the words Hunter Recruitment out there to justify your own selfish goals maybe???? The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Yep. The sky is falling, and will knock you on your ass when it hits you.

No more 4 point season in Clearwater either.

PS - joined a club to help work on the future of hunting yet?

[ElkMasterC]

Awww Man,... you just don't wanna open your mind, eyes and ears, do ya? (I know.."ya" is spelled wrong..it's called a contraction...my bad.. I was raised by Wolves, and educated by Monkeys)

I offered the olive branch, and you burned it. (Or is it "burnt" it? Man, I'm so confused... I need my spillchekkr)

Oh, about my passion and respect for Elk, and Elk country, excuuuse me if I stay too long, feel so strong, and like to wax poetic about my love for the game, and the hunt, and the country. NO , don't excuse me. It's my passion, and it's not going away. Not in my lifetime. The Anti's can scream and whine, and get money and attention, but one last fact exists: We will never tolerate Mountain Lions, Grizzly Bears and Timber Wolves in our yards. Therefore we will have a surplus of game....hopefully..... if all is managed well, given the fact that modern agrarian practices encourage the preponderance of pseudo-urban ungulate reproduction and population enhancement.
Oh! Sorry, Fisher Dude: Farms feed deer.

Are we a dying breed? Nope. Do more people live in the city than ever before? Yup.
Do we need to educate people that have NEVER had to gut their dinner about the real, true balance of nature, given the fact that we occupy it now, in droves? Yup.
Will it ever be the same?
Probably not. But hunting will continue, because it has to, and it's up to us to guarantee the clarity of the lens through which we are all viewed.


Fisher-Dude: You are a piece of work, and need to listen and read more, and talk less.

An individual like yourself wouldn't last 5 minutes in our hunt camp.

Have a beautiful day!

(Just not in my camp)

[hunter1947]

Why don't we all stop babbling about what the other person thinks and work as a HBC team on this issue ???. We can Babel all we want on what we think is the right thing yo do. But when it all boils down at the end the management sets the rules. Lets give them the management our thoughts as a member group and all try and put it together what will work for all. If you read my Post Reply on ,Let there be Elk ,you will see what my thoughts are.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif.

[wetcoasthunter]

I think we need to clarify what is meant by hunting oppertunity. Some seem to think there are plenty of oppertunities in this province, yes, the same way there is oppertunity to play the 649, but we all know those odds don't we.

By oppertunity I mean a realistic chance at getting what you are hunting for. Not 100:1 or 50:1 for LEH and not 6pt. or better in GOS. Take Hunter1947, the guy has been hunting the east koots for almost 40 yrs. He hasn't gotten a bull for 7 yrs (under the 6pt rule) and before that he seemed to be able to get his bull with some consistency, whats wrong with some consistency? And yes, being out there hunting (and not taking an animal) is still a great trip, but wouldn't getting an animal be an even better one? Some of you that want things kept the same sound like you shouldn't even take your rifle with you if you are so content with being skunked so often.

If an animal population can sustain a more liberal season then do it. But again, guys are concerned that only one or a few MU's will get opened up, which WILL concentrate hunters into those areas, which I will admit is not the ideal situation. We need to (if the pop can sustain it) open up as many MU's/Regions as possible, get demand spread out. With the hunter #'s the way they are this shouldn't be too hard to do.

What is wrong with increasing a hunters odds of getting a bull? Why is it such a crime if the population can sustain it, like it had for decades before the 6pt rule came about? So all those hunters back in the day were wussies/pantywaists for hunting elk that weren't 6pts or better? Because thats what many of you are basically saying, only REAL men hunt 6pts right? And for you trophy hunters, I'm sure there were plenty of trophy sized animals taken in those years before the 6pt rule came about.

All the reasons I hear from people that are against relaxing the regs are words like "slaughter", "gong show", "yahoos" which aren't arguments in my books, they are gross exagerations and fear mongering. Again, liberal seasons were sustained for decades with MANY more hunters than we have today, with plenty of trophies out there. So if some of you can come up with REAL arguments to support your points lets hear them.

[GoatGuy]

I had a long chat on this subject with my father, he use to be the president of the Nelson Rod and Gun club and elk/mule deer habitat is what he fought hardest for.

I have to say I have changed my standpoint A LITTLE. After talking to him in depth I could possibly be in favor of a POST RUT 6pt season w/compulsory reporting in the areas that were once traditional LEH areas:eek: That would be 4-08, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17 and I'm not sure about 4-9, can't remember if its LEH or not up there. This season would stay put for a few years giving the elk a chance to feel and adapt to hunting pressure. After a few years then the seasons may be adjusted.

I'm not against a GOS in the west kootenays I guess what I'm against is implementing a full scale season on animals that are, and never have been hunted with any kind of pressure.

A little history, these elk arn't the same elk you see in the East Kootenays, they didn't migrate here from the East Kootenays. These elk were transplanted from Banff many many years ago. They have many generations under their belts of no hunting pressure. Now some elk may have interbred with the east kootenay elk when they finally made it across kootenay lake and the Salmo Creston Pass but thats irrelevent.


Right on man :biggrin:

[GoatGuy]

I'd like to know where you are getting your info from, its contradictory to what I"ve been told. I was told that there weren't even elk or very very few in this part of the West Kootenays in the early 80's.

I'm curious to find out more about this particular subject.

Oh and 4-18 didn't open till Sept 20, althought not as short as previous years it still doesn't encompass the peak rut. And these elk have been hunted for many years on a limited basis, hence my change of mind on the LEH areas, as long as its implemented slow and give the elk a chance to adapt I could possibly support such a regulation change.

Talk about it at wss if I make it.

[Brambles]

Did a little more diggin and apparently the transplant happened in the Early 70's and was approx 50 animals.

[rocksteady]

All the reasons I hear from people that are against relaxing the regs are words like "slaughter", "gong show", "yahoos" which aren't arguments in my books, they are gross exagerations and fear mongering.

"100,000 hunters HAVE decided to stay home. That's why YOUR continued ability to be able to go hunting for anything in BC is just about to be taken away from you forever."


Prime example from those on the other side of the issue...

[CanuckShooter]

All the reasons I hear from people that are against relaxing the regs are words like "slaughter", "gong show", "yahoos" which aren't arguments in my books, they are gross exagerations and fear mongering. Again, liberal seasons were sustained for decades with MANY more hunters than we have today, with plenty of trophies out there. So if some of you can come up with REAL arguments to support your points lets hear them.

They are REAL agruments if relaxing the regs aren't done in a thoughful way. Come on up to 7-A between Oct 10-25 when the calf season is open..and lots of fellows have LEH antlerless tags...and you'll see gong shows/yahoos/litterbugs/boneheads all over the place.

When they set the regulations to concentrate hunters in specific MUs or in short time frames all sorts of mayhem goes on. I hate the LEH system, mostly because I'm one of the unlucky ones that can't seem to get drawn [2 moose draws since 1981]and having the regulations relaxed is a good thing in my opinion.

[GoatGuy]

Did a little more diggin and apparently the transplant happened in the Early 70's and was approx 50 animals.

Plenty of history there.

[Brambles]

Yup, all the hunters will take their rifles and go home if we all can't shoot elk every year :rolleyes::lol:

[Brambles]

Plenty of history there.

What, your not sure about coming to the Banquet??

[rocksteady]

Oh now the Sky is Falling is it FD. Our hunting privaleges are about to become extinct over the fact of 6 point versus 3 point elk seasons. Talk about over dramatic. It is indeed getting old. Selfish, selfish, selfish. Blah, blah, blah. Who's the selfish ones???? Don't see you railing against anything else other that areas YOU want to hunt. Maybe open up the West Koots so YOU might just have a chance at one of those monster bulls eh????? Keep throwing the words Hunter Recruitment out there to justify your own selfish goals maybe???? The sky is falling, the sky is falling.



Agreed.....If we were to take this Zeman report as verbatim and the future was that bleak, would we not be following in the tracks of those other famous "Business Students" such as Nostradamus and the like????:cool::cool::cool:

NOT against change, as long as it is a heavily researched and well thought out plan, rather than the opinion of one person.....Do you invest in RRSP's or other investments with only one opinion?? Probably not, so would you not ask for a second opinion of further study, if you are truly concerned about the "investment" in wildlife (specifically the EK Elk) ???

[Fisher-Dude]

[/color][/size]

"100,000 hunters HAVE decided to stay home. That's why YOUR continued ability to be able to go hunting for anything in BC is just about to be taken away from you forever."


Prime example from those on the other side of the issue...

So a drop from 180,000 to just over 80,000 in 20 years doesn't concern you? It's fear mongering? It's a fact based statistic from license sales data. Which, incidently, is much more valid than saying "there will be a slaughter because I said so".

[rocksteady]

So a drop from 180,000 to just over 80,000 in 20 years doesn't concern you? ".


Does not really concern me as:

1) There are still 80,000 hunters in the province
2) Its a change in society in general

3)That's why YOUR continued ability to be able to go hunting for anything in BC is just about to be taken away from you forever....That's fear mongering and over exaggerating....

4) Which, incidently, is much more valid than saying "there will be a slaughter because I said so". I don't think I said this....

[Brambles]

So a drop from 180,000 to just over 80,000 in 20 years doesn't concern you? It's fear mongering? It's a fact based statistic from license sales data. Which, incidently, is much more valid than saying "there will be a slaughter because I said so".


FD, don't take this the wrong way.

I'd like to see the study or information that is saying "our hunting rights will be threatened if we don't recruit more hunters"

Personally I don't care how many guys plan on staying home, hunting is a sport and in sport there is competition. If some guy doesn't want to play the game then I'm fine with that. I'm not going to go pounding on his door begging him to go hunting. For some reason or another he has made his decision not to continue hunting, I don't feel the need to waste my time trying to hold the hands of guys who can't help themselves.

Now that being said, if there is a legitimate reason why we NEED more hunters then I'd like to be informed.

People are talking about a Zeeman report, got a link?

Thanks

[springpin]

I live in region 4. 4-34 to be exact, last elk season I did not see 1 six point elk, that goes for the whole season. So if there was a change to the 6 point rule with no concerns to conservation then I'm all for it.

[Fisher-Dude]

Does not really concern me as:

1) There are still 80,000 hunters in the province

Any idea how many anti-hunters are represented by the provincial NDP and Greens?

2) Its a change in society in general

So we should just say screw it and accept our fate?

3)That's why YOUR continued ability to be able to go hunting for anything in BC is just about to be taken away from you forever....That's fear mongering and over exaggerating....

Votes count. Were you at all concerned when the NDP banned grizzly hunting to get votes from the anti-hunters?

4) Which, incidently, is much more valid than saying "there will be a slaughter because I said so". I don't think I said this....

I didn't say you did. Many on here have.



..............

[horshur]

[/color][/size]

"100,000 hunters HAVE decided to stay home. That's why YOUR continued ability to be able to go hunting for anything in BC is just about to be taken away from you forever."


Prime example from those on the other side of the issue...


There isn't any room for 100,000 hunters anyway. At least not with long GOS and liberal bag limits and no LEH..... there is not even enough Whitetails to cover that pressure....apparently these 100,000 are immenently ready to leave if they cannot have success also...don't see how that would work without huge restrictions.

Just ask yourself the question.....why were all these measures taken that have "Killed" the hunters?? (Point restriction, LEH, ect) in the first place???

I was a hunter at the time.....I took part in those imfamous Cow/ Calf seasons...we were directly affected when mid season they changed to 6 point restriction......Demarchi was thought of with high regard at the time.

Did they do this for no reason???.

Were Cow calf ratios, Moose and Elk---province wide in good health?

They were not....that is what justified the seasons and restriction.

Even the 'Small' number of hunter can have a detrimental effect on game numbers...please read recent reg changes and a moritorium on region 5 mule deer....how did that happen??? (I have a oppinion) and now the regulations are even more restrictive are they not??? With a chance of never returning....I would bet the farm they don't.

No.....game managers may be conservative but I know for most of BC we are at Carrying capacity for hunters anyway....least aywhere within a 4 hour drive of the big centres.

Regardless....I feel the same as many stated....we have the best hunting in the world with the least resriction....and apparently that is not good enough.

[Fisher-Dude]

FD, don't take this the wrong way.

I'd like to see the study or information that is saying "our hunting rights will be threatened if we don't recruit more hunters"

Personally I don't care how many guys plan on staying home, hunting is a sport and in sport there is competition. If some guy doesn't want to play the game then I'm fine with that. I'm not going to go pounding on his door begging him to go hunting. For some reason or another he has made his decision not to continue hunting, I don't feel the need to waste my time trying to hold the hands of guys who can't help themselves.

Now that being said, if there is a legitimate reason why we NEED more hunters then I'd like to be informed.

People are talking about a Zeeman report, got a link?

Thanks

Here's the link for the Zeman report:

http://peachlandsportsmen.com/declininghunters.pdf

And you will want to read John Thornton's report as well:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/ds/docs/070607_HunterRecruitment-RetentionStrategy.pdf

Brambles, think about what happened with simple political pressure to the grizzly hunt when the NDP banned it because they were after votes from the antis...

[Stone Sheep Steve]

We were lucky that the Prov Liberals are so focused on getting every penny out of every possible situation in this province or we would never have got the grizz hunt back. To the "libs" is was lost revenue. If hunter numbers decline to the point where the bean counters of this province say that they could make more money off of wildlife a different way(like wildlife viewing or guided hunts) we can kiss our current situation good-bye!

Once our numbers drop to the point where we don't count for many votes, the powers in charge will do what they want and try to make money a different way.

We could do something.....or we can do nothing.

As Boxhitch's sigline says.."If you're not part of the solution....you're part of the problem"

Which one are you??:|

SSS

[GoatGuy]

FD, don't take this the wrong way.

I'd like to see the study or information that is saying "our hunting rights will be threatened if we don't recruit more hunters"

Now that being said, if there is a legitimate reason why we NEED more hunters then I'd like to be informed.


Well, the Wildlife Act review was dumped because hunters aren't a driving force. It was a good review with significant changes BUT hunting isn't popular and we only make up 80,000 voters a drop in the bucket provincially.

Eventhough license revenues from the F&W branch constitute almost all the money coming in including the HCTF, money is allocated to COs covering the forestry act - regulating construction projects.


F&W branch doesn't get the money or staffing to adequately monitor populations.


Very few habitat enhancement burns happening due to $$ and forestry.


Highway mortality


Wildlife EXCLUSION fencing


Provincial parks get a big chunk of money - where does that come from?
Hunters are limited in provincial parks only because of non-hunters, not conservation issues


National Parks feasibility studies are not fought by the government
- huge loss of hunting opportunities to create another garbage can for people from out of country


Predator control is out the window


Independent power projects


Gravel extraction on the fraser


Habitat loss is happening by the day and the only way we seem to be able to control it is by buying it ourselves.


LRMP's are being ignored.


Over grazing


Hunting access shutdown for mountain biking.


Resident hunter access is shutdown in the north for jetboats but non-residents are permitted to use them.


FN have requested road closures for only resident hunters.


Road closures where there is no conservation concern which applies only to hunters.


Municipalities with major depredation problems where hunting isn't allowed at all.


There's plenty more - hunters and anglers have lost more than any user group in the past 20 years.


What else?

[GoatGuy]

Some things to consider.


There isn't any room for 100,000 hunters anyway. At least not with long GOS and liberal bag limits and no LEH.

Just ask yourself the question.....why were all these measures taken that have "Killed" the hunters?? (Point restriction, LEH, ect) in the first place???.

Viewing opportunities for the public.

The public wanted to hear wolves

Predator control was abandoned

Forest fires were 'a bad thing'

In some areas cow:bull ratios were really low and seasons needed to be adjusted BUT did that mean going from a 2 1/2 month GOS to LEH in one year and never going back?

If you have a look at those LEH authorizations for the 'recovery period' up North you'll find they're are the exact same today as they were almost 30 years ago.

You'll also find in many areas we went from a deer hunt on any buck that went all the way through the rut into the end of November to what is essentially a non-rut hunt for 4 pt or better. The prior season worked for ~25 years with more hunters.




Were Cow calf ratios, Moose and Elk---province wide in good health?

Provincally we're taking only about 15% less moose than we were in the 70s - we used to have predator control.


There are MUs for moose that are on LEH where the bull:cow ratio is 50:100. Why?

Calf recruitment in the south is extremely high, the immature bull moose hunts have tripled the harvest in region 8 and doubled the harvest in region 3 when comparing the early 90s to the early 21st century. Seems to be going well although the bull:cow ratio is a bit low for what the province wants in some mu's. Course there are now cow/calf LEH in region 8.

It isn't all about the past, it's also about the future. Today we really don't have the $$ to know what our populations are like.



They were not....that is what justified the seasons and restriction.

Even the 'Small' number of hunter can have a detrimental effect on game numbers...please read recent reg changes and a moritorium on region 5 mule deer....how did that happen??? (I have a oppinion) and now the regulations are even more restrictive are they not??? With a chance of never returning....I would bet the farm they don't.

No.....game managers may be conservative but I know for most of BC we are at Carrying capacity for hunters anyway....least aywhere within a 4 hour drive of the big centres.


4 pt and 6 pt were instituted to bring things back after a bad winter. They should be treated as recovery seasons.

Prior to that status quo have worked since major changes in the early 80s.


No such thing as carrying capacity for hunters - we should be managing wildlife.;-)

[Fisher-Dude]

Found some interesting facts from a study done in 2000 in the US, called "Meeting the Challenge to Increase Participation in Hunting and Shooting".

Note these findings of the research group:


VII. Temporary Cessation Stage

Definition:

People who temporarily drop out of the hunting ranks because of various factors.

These people may experience a temporary loss of connection with the hunting and shooting culture; or they may remain connected with the culture, but cease their hunting activities.


Facilitating Factors:
Physical (illness, hospitalization, etc.).
Economic (cannot afford to hunt, work obligations, etc.).
Family obligations.
Reduced prospects for success (reduced game populations, bag limits, etc.).
Limited access to hunting land.
Displacement (moved to new, unfamiliar area of the country).
Loss of social support (long-time hunting partner moves away, dies, or quits hunting).
Loss of free time.


VIII. Permanent Desertion Stage
Definition:



People who permanently stop hunting and no longer consider themselves hunters.

Note:




Although a hunter may him/herself permanently desert the ranks of hunters, that doesn’t mean that he or she is opposed to hunting or will not support hunting and hunters in other ways.



Facilitating Factors:
Physical (death, or can no longer walk, shoot, hear, etc.).
Economic (cannot afford to hunt).
Family obligations.
“Bad experience” with hunting
Reduced prospects for success (reduced game populations, bag limits, etc.).
Limited access to hunting land.
Displacement (moved to new, unfamiliar area of the country).

[Skeena Hunter 1]

"Well, the Wildlife Act review was dumped because hunters aren't a driving force" (GoatGuy)

Who says it is dumped. I think you will find it is going on "behind the scenes". Anyone have Dejavu?

Sorrry for the highjack.

Chuck

[Fisher-Dude]

Another interesting set of statistics from the Thornton reasearch:


"While certain inalterable factors have conspired against hunting over the past three decades, there is a great deal that can be done to bolster the activity. Approximately 385,000 resident hunter number cards have been issued since their inception in 1982. Some of these card holders have left the province or are deceased or infirm now, but the majority are not. Since only about 80,000 – 85,000 hunters are active in any given year, there are approximately 150,000 – 200,000 additional hunter number holders that are potentially interested in hunting. Imaginative approaches to providing hunting opportunities may lure some of them back to activity."

[GoatGuy]

"Well, the Wildlife Act review was dumped because hunters aren't a driving force" (GoatGuy)

Who says it is dumped. I think you will find it is going on "behind the scenes". Anyone have Dejavu?

Sorrry for the highjack.

Chuck

It was supposed to hit the leg last fall. Has to go in front of the politicians to get through. All the work has been done - need the rubber stamp and that isn't happening.

Apparently "Province wants to train 10 year old killers" isn't a good thing if you're a politician.

Behind the scenes, hmmmm.:-?

[rocksteady]

Found some interesting facts from a study done in 2000 in the US, called "Meeting the Challenge to Increase Participation in Hunting and Shooting".

Note these findings of the research group:


VII. Temporary Cessation Stage

Definition:

People who temporarily drop out of the hunting ranks because of various factors.

These people may experience a temporary loss of connection with the hunting and shooting culture; or they may remain connected with the culture, but cease their hunting activities.



Facilitating Factors:
Physical (illness, hospitalization, etc.).
Economic (cannot afford to hunt, work obligations, etc.).
Family obligations.
Reduced prospects for success (reduced game populations, bag limits, etc.).
Limited access to hunting land.
Displacement (moved to new, unfamiliar area of the country).
Loss of social support (long-time hunting partner moves away, dies, or quits hunting).
Loss of free time.


VIII. Permanent Desertion Stage
Definition:





People who permanently stop hunting and no longer consider themselves hunters.

Note:





Although a hunter may him/herself permanently desert the ranks of hunters, that doesn’t mean that he or she is opposed to hunting or will not support hunting and hunters in other ways.



Facilitating Factors:
Physical (death, or can no longer walk, shoot, hear, etc.).
Economic (cannot afford to hunt).
Family obligations.
“Bad experience” with hunting
Reduced prospects for success (reduced game populations, bag limits, etc.).
Limited access to hunting land.
Displacement (moved to new, unfamiliar area of the country).






NOt saying this report or its data is inaccurate, but you also have to take into account that in the US there (in some states) is not very much public(no cost land base)....What is not tied up in the huge Ranches or by other people, is a very small percentage of available land, and as well there is a lot of people who now see that they can get $ out of the general hunting poulation to pay to hunt thier land, regardless of the acreage...

This is not that large of an issue in most of British Columbia (I have seen threads where it is leaning this way in the Peace contry) but by and large, not in most areas of the province.

[Kody94]

Okay, don't ever come and harvest an animal in the Okanagan, as we put a TONNE of time and effort into fencing and brushing and relocation. And don't EVER come and catch a fish here either, because we've done a lot of enhancement projects and even run the stocking programs on some of our lakes.

Selfish. That's all that can be said of it.

You do go out of your way to be offensive in your "debating" don't you. Its an interesting, albeit seldom effective, style for winning people over to your point of view.

You will note that I was empathasizing on a "state-of-mind" with your brother (who was a neighbor of mine for about a decade). Funny actually that you decided not to take him to task for bringing this up!!...regardless, however, I was not endorsing the POV, just showing some understanding for it. Its tough not to have that reaction when others without the same "sweat equity" are telling you what to do.

Selfish, maybe, but its human nature. And for the second time, I am not saying its right...just an understandable gut reaction.

[Fisher-Dude]

Well, at least I'm not bullshitting my way through the debate.

I guess you didn't know what a "public poll" is when you thought you'd run the "no" vote up then claim that you never voted eh? :lol:



My only advice (as one who solicits public opinion) is to make your poll as bomb-proof as possible, so its results are not easily refuted. As an example, I, and am I sure others, never bothered to vote in any of the polls, as my opinion wasn't represented by any of the available answers.


Cheers,
4Ster

Tell us another one!

You live in Reg. 4 and are not in favour of a 3 pt elk season if there is no conservation concern http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/polls/bar3.gifhttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/polls/bar3-r.gif 7 mag (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=897), bayou (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=1284), Brambles (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=648), Buckman (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=1454), horsethief (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=4653), Hunter Geoff (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=5455), huntinnut (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=5690), ibehuntin (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=5590), model88 (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=2794), Poguebilt (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=616), rocksteady (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=1352), SSSSter (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=1251), Trapper (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=483)
1312.62%

[Kody94]

I could have been much more clear in my post -- one of the hazards of "drive-by posting". Consider me "Taken to Task" by F-D. I certainly made sure I had a vote in each one once I considered how a decision authority might use the info.

Given a choice of only the options presented, I would definitely pick "not in favor of a 3pt season", lest it be construed as support for scrapping the 6pt season entirely. Had an option been given for a short 3pt season in the Trench, for enhanced hunter opportunity consistent with what I beleive are very valid conservation concerns (reduction of homesteader elk, continued recruitment of migratory elk numbers), I would have voted for it.

So, yes, I have voted in both, after some consideration. I ignored the "no conservation concern" part of the poll, because that seems awefully subjective around here...ie. only 6616 has even bothered to respond to it.

You do take this stuff seriously...have to credit you for that. :)

Not sure why you are trying to make this personal though? Our positions are not all that different in the big picture.

[Fisher-Dude]

You do take this stuff seriously...have to credit you for that. :)

Not sure why you are trying to make this personal though? Our positions are not all that different in the big picture.

You call my debating techniques of posting links to, and sections from literature that supports my position as "offensive", yet you choose to BS the public to support your position. Try to call me out, and I'll do what I can to prove otherwise. It's a sign of a good debater who has researched his/her subject matter well. If some take it "personally" when I refute what they have posted as inaccurate, so be it - I can't be responsible for people's reactions to facts that don't support their positions.

Misinformation is, in my opinion, much more dangerous than no information at all. Those who post misinformation and then get tripped up by it likely lose a LOT of credibility with the audience whom they wish to influence.

My goal here is to let science determine game management in this province. The use of politics instead of science is posing a real and immediate threat to our way of life as hunters and fishers, and I and others on this forum chose not to bury our heads in the sand until it's too late. The NDP's banning of the grizzly hunt was just the tip of the anti-hunting iceberg.

PS - I think the poll question would support your objectives by the "no conservation concern" qualifier. If it supports a short 3 point season to enable "no conservation concern" seasons, why wouldn't you vote for it? If there were "no conservation concern" for a six week 3 point season, why wouldn't you vote for it? It wouldn't harm the herd at all if there were "no conservation concern" - that's what the phrase means!

[BCrams]

This poll has been very interesting so far!!

For those who have not voted yet and are viewing, please put your vote in and don't forget the W.K. LEH elk poll.

[hunter1947]

You members tell me on what brought the elk population up in numbers as of today in the EK ,after the bad winter in 1996 ???. I know some of the answers ,you tell us HBC members what your thoughts are ??http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif??. Correct me if I am wrong ,the population was around 7,500 head of elk in 1997 ,now I believe it is around 22,000. Something has been done the right way ,or is it just me ???.

[BCrams]

You members tell me on what brought the elk population up in numbers as of today in the EK ,after the bad winter in 1996 ???. I know some of the answers ,you tell us HBC members what your thoughts are ??http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif??.

Why not educate and tell the members on here. Rather than play a guessing game.

[hunter1947]

Why not educate and tell the members on here. Rather than play a guessing game.
I have been telling them ,but they won't listen ,:roll:,LOL.:lol:.

[budismyhorse]

I only vote yes if we are all talking about a short 3pt season preceded by the standard 6pt season.

I still need to read up on this stuff.....calls are in to the ministry blah blah blah.

and man, "no conservation concern" is such a powerfull sentence...I think it undervalues how much thought, statistics and research has to go into making a decision for managers. I always want people to be concerned about it. Monitor it, watch the populations like a hawk. That statement trivializes wildlife management, but I am probably looking too much into the wording.

If the elk populations in question are hunted with a 3pt season as stated above, can be sustain LONG TERM, then go for it.

But what no one seems to talk about is how many hunters are going to "come out of the woodwork" or be recruited? I read that paper (strategy for recruitment....) and they are saying there is somewhere between 100000-200000 potential liscence holders that can be involved. What that tells me is there is no way to know how many elk will be harvested under a change in the rules such as this.

so the people who were upset when I said we need to treat this situation with a conservative approach. Answer that question please.

I think we should be strongly encouraging hard and fast monitoring of this change (if it goes through), possibly in the form of "pilot areas" and be conservative about it. Until someone answers that question above.

[Fisher-Dude]

You members tell me on what brought the elk population up in numbers as of today in the EK ,after the bad winter in 1996 ???

The biggest contributors:

1.) Relatively mild winters compared to the late 90s
2.) The cessation of thousands of LEH cow/calf permits
3.) A further decline in hunters from 1999 - 2005

The point restrictions have also had an effect by contributing to the hunter number decline. Hunting effort increased a bit the past two years with the jr/sr and some more antlerless LEH.

[BCrams]

I only vote yes if we are all talking about a short 3pt season preceded by the standard 6pt season.

I still need to read up on this stuff.....calls are in to the ministry blah blah blah.

and man, "no conservation concern" is such a powerfull sentence...I think it undervalues how much thought, statistics and research has to go into making a decision for managers. I always want people to be concerned about it. Monitor it, watch the populations like a hawk. That statement trivializes wildlife management, but I am probably looking too much into the wording.

If the elk populations in question are hunted with a 3pt season as stated above, can be sustain LONG TERM, then go for it.

But what no one seems to talk about is how many hunters are going to "come out of the woodwork" or be recruited? I read that paper (strategy for recruitment....) and they are saying there is somewhere between 100000-200000 potential liscence holders that can be involved. What that tells me is there is no way to know how many elk will be harvested under a change in the rules such as this.

so the people who were upset when I said we need to treat this situation with a conservative approach. Answer that question please.

I think we should be strongly encouraging hard and fast monitoring of this change (if it goes through), possibly in the form of "pilot areas" and be conservative about it. Until someone answers that question above.

I am sure all those thoughts are taken into consideration prior to any decisions being made rather than just jumping head first into the water.

[DWH]

I am sure all those thoughts are taken into consideration prior to any decisions being made rather than just jumping head first into the water.

Isn't that just what Dimarchi did? Made assumptions and took big risks. I guess that was the pro-hunter, pro-harvester in him.

[hunter1947]

You missed one key thing hear FD ,the most important in my books ,they implemented the 6 point season ,means lots of new recruitment.:wink:

[Fisher-Dude]

...and man, "no conservation concern" is such a powerfull sentence...I think it undervalues how much thought, statistics and research has to go into making a decision for managers. I always want people to be concerned about it. Monitor it, watch the populations like a hawk. That statement trivializes wildlife management, but I am probably looking too much into the wording.

I agree Bud, we need money on the ground doing research and monitoring our populations closely. That money comes directly from the wallets of the folks who hunt - so you see the need to generate money to sustain wildlife work with increased hunter numbers.

If the elk populations in question are hunted with a 3pt season as stated above, can be sustain LONG TERM, then go for it.

Ditto.

But what no one seems to talk about is how many hunters are going to "come out of the woodwork" or be recruited? I read that paper (strategy for recruitment....) and they are saying there is somewhere between 100000-200000 potential liscence holders that can be involved. What that tells me is there is no way to know how many elk will be harvested under a change in the rules such as this.

I'd question how many of those folks are "good elk hunters". Those buggers are hard to hunt...and I think we need province wide changes so they can hunt back in their favourite old stomping grounds. Looking at a macro basis will get us further into our "comfort zones" with the "no conservation concern" than will a micro basis.

so the people who were upset when I said we need to treat this situation with a conservative approach. Answer that question please.

I think the managers know we'll be demanding instant accountability on how the harvest and hunter numbers are for a year or two or three. They'll be watching closely and can adjust fast if need be.

One of the lesser known evils from the DiMarchi era was that the cow/calf permits were allowed to continue at least two years when it was known there was a decline, before they were yanked when the bad winter hit. That was a tough lesson and has prompted much more immediate action where necessary if harvest/pop numbers show any indications of concern.

I think we should be strongly encouraging hard and fast monitoring of this change (if it goes through), possibly in the form of "pilot areas" and be conservative about it. Until someone answers that question above.

I'm a bit concerned about the use of small pilot areas that might concentrate pressure. I'd still promote region-wide or province-wide changes on a well-monitored basis.



Me 'n' Bud agreeing on some "stuff" - cool! :cool:

[BCrams]

Isn't that just what Dimarchi did? Made assumptions and took big risks. I guess that was the pro-hunter, pro-harvester in him.

You likely won't find a mistake like that happening in this day and age. :cool:

[Fisher-Dude]

Isn't that just what Dimarchi did? Made assumptions and took big risks. I guess that was the pro-hunter, pro-harvester in him.

The data and studies we have at hand now are head and shoulders above what RD had to go on. We know so much more and have learned from our mistakes and those in other jurisdictions. 15 years of study/monitoring and the Information Age with today's technology makes a huge difference, IMO!

PS - I don't like RD and what he did, for the record! :biggrin:

[Kody94]

You call my debating techniques of posting links to, and sections from literature that supports my position as "offensive", yet you choose to BS the public to support your position.

I don't recall saying your "posting links to" etc stuff was offensive. ??? I made a casual observation about the validity of posting two like conclusions from (possibly) the same data as two ...but I didn't take "offense" to it. I did take you making the reference to me specifically being selfish as personally "offensive".

Apparently I made the mistake of assuming we are a group of sportsmen talking our way through a difficult topic. I quite enjoy the disparate points of view.

FWIW, I don't have an axe to grind or an agenda here. I am not representing anyone but myself, and I am pretty open minded to the possibilities. I am also learning a fair bit as we go....some interesting technical information has been presented along the way, and I have seen some interesting ways at looking at the issue.

Try to call me out, and I'll do what I can to prove otherwise. It's a sign of a good debater who has researched his/her subject matter well. If some take it "personally" when I refute what they have posted as inaccurate, so be it - I can't be responsible for people's reactions to facts that don't support their positions.

I never called you out. I made an observation, and I am pretty sure I stated it with all due respect (I do type fast though, and this is the internet, where body language and tone are pretty tough to read into a conversation -- maybe you took it otherwise???). So would you have rather I have ignored it? Or PM'd you instead? I do find it odd that you have obviously been trying to find a way to "trip me up" since then though.

By the way. I only take it personally when you are insulting/belittling/condescending in your tone. Otherwise, I want all the information out there as much as you apparently do...for my own edification and for others to be able to make equally informed decisions.

Misinformation is, in my opinion, much more dangerous than no information at all. Those who post misinformation and then get tripped up by it likely lose a LOT of credibility with the audience whom they wish to influence.

I agree. Although your only intention here seems to be to discredit me personally, not get to the heart of the issue under discussion. Nothing you have accused me of goes to the information that I have presented on the 3pt season vs 6pt season. Opposite to you (it seems anyway), I am not trying to "WIN" the debate/arguement. All I am doing is stating my point of view/thoughts on the matter and then hearing out all the responses. Maybe I'll pick up a new perspective or learn some new information (scientific or otherwise) I hadn't previously considered and adapt my own point of view accordingly. I am, at this point (realizing how literal you are) avoiding the use of the term position...since I don't really have one. I am leaning certain ways, and have some definite opinions on aspects of the argument, but have not entrenched myself firmly anywhere. So, I am not technically "debating" anything you or anyone else here.

My goal here is to let science determine game management in this province. The use of politics instead of science is posing a real and immediate threat to our way of life as hunters and fishers, and I and others on this forum chose not to bury our heads in the sand until it's too late. The NDP's banning of the grizzly hunt was just the tip of the anti-hunting iceberg.

My opinion here is roughly the same....science should be the basis for all decision making. You can't escape some politics, it is a public resource after all, and as much as it would be nice for it to be as cut-and-dried as having science as the final arbitor, its not going to happen.

Agree on the GB hunt. I was one of the 450 people in the crowd in Cranbrook.

PS - I think the poll question would support your objectives by the "no conservation concern" qualifier. If it supports a short 3 point season to enable "no conservation concern" seasons, why wouldn't you vote for it? If there were "no conservation concern" for a six week 3 point season, why wouldn't you vote for it? It wouldn't harm the herd at all if there were "no conservation concern" - that's what the phrase means!

I said above, for better or worse, I landed on the side of no 3pt season only because my thinking at that moment was that those that posted the questions and I seem to have a significantly different opinion about what "no conservation concern" is. ie. I think there is a conservation concern that has to be accomodated here, and it has yet to be recognized by most of you.

Also, I can see in specific circumstances where "no conservation concern" is not the final test of acceptibility. I do believe we should be trying to accomodate all interests to the extent that we can. There are usually a million ways to skin a cat, and the ones on the far extremes aren't usually the best choice. In otherwords, "no conservation concern" may not always point to the best possible outcome for everyone.

Final thought for now...feel free to try and "discredit" me personally if you wish, but I don't think it will help you win anyone over. :) I am more than happy to continue to discuss the "facts" as we all know them, and I don't see me as battling you in this, even you feel for some reason that you are battling me.

[DWH]

They'll be watching closely and can adjust fast if need be.



I really don't think this can be said with any type of guarantee what-so-ever (IMO). With the ever increasing cuts being made at Ministry of Environment, how can anyone be certain this wouldn't suffer like the rest of the tasks they are mandated to perform? Also, I am not sure how much different it is with wildlife but when it comes to fish, policy change is very slow.

[Fisher-Dude]

Final thought for now...feel free to try and "discredit" me personally if you wish, but I don't think it will help you win anyone over. :) I am more than happy to continue to discuss the "facts" as we all know them, and I don't see me as battling you in this, even you feel for some reason that you are battling me.

Just don't BS us and we'll gladly lend credence to your ideas. ;-) I don't have an axe to grind with any particular member (not even BHF :-P), as I've been pretty consistent in my responses to all the 'no" camp all along.

I didn't go out of my way to trip you up, I just looked at the poll results and saw you had voted. It was incidental to the debate.

Credibility is key. Get into some of those studies and find some stuff that will back up your posts - we'd all like to see it! 8-)

[budismyhorse]

tonight I'll be digesting some more info regarding the ONGOING elk monitoring program in the EK.

From what I have gathered it is an interesting take, but has several debatable aspects.

If people need this DOC, PM me and I'll email it to you.

[hunter1947]

I only vote yes if we are all talking about a short 3pt season preceded by the standard 6pt season.

I still need to read up on this stuff.....calls are in to the ministry blah blah blah.

and man, "no conservation concern" is such a powerfull sentence...I think it undervalues how much thought, statistics and research has to go into making a decision for managers. I always want people to be concerned about it. Monitor it, watch the populations like a hawk. That statement trivializes wildlife management, but I am probably looking too much into the wording.

If the elk populations in question are hunted with a 3pt season as stated above, can be sustain LONG TERM, then go for it.

But what no one seems to talk about is how many hunters are going to "come out of the woodwork" or be recruited? I read that paper (strategy for recruitment....) and they are saying there is somewhere between 100000-200000 potential liscence holders that can be involved. What that tells me is there is no way to know how many elk will be harvested under a change in the rules such as this.

so the people who were upset when I said we need to treat this situation with a conservative approach. Answer that question please.

I think we should be strongly encouraging hard and fast monitoring of this change (if it goes through), possibly in the form of "pilot areas" and be conservative about it. Until someone answers that question above. I do agree with your top sentence BIMH ,but if they open it up for the entire season for 3 point or better ,it will be a slaughter house ,I hope they never do this ,they would have every hunter around hunting the WK and the EK for elk..

[DWH]

I found this a pretty interesting read: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/kor/emp/emp_2005.pdf
Wilson and Morley: Elk Management Plan for the East Kootenay 2005-09

Particularly the following excerpts:

...Since the last management plan was completed, all evidence pointed to a substantial recovery of the elk population in most of the East Kootenay.

Indicates not all areas have recovered to levels of "no conservation concern" hence my lack of support for a blanket antler restriction change.

...Many hunters reported that population recovery throughout the East Kootenay had been uneven. We heard commonly that the population north of Radium had not recovered since 2000, as well as the upper Elk Valley, Flathead Valley and the upper Kootenay Valley.

Ditto.

...In addition, the 6-point bull season had been very successful in achieving population objectives (principally bull escapement as measured by bull-to-cow ratios), and had resulted in almost universally high hunter satisfaction. Hunters reported excellent hunting experiences, although the 6-point restriction did not guarantee success.

Kinda puts a small dent in the assumption that ammendments to antler restrictions will guarantee improved hunter recruitment/retention seeing that current hunters are highly satisfied and having excellent hunting experiences.

[budismyhorse]

I agree DWH,

The report used to generate this "22000" number is still in progress.

Also, due to the limits of statistical information, it may NEVER accurately tell what is going on in the areas you described. So far, nothing I have read indicates anything that would allow for any 3pt for the entire area.

[DWH]

Here are their Harvest Management Recommendations:

Continue the general open season on 6-point bulls unless data indicates a levelling off or decline in absolute harvest and indications of breeding disruption.
Expand antlerless LEH hunting opportunities to nearby Crown ranges below 1100m, in areas of the Trench where depredation is most chronic and where Crown ranges are degraded as a result of over-utilization by elk.
Establish a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the hunt in meeting private and Crown land objectives.
Discontinue the expanded hunt if observed calf-to-cow ratios fall below 25 calves per 100 cows for 2 consecutive years.
Consider expanding the antlerless LEH after 3 years to include 3-point bulls if the antlerless hunt is meeting population and harvest objectives but is failing to meet habitat objectives.
Consider authorizing summer elk hunts on private land on a case-by-case basis and consider expanding summer hunts after 5 years if objectives relative to private land depredations are not being met.

[Fisher-Dude]

I found this a pretty interesting read: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/kor/emp/emp_2005.pdf
Wilson and Morley: Elk Management Plan for the East Kootenay 2005-09

...In addition, the 6-point bull season had been very successful in achieving population objectives (principally bull escapement as measured by bull-to-cow ratios), and had resulted in almost universally high hunter satisfaction. Hunters reported excellent hunting experiences, although the 6-point restriction did not guarantee success.


Kinda puts a small dent in the assumption that ammendments to antler restrictions will guarantee improved hunter recruitment/retention seeing that current hunters are highly satisfied and having excellent hunting experiences.

"Open houses were held in Invermere, Cranbrook, and Fernie..."

No kidding. :wink:

[Kody94]

Credibility is key. Get into some of those studies and find some stuff that will back up your posts - we'd all like to see it! 8-)

I agree (and I am not worried about mine, regardless of what you may think - or would like others to think). :)

To that end, however, I trust you won't take it personally when I ask you to back up your contentions. If you have supporting facts that I don't, I will want to see them too. :)

Cheers,
4Ster

[brotherjack]

...In addition, the 6-point bull season ... had resulted in almost universally high hunter satisfaction. Hunters reported excellent hunting experiences, although the 6-point restriction did not guarantee success.

Kinda puts a small dent in the assumption that ammendments to antler restrictions will guarantee improved hunter recruitment/retention seeing that current hunters are highly satisfied and having excellent hunting experiences.

Actually, no it doesn't dent anything. The hunters who had unsatisfying experiences with the six point season mostly don't hunt anymore, or at least don't hunt elk anymore, and thus are not reporting their unhappy experiences. The guys reporting "great experiences" are guys who are hunting for the "experience" or the trophy and not the meat.

Here's something you can chew on - I had a job for a while where it was my job to fill out tags for customers. For the MAJORITY of the licenses I filled out for people, the buyer in question did not buy an elk tag. When asked (and I asked most of them) - they universally indicated that they thought/felt that there was no point in hunting elk under a six point season (which at the time I disagreed with - a few years of experience later, and I have joined their ranks in my opinion). Furthermore, most of the older hunters I asked stated that they used to hunt elk prior to the 6 point season but don't bother with it anymore because of the low/no success rate they had experienced. Those are all guys who would love to hunt elk, most of whom would start or return to elk hunting if the antler restrictions were lowered. I suppose it depends on your point of view as to whether or not having more guys hunting elk is a good thing or a bad thing.

[wetcoasthunter]

Here are their Harvest Management Recommendations:

Continue the general open season on 6-point bulls unless data indicates a levelling off or decline in absolute harvest and indications of breeding disruption.
Expand antlerless LEH hunting opportunities to nearby Crown ranges below 1100m, in areas of the Trench where depredation is most chronic and where Crown ranges are degraded as a result of over-utilization by elk.
Establish a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the hunt in meeting private and Crown land objectives.
Discontinue the expanded hunt if observed calf-to-cow ratios fall below 25 calves per 100 cows for 2 consecutive years.
Consider expanding the antlerless LEH after 3 years to include 3-point bulls if the antlerless hunt is meeting population and harvest objectives but is failing to meet habitat objectives.
Consider authorizing summer elk hunts on private land on a case-by-case basis and consider expanding summer hunts after 5 years if objectives relative to private land depredations are not being met.

Sounds like they are keen on expanding the antlerless hunts, isn't that what got them in trouble the first time around?

Also I have to laugh at the "where Crown ranges are degraded as a result of over-utilization by elk", I guess they don't think about the damage cattle do, blame the elk???

[brotherjack]

Sounds like they are keen on expanding the antlerless hunts, isn't that what got them in trouble the first time around?


DING DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner!!

If anyone cares to recall - my original bit of whining on this subject was basically thus: Why the heck are we running an open season on cow/calf elk and why the heck are we passing out cow/calf LEH's in significant numbers. You kill one cow/calf, and some simple logic will tell you that you've removed half a dozen or more animals or potential animals from the herd. So, the only logical conclusion as to why these seasons exist would be - the powers that be are trying to cut down the herd numbers. If that's the goal (and it obviously is, given the antlerless seasons and LEH's) - why on earth are they making us meat hunters chase six point elk?

[hunter1947]

Actually, no it doesn't dent anything. The hunters who had unsatisfying experiences with the six point season mostly don't hunt anymore, or at least don't hunt elk anymore, and thus are not reporting their unhappy experiences. The guys reporting "great experiences" are guys who are hunting for the "experience" or the trophy and not the meat.

Here's something you can chew on - I had a job for a while where it was my job to fill out tags for customers. For the MAJORITY of the licenses I filled out for people, the buyer in question did not buy an elk tag. When asked (and I asked most of them) - they universally indicated that they thought/felt that there was no point in hunting elk under a six point season (which at the time I disagreed with - a few years of experience later, and I have joined their ranks in my opinion). Furthermore, most of the older hunters I asked stated that they used to hunt elk prior to the 6 point season but don't bother with it anymore because of the low/no success rate they had experienced. Those are all guys who would love to hunt elk, most of whom would start or return to elk hunting if the antler restrictions were lowered. I suppose it depends on your point of view as to whether or not having more guys hunting elk is a good thing or a bad thing. My opinion would be be that it is a good thing we don't have every tom dick and harry hunting for elk in the EK for elk .
http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Kody94]

Why the heck are we running an open season on cow/calf elk and why the heck are we passing out cow/calf LEH's in significant numbers. You kill one cow/calf, and some simple logic will tell you that you've removed half a dozen or more animals or potential animals from the herd. So, the only logical conclusion as to why these seasons exist would be - the powers that be are trying to cut down the herd numbers. If that's the goal (and it obviously is, given the antlerless seasons and LEH's) - why on earth are they making us meat hunters chase six point elk?

I don't really support the cow/calf LEH's in most of the EK...never have.

I do wholeheartedly support the junior/senior and bow-only cow/calf open seasons in Zone X. That is a legitimate way to try and address the homesteader elk issue while providing hunting opportunity in a controlled manner that is also consistent with recruitment/retention objectives.

The bow-only season outside of Zone X is just an additional hunting opportunity for anyone interested, with minimal/negligible pressure on the elk population.

[hunter1947]

I don't really support the cow/calf LEH's in most of the EK...never have.

I do wholeheartedly support the junior/senior and bow-only cow/calf open seasons in Zone X. That is a legitimate way to try and address the homesteader elk issue while providing hunting opportunity in a controlled manner that is also consistent with recruitment/retention objectives.

The bow-only season outside of Zone X is just an additional hunting opportunity for anyone interested, with minimal/negligible pressure on the elk population. the only time I would support LEH on cow or calf would be in the farmers fields ,or low line areas.

[dana]

Yep. The sky is falling, and will knock you on your ass when it hits you.

No more 4 point season in Clearwater either.

PS - joined a club to help work on the future of hunting yet?

FD,
WTF would I join any club, from what I've read on here is they all are full of 'selfish' trophy hunters. Even if they weren't, it is obvious the government won't listen to them anyways, ie The Region 5 mule deer season.
Slamming hunters and calling them names is a great way to sway them over to your position eh? Forget about all the sweat equity they have put into their local herds through volunteer work eh?

BTW, here is what we are doing. Can you say the same???? Sure wish hunting was this good when I was young. I started hunting at the same age of my son and he killed more animals in his first year than I did in my first seven years.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/Sept12096a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/oct28020a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/Nov3017a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/May13a054a.jpg

[dana]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/May20063b.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/Sept12104a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/Sept12119a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/IMG_0376_sm.jpg

[Kody94]

the only time I would support LEH on cow or calf would be in the farmers fields ,or low line areas.

Same here, although I do support controlling female numbers when the population is at or near carrying capacity, in order to keep the population at a reasonable level and keep female:male ratios in line.

Much like what was suggested by the BCWF for the Reg 5 Muley Reg, as a prime example...which I still can't believe wasn't adopted by gov't.:mad:

[brotherjack]

I don't really support the cow/calf LEH's in most of the EK...never have.

I do wholeheartedly support the junior/senior and bow-only cow/calf open seasons in Zone X. That is a legitimate way to try and address the homesteader elk issue while providing hunting opportunity in a controlled manner that is also consistent with recruitment/retention objectives.

The bow-only season outside of Zone X is just an additional hunting opportunity for anyone interested, with minimal/negligible pressure on the elk population.

Sounds like we somewhat agree on this. Though, my opinion is that I am not a big fan of cow/calf tags, no matter what group you're giving them to, unless such measures are required to lower herd numbers that have gotten above carrying capacity of the range. I am happy to see jr/sr get such an excellent opportunity and I don't for a second begrudge them what they've gotten, but personally, I'm not a fan of it. If they want to drop herd numbers at low elevations and chase those elk back up into the high country - a short GOS any-bull season would get the same job done, and be far more inclusive of the hunting (and more importantly, the potential hunting) population.

Also, what bow-only season outside of Zone X? The any-elk bow season is most certainly restricted to Zone-X and Zone-X only (see current regs page 50). Outside of Zone-X, and it's bulls only, same as it's been for years now.

[Kody94]

FD,
BTW, here is what we are doing. Can you say the same???? Sure wish hunting was this good when I was young. I started hunting at the same age of my son and he killed more animals in his first year than I did in my first seven years.


You are doin' it right Dana. Those are great pics. I presume that's your daughter with the bear? Man, anyone that doesn't smile at that pic is dead inside. :) And I can't believe your son has shot more (and bigger) 4pt muleys than me. :lol:

Keep up the good work, man.

Cheers,
4Ster

[Fisher-Dude]

Dana, the reason your kids have those opportunities is because of the thousands of volunteer hours so many people (me included) put in at their clubs to fight for your kids' right to those seasons. Those kids' seasons would not exist if the clubs didn't push for them.

However, you don't think you should spend $40 a year to support those volunteers and all the good work they are doing for you and your kids. You'd rather spend $40 a month on your internet bill to come on here and say government sucks and whine about it, accomplishing SFA for your kids in the process.

Why not take a month off and give your $40 to the BCWF, or your local club, or a bowhunting club, or the RMEF, instead of the cable company?

[Kody94]

I am happy to see jr/sr get such an excellent opportunity and I don't for a second begrudge them what they've gotten, but personally, I would much rather have seen an any-bull GOS season in Zone-X to lower herd numbers at lower elevations if that was/is the goal (and it obviously is).

An any bull season wouldn't be nearly as effective at reducing the numbers of non-migratory elk. It requires direct pressure on the cows. I am not really in the camp that says we can push them out of the trench with pressure either...maybe, but??? I think the habitual migratory elk need to grow in numbers, as its passed from generation to generation. And the bull numbers need to grow along with them, to ensure more calves are born to migratory mothers.

Meanwhile, the cows that have been training their calves not to migrate need to be reduced in numbers. And any bull that isn't migrating can pretty much be fair game to IMHO...within reason of course. Hence my support of a 3pt season targetting those bulls first, while minimizing odds of collateral damage to migratory animals.


Also, what bow-only season outside of Zone X? The any-elk bow season is most certainly restricted to Zone-X and Zone-X only (see current regs page 50). Outside of Zone-X, and it's bulls only, same as it's been for years now.

I was referring to the "any-bull" season...sorry for not making that clear.

[Seeadler]

Here is a question, of all the hunters who have quit in the last 15 years, how many quit in the mid to late 90's (when game was scarce) and how many have quit in the last few years?

The way things are now, it is no trick at all to get a whitetail buck and a 4 point muley of some sort in the EK. I also believe that if things continue the way they are now, that I can realistically get a 6 point every 2-3 years during the rifle season. I think I will take up bow hunting as the any elk season is too good to ignore. In the last few years, I have been within bowrange of cows every rifle season (yes, I do realize that this isn't the same as actually taking one with a bow, but the potential is there).

I think that anyone who hunted through the 90's and quits now has other reasons besides for point restrictions.

[rocksteady]

"where Crown ranges are degraded as a result of over-utilization by elk", I guess they don't think about the damage cattle do, blame the elk???


Root of the grazing competition debate....Ranchers feel they have the God given right to have low cost, crown range for grazing exclusively for themselves....Wildlife does not feed their families.....But you know what? BEEF Does not feed mine.....................

[DWH]

... The hunters who had unsatisfying experiences with the six point season mostly don't hunt anymore, or at least don't hunt elk anymore, and thus are not reporting their unhappy experiences. The guys reporting "great experiences" are guys who are hunting for the "experience" or the trophy and not the meat.


Where are the statistics/data to back these statements up? Or am I confusing this with your [unbiased] opinion? Or am I just confused? ;-)

[wetcoasthunter]

Root of the grazing competition debate....Ranchers feel they have the God given right to have low cost, crown range for grazing exclusively for themselves....Wildlife does not feed their families.....But you know what? BEEF Does not feed mine.....................

Agree 100%, not sure what it is about cattlemen, not exactly a compromising bunch are they?

[Seeadler]

Root of the grazing competition debate....Ranchers feel they have the God given right to have low cost, crown range for grazing exclusively for themselves....Wildlife does not feed their families.....But you know what? BEEF Does not feed mine.....................

What would you rather have, cattle on the range or ranches split up for condo developements, ranchettes, and golf courses?

[dana]

FD,
Don't tote your horn too much, as only one of those animals was killed during a new youth season. If that season wasn't in place, he still would have easily killed 3 deer. BTW the button buck was killed under LEH which you seem to detest. My son certainly doesn't mind it. He really is excited to put in for the draw this year. Moose, Goat, Sheep and Antlerless Muley. If he pulls 1 or more LEH tags, that will be added bonus to our already 3 months of deer season.
Why would I throw $40 out the window and see government inaction for my money? I've been a member in the past and saw nothing good come of it. Heck was a member of the RMEF for years, all I got out of it was a magazine and government inaction with the Tum Tum herd. Sorry, I'd rather spend $40 in gas and take the family and the wall tent out on a shed hunting trip. Way better use of my money.

SSSter,
That is my daughter with my bear from last spring. She'll be 10 this year so she is lookin forward harvesting her first bear this spring. BTW the monster muley was shot by my nephew. They come by it naturally. It is all in the family blood.

[wetcoasthunter]

What would you rather have, cattle on the range or ranches split up for condo developements, ranchettes, and golf courses?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Cattle aren't the problem, its the ranchers (and an enabling government) jamming as many cattle into an area as they want for as long as they want. We're talking about crown land, not private land. It just seems like its private land because the ranchers ACT they own it (signs/fences/etc).

[rocksteady]

What would you rather have, cattle on the range or ranches split up for condo developements, ranchettes, and golf courses?


The "ranchers" are diversifiying into those areas as we speak....

For example, the Top of The World guest ranch (between Wasa and Fort Steele) which used to be a working cattle ranch is now a "rehab retreat"....Fine by me, we need those too, however I am sure there was a few $ to be made, by changing it....

Wonder if they had to apply to get it out of the ALR ???

[brotherjack]

Where are the statistics/data to back these statements up? Or am I confusing this with your [unbiased] opinion? Or am I just confused? ;-)

You're probably just confused. :)

As has been posted (and reposted) several times in most of these threads - here is the data (I quote from memory). 100,000 hunters in BC have quit hunting in the last few decades. That's over half! The scientific reports on why people quit hunting indicate that antler restrictions are a very significant (though certainly not the only) factor that influences people quit hunting. 1 + 1 = 2.

Never mind the anecdotal evidence of polls on this site, all the hunters I chatted with on a daily basis when I worked at the sporting goods store, etc.

Take EK elk hunter numbers - much lower than they were back in the 3pt season days. It's a pretty safe bet that those hunters who represent the missing numbers didn't quit hunting elk in the EK because they were having what they considered to be awesome experiences hunting six point elk.

[rocksteady]

100,000 hunters in BC have quit hunting in the last few decades. The scientific reports on why people quit hunting indicate that antler restrictions are a very significant factor that influences people quit hunting.



Maybe that's just a quick and easy cop-out....Maybe they just suck at hunting!!!!

[dana]

You know what I really get a kick out of reading these elk debates is that many of you are talking about point restrictions being the result of hunter decline and you then support a point restriction season (3 point or better). What about all those hunters that can't find a legal 3 point? Won't they give up hunting and be lost forever????

[rocksteady]

Thanks for jumping into the fray Dana...Maybe they will listen to you...

[wetcoasthunter]

You know what I really get a kick out of reading these elk debates is that many of you are talking about point restrictions being the result of hunter decline and you then support a point restriction season (3 point or better). What about all those hunters that can't find a legal 3 point? Won't they give up hunting and be lost forever????

Not with comments like these

[Seeadler]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Cattle aren't the problem, its the ranchers (and an enabling government) jamming as many cattle into an area as they want for as long as they want. We're talking about crown land, not private land. It just seems like its private land because the ranchers ACT they own it (signs/fences/etc).

Without access to crown land (or else irrigated pasture), ranching is not economically viable. If it is not viable, expect the ARL to disappear and be taken over by development. Then expect prime areas to be declared "No hunting".

Ranches cannot jam as many cattle in an area for as long as they want. Animals cannot be turned out in the spring until the go ahead is given by the ministry. Beef is sold by the pound so it is not in the ranches interest to overgraze. Crown range is fenced as a management tool to allow rotation of cattle from pasture to pasture, the order of which is alternated year by year to allow the grass to seed. Many ranchers are antagonistic towards hunters because cattle have been known to disappear during hunting season.

[brotherjack]

many of you are talking about point restrictions being the result of hunter decline and you then support a point restriction season (3 point or better).

I don't really think we have many/any of us who are 100% opposed to point restrictions, so long as they are for the purpose of meeting conservation conerns. We all want sustainable hunting, that can last for many generations to come. What some of us are so vehemently opposed to, is the continuation (or institution) of point restrictions where there is no conservation concern (ie: trophy-oriented management strategies, political reasons, etc).

I have no idea if an any-bull season would be sustainable or not. If it was, I'd be all for it. I'm fairly confident that a 3 point season would be sustainable based on the history of the EK (decades of 3 point elk hunting that was sustainable, with population numbers not radically different from what we have today).

[Fisher-Dude]

You know what I really get a kick out of reading these elk debates is that many of you are talking about point restrictions being the result of hunter decline and you then support a point restriction season (3 point or better). What about all those hunters that can't find a legal 3 point? Won't they give up hunting and be lost forever????

I passed on a couple of spikes, and one gimpy little guy that I couldn't be 100% certain was a 3 point in 20 years of hunting under the 3 point seasons. It's a non-issue. Generally (with rare exceptions), bulls over 2.5 years of age will have 3 or more.

A bull looking straight at you (as most are when they come in or you bump them) is often difficult to see 6 points on due to elk antler configuration - spotting 2 brows and a main beam is easy head on. Some studies like the one GG posted indicate a very high illegal kill rate in 6 point seasons - haven't really heard of much of it in 3 point seasons, although I'm sure a few spikers do get dumped and left. Hell, guys kill a few cows in bull only seasons! :eek:

Edit - I actually have seen very few 3 points in the EK - most have been 4s or bigger. I've only shot one 4x5 - the rest were all 6 points (one was a 7x5), and the majority were taken in 3 point season. Go figure!

[GoatGuy]

Maybe that's just a quick and easy cop-out....Maybe they just suck at hunting!!!!

Yep, there's always somebody who isn't as skilled or doesn't have the ability or mentoring others have. Doesn't mean they should be punished for it.

It would be the same if we were to decide that elk should be managed for 340" or better, mulies 180" or better and wt's 160" - some would probably get frustrated but for the people who have seen and harvested this caliber of animal it wouldn't be a big deal, they'd keep hunting. Some people think a 320" bull elk is big, some people think they're small and pass them up. Some people have harvest 160" wt's and some have never seen one. Some people pass up legal Rockies every year and some have never seen one. Some people pass up 170" mulies every year and others have never seen one. Some people are out for meat others are out for horns, some a bit of both. Really just depends on the hunter. In any activity there's always somebody better - doesn't mean they should be the focus of rules and regulations.


I think the concept is to keep regulations as liberal as possible while still maintaining a strong herd.

[rocksteady]

I think the concept is to keep regulations as liberal as possible while still maintaining a strong herd.


I agree, however I am not as confident as you are that a 3 point season would meet this objective...

[Brambles]

Holy crap guys, I leave for a few hours of hiking and come back to 7 freakin pages. I'll read them later

Seen three 6 point bulls today:lol: one might go 340 have to look at the video to see. Oh yeah, one 5 point too, it was too far away to see if he had a little 6er or not, so I'll call him a 5 pointer.;-)

[Kody94]

Here is a question, of all the hunters who have quit in the last 15 years, how many quit in the mid to late 90's (when game was scarce) and how many have quit in the last few years?

Since no-one has answered your question directly, I'll take a shot. Here are the facts as I know them...



Region 4: Elk hunters By Year from 1983-2005

1983 10422
1984 11479
1985 11984
1986 11586
1987 11169
1988 12015
1989 12071
1990 10823
1991 11314
1992 8899
1993 9816
1994 8061
1995 7559
1996 5603
1997 5755
1998 3467
1999 3882
2000 4369
2001 4596
2002 4876
2003 4609
2004 3382
2005 6026


So, from these numbers, its probably reasonable to assume the peak occured in 88/89 (more than 12,000 hunters), and when elk populations seriously started to wane less than a decade later in 94/95/96, the number of elk hunters dropped to less than half...5600 in 96!!

Note that we had more hunters in 2005 than we had before the 6pt regulation was implemented.

I don't know the 2006 and 2007 numbers, but wish I did. Does anyone have them?? If I was a bettin' man, I'd put dollars against donuts they went up again...especially 2007.

I am not trying to dispute that antler point regulations discourage hunter retention (EDIT: note the big drop in 98 ), but I think its fairly clear with these numbers that a crappy chance of success due to the population declining (and this is before the harsh winter of 96/97) was the biggest cause of hunters ceasing to hunt elk.

Cheers,
4Ster

[dana]

SSSter,
My family hunted the Koots during the hayday numbers of hunters. We, like many many other hunters were drawn to the LEH cow/calf tags that were being handed out by the hoards. I'm sure alot of those high numbers that you see during the 80's were antlerless tag holders. The herds took a hard hit by all those antlerless tags and then there was the hard winters that followed. Thus the decline in elk hunters. I remember numerous elk hunters coming back skunked during the 'bad times' and the rumour got out that the Peace was better than the Koots so many of those elk hunters traveled North instead of East.

[dana]

I passed on a couple of spikes, and one gimpy little guy that I couldn't be 100% certain was a 3 point in 20 years of hunting under the 3 point seasons. It's a non-issue. Generally (with rare exceptions), bulls over 2.5 years of age will have 3 or more.

Edit - I actually have seen very few 3 points in the EK - most have been 4s or bigger. I've only shot one 4x5 - the rest were all 6 points (one was a 7x5), and the majority were taken in 3 point season. Go figure!

Maybe you don't give yourself enough credit. Maybe you are better than the average elk hunter. If you preach no point restrictions, you should practice no point restrictions and not suggest 3 point or better seasons. What about those poor Vancouverites that have never seen an elk in their life, shouldn't they be able to kill whatever they want to because they are just as much entitled to them as you or I??? We shouldn't fault them for living so far away and being stuck in the city that they have no clue how to hunt. Lets open up all species this way. Why do we have full-curl seasons on the bighorns. What about the poor sap that can't figure out if a ram is legal or not? Shouldn't he have just as many rights to eat mutton as anyone else? Remember the majority of hunters are meat hunters not trophy hunters right???:wink:

[Kody94]

SSSter,
My family hunted the Koots during the hayday numbers of hunters. We, like many many other hunters were drawn to the LEH cow/calf tags that were being handed out by the hoards. I'm sure alot of those high numbers that you see during the 80's were antlerless tag holders. The herds took a hard hit by all those antlerless tags and then there was the hard winters that followed. Thus the decline in elk hunters. I remember numerous elk hunters coming back skunked during the 'bad times' and the rumour got out that the Peace was better than the Koots so many of those elk hunters traveled North instead of East.

That sounds reasonable to me, and is consistent with my experience (I remember the "hoardes" of out-of-regioners :p ).

I wish I kept my copies of the hunting regs. I had a complete set from 1981 to date, and my wife made me "purge" a bunch of stuff in our last move and I am guessing they ended up in the recycle bin....can't find them anyway.

So, was there lots of antlerless tags in the late 80's??

If so, is it actually accurate for people to say that there were twice as many hunters, hunting elk sustainably under a 3pt regulation back in the 70's and 80's?

I would like to get to the bottom of this, as it seems to be one of the fundamental issues involved here.

Cheers
4ster

[brotherjack]

Note that we had more hunters in 2005 than we had before the 6pt regulation was implemented.


And what happened in 2005? Oh wait, it was the beginning of the any-elk archery season if memory serves me correctly, not to mention the beginning of a fairly significant number of cow/calf LEH's (612 zone-X tags that year, if I'm not mistaken).

If anyone wants a little proof that more/better opportunities for success = more hunters, then there you have it.

[Fisher-Dude]

05/06 was the first crack at zone X seasons, right? (Can't find my old regs/LEH regs - I should NEVER clean up). When did the bow only regs change to antlerless and any bull? JT?

Could explain the bump in license sales.

Edit - BroJ already answered it!

[Kody94]

05/06 was the first crack at zone X seasons, right? (Can't find my old regs/LEH regs - I should NEVER clean up). When did the bow only regs change to antlerless and any bull? JT?

Could explain the bump in license sales.

Edit - BroJ already answered it!

I am sure it does.

How do we go about separating people that were hunting cows/calves and those that were hunting bulls?

EDIT: I believe 2006 was the first year of bow only antlerless/any bull. I think "any bull" started in 2005. (??)

[Kody94]

And what happened in 2005? Oh wait, it was the beginning of the any-elk archery season if memory serves me correctly, not to mention the beginning of a fairly significant number of cow/calf LEH's (612 zone-X tags that year, if I'm not mistaken).

If anyone wants a little proof that more/better opportunities for success = more hunters, then there you have it.

But there were a lot of LEH cow tags in 95 too, unless I am not recalling accurately.

[Fisher-Dude]

Maybe you don't give yourself enough credit. Maybe you are better than the average elk hunter. If you preach no point restrictions, you should practice no point restrictions and not suggest 3 point or better seasons. What about those poor Vancouverites that have never seen an elk in their life, shouldn't they be able to kill whatever they want to because they are just as much entitled to them as you or I??? We shouldn't fault them for living so far away and being stuck in the city that they have no clue how to hunt. Lets open up all species this way. Why do we have full-curl seasons on the bighorns. What about the poor sap that can't figure out if a ram is legal or not? Shouldn't he have just as many rights to eat mutton as anyone else? Remember the majority of hunters are meat hunters not trophy hunters right???:wink:

Anyways, between all your barking, I'll ask the oldtimers - why was there not a spike season? There was back in the 60s, and maybe early 70s too I believe.

And, the reason that there is NO banana ram season is because there IS a conservation concern! :eek:

[dana]

SSSter,
During the eighties there were tons of antlerless tags. Heck, I remember some years when everyone in our family of 4 drew tags. Odds were great. Obviously recruitment was great as my brother and I were youth at the time. We are still hunters, so it must have worked right??? That is if we follow the shallow line of thinking that some on this site have.:shock:

The other thing that FD slipped out yesterday in one of these many threads, there was also a moose/elk option in those days. Meaning you could harvest a moose or an elk but not both. Many hunters packed both tags and if they ran into a moose first, that was the tag that was cut. So in essense, guys quoting numbers to support 3 point seasons are double dipping ain't they?

[Kody94]

Dana, I am sure you are right about the tags. Wish I had the numbers. The elk/moose thing is very true too. I got my one and only moose draw in 1994...and shot my first elk that year, so I wasted my moose tag. If I only knew that 14 years later I would still be waiting for my next draw....

I started hunting the koots in '88, when I was 18, and really got into it in 91 (when I wasn't at school most of the fall). I don't remember the LEH #s because I never applied for elk cows/calves then (I remember getting one in 92 though). But I do clearly recall the number of elk I saw while hunting (and working...was a bush rat in the Elk Valley and Flathead for a lot of years) really plummeted from 91 to 96, then took a real nosedive in 96/97 with the deep snows.

I know a couple of very experienced elk hunters (it would be tough to find guys with MORE experience and I'm sure many of you know them) that spent over 2 weeks hunting the southern part of the Flathead in '97 on horseback and didn't see a single bull (and hardly any cows). So numbers were way down for sure.

[Fisher-Dude]

Harvest is key here:

When the 6 pt season on bulls started we were harvesting 300 to 400 bulls per year (1998, '99 and 2000). That harvest level has increased annually and now stands at around 900 bulls annually. Prior to the 6pt season the peak harvest in a single year under the 3 pt GOS was 1700 but most years it was around 1200 to 1400. (Thanks 6616 for the harvest stats).

In the 3 point years, we still took 33 - 55% (88% in the 1700 year) more bull elk than our best post-1998 season, despite the swamp donkey hunters. Many of those old donkey hunters that I saw never bothered to carry an elk tag, and camped in the river bottoms waiting for donkeys while we climbed the hills looking for elk.

The aggregate bag limit is one I'm all for, especially with the proposed region 4 spike/fork moose season. Kill an elk, or kill an immy moose, not both. That's an easy compromise that I'd support. The hunters who would quit in disgust because they couldn't shoot two large ungulates would be very few compared to the newbies attracted by more liberal GOS on both species, in my opinion.

[Kody94]

So, who can help us schmo's figure out how many hunters were hunting how many elk, sustainably, under a 3pt regulation in the past, and how that relates to the situation today?

[Kody94]

Harvest is key here:

When the 6 pt season on bulls started we were harvesting 300 to 400 bulls per year (1998, '99 and 2000). That harvest level has increased annually and now stands at around 900 bulls annually. Prior to the 6pt season the peak harvest in a single year under the 3 pt GOS was 1700 but most years it was around 1200 to 1400. (Thanks 6616 for the harvest stats).

In the 3 point years, we still took 33 - 55% (88% in the 1700 year) more bull elk than our best post-1998 season, despite the swamp donkey hunters. Many of those old donkey hunters that I saw never bothered to carry an elk tag, and camped in the river bottoms waiting for donkeys while we climbed the hills looking for elk.

The aggregate bag limit is one I'm all for, especially with the proposed region 4 spike/fork moose season. Kill an elk, or kill an immy moose, not both. That's an easy compromise that I'd support. The hunters who would quit in disgust because they couldn't shoot two large ungulates would be very few compared to the newbies attracted by more liberal GOS on both species, in my opinion.

I posted my question above while you were posting this. Thanks.

Do you have the actual numbers, by year? Can 6616 provide them?

I thought I recalled 6616 quoting a 1700 number for the 70's? (and 10 trucks at every landing :) ) If thats the case though the herd was probably smaller than ours.

If 1700 was sustainable then, would it be sustainable now?

Would loosening the regs result in a higher harvest than was experienced in the 70s/80s given the changes to habitat? The vulnerability of elk would likely be higher now, given all the roading/logging etc, and increases in technology that we benefit from today.

[horshur]

Harvest is key here:

When the 6 pt season on bulls started we were harvesting 300 to 400 bulls per year (1998, '99 and 2000). That harvest level has increased annually and now stands at around 900 bulls annually. Prior to the 6pt season the peak harvest in a single year under the 3 pt GOS was 1700 but most years it was around 1200 to 1400. (Thanks 6616 for the harvest stats).

In the 3 point years, we still took 33 - 55% (88% in the 1700 year) more bull elk than our best post-1998 season, despite the swamp donkey hunters. Many of those old donkey hunters that I saw never bothered to carry an elk tag, and camped in the river bottoms waiting for donkeys while we climbed the hills looking for elk.

The aggregate bag limit is one I'm all for, especially with the proposed region 4 spike/fork moose season. Kill an elk, or kill an immy moose, not both. That's an easy compromise that I'd support. The hunters who would quit in disgust because they couldn't shoot two large ungulates would be very few compared to the newbies attracted by more liberal GOS on both species, in my opinion.

Fish....spike fork moose huh?? that's a joke. Ought to really benefit recruitment...LOL. Hypocrite!!!
If you support a spike fork moose than you better climb aboard the six point train. Cause They are one and the same with the huge advantage to the Elk hunters....

[Fisher-Dude]

Fish....spike fork moose huh?? that's a joke. Ought to really benefit recruitment...LOL. Hypocrite!!!
If you support a spike fork moose than you better climb aboard the six point train. Cause They are one and the same with the huge advantage to the Elk hunters....

Where did I say I thought spike/fork was the best option? That's all they will give us now, seems they know spike/fork is squat for harvest so it falls in line with ultra-conservative harvest strategies. I long for GOS any bull moose and 3 point (heck, even any bull!) elk, with an aggregate limit of one, and twice the hunter numbers with sustainable hunts.......wait, I want the 70s and 80s hunting and hunters BACK!

You and your little brother seem hell bent to put words in my mouth whilst F*****G the future hunting opportunities for your kids.

[rocksteady]

whilst F*****G the future hunting opportunities for your kids.


I think this is a bunch of over the top fear-mongering, as the term was used in other posts....As it sits right now, the 6 point season in no way is "F*****G the future hunting opportunities for your kids" If anything it is greating an ever increasing number of animals...

[dana]

"You and your little brother seem hell bent to put words in my mouth whilst F*****G the future hunting opportunities for your kids."

That right there is why I won't join any of your so-called groups. One loud joker that thinks he knows it all is the spokesman for us??? If you think you can recruit hunters, you are sadly mistaken. You certainly ain't going to have anyone voting with you, swayed to your mindset, when you make comments like that. You are your worst enemy. You don't walk the talk, and all you are is full of hot air.

[Fisher-Dude]

I posted my question above while you were posting this. Thanks.

Do you have the actual numbers, by year? Can 6616 provide them?

GG has the stats and they are on here in an old post - all I could find was 6616's summary.

I thought I recalled 6616 quoting a 1700 number for the 70's? (and 10 trucks at every landing :) ) If thats the case though the herd was probably smaller than ours.

Ya know, I didn't see 10 trucks per landing, just more camps than we see now.

If 1700 was sustainable then, would it be sustainable now?

Good question. They must have a target harvest figure. Maybe 6616 or JT would have this?

Would loosening the regs result in a higher harvest than was experienced in the 70s/80s given the changes to habitat? The vulnerability of elk would likely be higher now, given all the roading/logging etc, and increases in technology that we benefit from today.

Elk are very adaptive animals. They originally were prairie grazers. Settlement sent them to the hills and forests. Now they tip-toe ghost like through the ESSF. There are more roads now, but there were few to no vehicle restrictions either in the 80s, and a lot of MPB roads and oil/gas lines were open in those days too.

One thing I can attest to is how "whistle shy" elk seem to have become over the past 20 - 30 years. We called in more bulls with bamboo rake handles and the early Jones calls than we do now with Hoochies and Thunder Bugles. An adaptation, now a trait? Maybe. :wink:



..............

[dana]

Elk are very adaptive animals. They originally were prairie grazers. Settlement sent them to the hills and forests.

I can't believe you just posted that. You call yourself an elk hunter and yet you hold onto an old wives tale as that????? As my kids would say, 'Ding Dong You're Wrong':lol:

[Kody94]

I found this quote from 6616:



...mid 1970s when we had 170,000 hunters in BC, 27% of all hunting effort in BC was exerted in the EK, every wide spot on every road had 10 camps in it, and we were killing 1700 bull elk every year, that doesn't wish we could have those good old days back again.


My memory wasn't far off. I also found GoatGuys numbers, will transfer them here

[bighornbob]

The anterless tags given out in the late 80's was ******ed. I remember them having close to 1200 calf only tags for one region.

I just looked up the LEH regs (my earliest) for 93-94. For region 4-22 they gave out 240 Cow or calf tags and 790 Calf Only tags. This is on top of the 2 1/2 month bull season.

These were not even the glory years for tags. Like Dana said I remember there always being a few tags in the family as the odds were like 1.5:1

Even if there was no bull season altoether if you start putting out tags like this for a few consective years (probably 5 or 6) and then you have a few harsh winters there is only one thing thta will happen to the population and we all saw it.

BHB

[horshur]

You and your little brother seem hell bent to put words in my mouth whilst F*****G the future hunting opportunities for your kids.

ROTFL.....Fish, kids great great grandfather hunted in scottland and he was a peasant;-) I ain't worried. They had a great uncle who shot a deer behind german lines in WW2 during the christmas Armistance. A sniper.

The dana's will hunt until hell freezes over......

[Fisher-Dude]

"You and your little brother seem hell bent to put words in my mouth whilst F*****G the future hunting opportunities for your kids."

That right there is why I won't join any of your so-called groups. One loud joker that thinks he knows it all is the spokesman for us??? If you think you can recruit hunters, you are sadly mistaken. You certainly ain't going to have anyone voting with you, swayed to your mindset, when you make comments like that. You are your worst enemy. You don't walk the talk, and all you are is full of hot air.

Right. And you only care about your moose and deer in region 3 being open for YOU, and have no intention of hunting elk in the EK, so you don't really care what the outcome is here. Too bad you're just a bit short-sighted about the big picture and what hunter numbers really mean provincially. You take YOUR kids out and we're supposed to consider that noble. What have you done to create opps for other kids?

I will help to recruit hunters and fishers with proposals that I've developed and spearheaded in my region that are designed to get families out in the hills with gun and rod again. And hopefully, some of the issues we're discussing here will get us all closer to some consensus that will provide folks some hunting opps.

BTW, I don't speak for you, you do a "fine" job for yourself. ;-)

[horshur]

"You and your little brother seem hell bent to put words in my mouth whilst F*****G the future hunting opportunities for your kids."

That right there is why I won't join any of your so-called groups. One loud joker that thinks he knows it all is the spokesman for us??? If you think you can recruit hunters, you are sadly mistaken. You certainly ain't going to have anyone voting with you, swayed to your mindset, when you make comments like that. You are your worst enemy. You don't walk the talk, and all you are is full of hot air.

Bud you up to getting the boy's a six point???? or maybe your girl Jess.........ya I'd bust my ass for that. Cross River here we come.LOL

[dana]

Horshur,
I certainly am up to it. Hike in above timberline with the tipi and have a little piece of paradise for the kids. Probably find some big ol' trophy muleys back in there too. Maybe a 160 class whitey for Russ to go with his 190 class muley eh?

[Kody94]

Region 4: Resident Elk Harvest

1983 3049
1984 3868
1985 2994
1986 2819
1987 2276
1988 3371
1989 2558
1990 2993
1991 2504
1992 1973
1993 1932
1994 1505
1995 1306
1996 954
1997 736
1998 448
1999 413
2000 614
2001 841
2002 766
2003 1200
2004 743
2005 1661


Days per kill REGION 4 ELK

1983 34
1984 27
1985 37
1986 39
1987 50
1988 34
1989 49
1990 34
1991 42
1992 43
1993 47
1994 52
1995 57
1996 54
1997 80
1998 80
1999 102
2000 75
2001 65
2002 69
2003 37
2004 46
2005 35


cow and calf harvest for REGION 4

1983 640 1006
1984 928 1547
1985 509 958
1986 282 1043
1987 182 774
1988 472 1450
1989 384 1023
1990 419 1137
1991 351 901
1992 178 335
1993 251 406
1994 346 75
1995 274 65
1996 210 48
1997 184 22
1998 0 0
1999 21 4
2000 86 25
2001 126 34
2002 107 38
2003 228 84
2004 104 30
2005 349 83


The question is, do the numbers at the top reflect the total, or just bull harvest. If its total, then I assume we can subtract the numbers at the bottom from the ones at the top to arrive at the bull harvest.

6616/JT - do you guys know the target harvest?

F/D - I don't disagree with what you say about access, but it has to be considered. The forest company I work for has built over 800 kms of roads in the last 5 years alone, just to chase Mountian Pine Beetle infested stands. Most of them aren't in area closures.

Not to mention the logging!

I am a natural history buff, so have read just about everything I can find about elk and most other big game. I have read "North American Elk: Ecology and Management" -- both editions (1982 and 2002). I doubt many of us are masochistic enough to do that...they're both pushing 1000 pages.

And I am bit of a Val Geist junky too.

He wrote a great article for Bugle magazine that I'd love to dredge up for consumption here...it was about cow/calf management in elk herds. Excellent read.

Cheers,
4ster

[Fisher-Dude]

Thanks for digging that up SSSSter. We're really not killing many elk compared to the population size, are we? We're likely back up over 25K (some say it's likely we are approaching 30K) and are only taking 1200 - 1600 cows/calves/bulls at the peak harvest.

1998 448
1999 413
2000 614
2001 841
2002 766
2003 1200
2004 743
2005 1661

When can we expect that inventory to be done (and made public)?

[Kody94]

I'd sure like to know the hunter stats for 2006 and 2007 too. Not sure why they take so long to make this stuff available to the general public. The most up-to-date hunter stats they have posted on-line are 2001 and 2002!! Tax dollars hard at work. :)

Hmm, I should cross check those stats with GoatGuys and see if they jive...should tell me if they are total elk or just bulls at the top.

Cheers,
4Ster

[Fisher-Dude]

I'd sure like to know the hunter stats for 2006 and 2007 too. Not sure why they take so long to make this stuff available to the general public. The most up-to-date hunter stats they have posted on-line are 2001 and 2002!! Tax dollars hard at work. :)

Hmm, I should cross check those stats with GoatGuys and see if they jive...should tell me if they are total elk or just bulls at the top.

Cheers,
4Ster

Total elk at the top SSSSter. Peak harvest was 1700 bulls. Some of those years of DiMarchism are close to 4000 total elk! :eek:

[6616]

Since no-one has answered your question directly, I'll take a shot. Here are the facts as I know them...



So, from these numbers, its probably reasonable to assume the peak occured in 88/89 (more than 12,000 hunters), and when elk populations seriously started to wane less than a decade later in 94/95/96, the number of elk hunters dropped to less than half...5600 in 96!!

Note that we had more hunters in 2005 than we had before the 6pt regulation was implemented.

I don't know the 2006 and 2007 numbers, but wish I did. Does anyone have them?? If I was a bettin' man, I'd put dollars against donuts they went up again...especially 2007.

I am not trying to dispute that antler point regulations discourage hunter retention (EDIT: note the big drop in 98 ), but I think its fairly clear with these numbers that a crappy chance of success due to the population declining (and this is before the harsh winter of 96/97) was the biggest cause of hunters ceasing to hunt elk.

Cheers,
4Ster


I cannot explain the big drop between 1995 and 1996 but I know it wasn't because of low population densities following a bad winter because the bad winter was in 96/97, one year later. The large drop in 1998 coincides withthe implementation of the 6pt reg.

[6616]

Since no-one has answered your question directly, I'll take a shot. Here are the facts as I know them...



So, from these numbers, its probably reasonable to assume the peak occured in 88/89 (more than 12,000 hunters), and when elk populations seriously started to wane less than a decade later in 94/95/96, the number of elk hunters dropped to less than half...5600 in 96!!

Note that we had more hunters in 2005 than we had before the 6pt regulation was implemented.

I don't know the 2006 and 2007 numbers, but wish I did. Does anyone have them?? If I was a bettin' man, I'd put dollars against donuts they went up again...especially 2007.

I am not trying to dispute that antler point regulations discourage hunter retention (EDIT: note the big drop in 98 ), but I think its fairly clear with these numbers that a crappy chance of success due to the population declining (and this is before the harsh winter of 96/97) was the biggest cause of hunters ceasing to hunt elk.

Cheers,
4Ster

The low population cycles occurred in 1991 folowing the antlerless LEH and again in 1997 following the killer winter. The years between 1992 and 1996 the population was actually increasing.

[Kody94]

Total elk at the top SSSSter. Peak harvest was 1700 bulls. Some of those years of DiMarchism are close to 4000 total elk! :eek:

Yep, seems to check out with the annual harvest stats too, although they aren't real clear on it either. :)

[Kody94]

The low population cycles occurred in 1991 folowing the antlerless LEH and again in 1997 following the killer winter. The years between 1992 and 1996 the population was actually increasing.

Hmmm. I am not gonna argue with you. :) In the Elk Valley they didn't seem to be climbing though. :)

Funny though that the number of hunter days per elk went up, and the number of elk hunters declined during that period. Was there way less cow/calf LEHs each year of that period?

Also, are the number of days per elk inclusive of the LEH permits? If so, that throws a wrinkle into the stats. In the heydays of the LEH permits it must have been real hard to find a bull to come up with averages like that.

Cheers,
4Ster

[dana]

They certainly will, and so will I, and all the hardcore guys who live to hunt.

But what happens when the hardcore guys are all that's left? The hunting community in BC would have a very small voice, and pushing to keep our rights would be a pretty tough go.

This is about recruitment, is it not? Honestly, I don't know jack about the elk in the koots, but I'm all for any reasonable strategy to recruit more hunters, especially youth. If opening up a 3 pt season, with no conservation concerns, would help to bring in more hunters, let's git 'er done.

My 2 bits.:cool:


If what GG says and the Hunter Recruitment Strategy has been dropped before it ever got the the Leg, then there really isn't anything we as hunters can do other than keep on getting our kids and friends and family members involved in the hertitage. It is obvious to me that it ain't a priority for government. Just look at the Region 5 mule deer debacle as an example. They flat out rejected a solid proposal from the BCWF and sent the message that they could give a ratsass when it comes to recruitment. Those that are talking smack here know that. They say that hunters are their worst enemies and they live by that code. FD is indeed his worst enemy.

[Fisher-Dude]

If what GG says and the Hunter Recruitment Strategy has been dropped before it ever got the the Leg, then there really isn't anything we as hunters can do other than keep on getting our kids and friends and family members involved in the hertitage. It is obvious to me that it ain't a priority for government. Just look at the Region 5 mule deer debacle as an example. They flat out rejected a solid proposal from the BCWF and sent the message that they could give a ratsass when it comes to recruitment. Those that are talking smack here know that. They say that hunters are their worst enemies and they live by that code. FD is indeed his worst enemy.

What has been dropped is the Wildlife Act Review, not the HR&RS. The HR&RS is in full swing. It didn't need legislative review.

So. What have you got to bark about now?

[Kody94]

Total elk at the top SSSSter. Peak harvest was 1700 bulls. Some of those years of DiMarchism are close to 4000 total elk! :eek:

Yah... :eek:

I am very curious about the 2006 & 2007 numbers.

You gotta admit, the 2005 numbers are pretty good. 1229 bulls - all 6pts. 433 cows/calves. That's not all that far off the good ole days.

I don't doubt 1700 would be sustainable, although I really want to see the numbers.

And how its done is very important to me, as you can see from my previous posts on the homesteader/migratory elk issue.

[dana]

Also, are the number of days per elk inclusive of the LEH permits? If so, that throws a wrinkle into the stats. In the heydays of the LEH permits it must have been real hard to find a bull to come up with averages like that.

Cheers,
4Ster

From my experience during the 80's I would say the hunter days have the LEH permits included. I can remember hunting one year during the peak of the rut and during the entire 7 day period with our family and friends and only seeing less than a handfull of elk amongst the group. On the other hand, I can remember going for the late draws and having 4 of us tagged out quite fast.

Another interesting thing to look at would be the harvest of bulls during the years where the 3 point season was early during the rut. If I remember correctly that the early 80's had an early 3 point season and a late 6 point season. Then during late 80's they switched that around and went with a early 6 point season and a late 3 point season. I'm sure the harvest would have been greater the years they had the early 3 point season because of the rut. Knowing those numbers would be critical in determining if a 3 point season is viable, where to situate it.

[dana]

What has been dropped is the Wildlife Act Review, not the HR&RS. The HR&RS is in full swing. It didn't need legislative review.

So. What have you got to bark about now?

So answer me this ol' wise man, why did the Region 5 manager dismiss the BCWF proposal which gave great thought towards Hunter Recruitment????? And if the Hunter Recruitment is a go, and didn't need legislative review, which proposals are being implemented???? I have asked this question several times and yet those in the know have refused to answer which leads me to believe they either don't know the answer or they don't like the answer.

[Fisher-Dude]

Yah... :eek:

I am very curious about the 2006 & 2007 numbers.

You gotta admit, the 2005 numbers are pretty good. 1229 bulls - all 6pts. 433 cows/calves. That's not all that far off the good ole days.

I don't doubt 1700 would be sustainable, although I really want to see the numbers.

And how its done is very important to me, as you can see from my previous posts on the homesteader/migratory elk issue.

I'm not sure how many of the 1229 bulls were taken on bow-only, and therefore not necessarily 6 points? We'll likely never know.

I'm expecting the 2007 bull harvest to be down a bit due to that brutally hot weather we got the first 2 weeks of the season. Not much fur was hitting the ground according to the gossip. I know it didn't start to get good for us until 2 days before we had to leave :???:. Oh well, it was a fun and relaxing hunt anyways.

[Kody94]

From my experience during the 80's I would say the hunter days have the LEH permits included. I can remember hunting one year during the peak of the rut and during the entire 7 day period with our family and friends and only seeing less than a handfull of elk amongst the group. On the other hand, I can remember going for the late draws and having 4 of us tagged out quite fast.

Another interesting thing to look at would be the harvest of bulls during the years where the 3 point season was early during the rut. If I remember correctly that the early 80's had an early 3 point season and a late 6 point season. Then during late 80's they switched that around and went with a early 6 point season and a late 3 point season. I'm sure the harvest would have been greater the years they had the early 3 point season because of the rut. Knowing those numbers would be critical in determining if a 3 point season is viable, where to situate it.

Very good point. I have just kicked myself again for recycling my old regs.

I have neglected to consider that potential influence on the numbers. I do recall the 6pt season in the rut, followed by a 3pt season in October. Shot my first bull during one of those seasons in 1994. Oct 17 to be precise...a 5x5 mere moments after having a huge 6pt at 30yards but obscured by alders...good times. :)

Cheers,
4Ster

[J_T]

2006 Elk Summary Region 4 (MOE Estimate as of Nov/07)

Bulls
EK 830
WK 173

Cows
EK 342
WK 39

Calves
EK 102
WK 17

Total ELk Harvest
EK 1274
WK 228

Total Elk harvested in the region 1502

[Kody94]

I'm not sure how many of the 1229 bulls were taken on bow-only, and therefore not necessarily 6 points? We'll likely never know.

I'm expecting the 2007 bull harvest to be down a bit due to that brutally hot weather we got the first 2 weeks of the season. Not much fur was hitting the ground according to the gossip. I know it didn't start to get good for us until 2 days before we had to leave :???:. Oh well, it was a fun and relaxing hunt anyways.

Before I took a short hiatus from the koots in 2003/4, I was pretty close to the bow stats. 10 bulls was a big number early on. I recall one season that pushed 30 bulls!! Not sure what the bow numbers were like in 2005 (JT?) but I'd be surprised if they accounted for 100 animals.

I can corroborate your story for 2007. I took the first week off to bowhunt....it was pretty slow. Got some good action in the latter part of September and early October though.

All the guys in our office did real well this year overall though...if that reflects the trend at all, it could still have been a pretty good year.

[Kody94]

2006 Elk Summary Region 4 (MOE Estimate as of Nov/07)

Bulls
EK 830
WK 173

Cows
EK 342
WK 39

Calves
EK 102
WK 17

Total ELk Harvest
EK 1274
WK 228

Total Elk harvested in the region 1502

Thanks J_T. :)

Since the numbers above include all of region 4, 1003 bulls for 2006 is a pretty decent number too.

How 'bout those bowhunter stats too? ;)

Cheers
4Ster

[6616]

I posted my question above while you were posting this. Thanks.

Do you have the actual numbers, by year? Can 6616 provide them?

I thought I recalled 6616 quoting a 1700 number for the 70's? (and 10 trucks at every landing :) ) If thats the case though the herd was probably smaller than ours.

If 1700 was sustainable then, would it be sustainable now?

Would loosening the regs result in a higher harvest than was experienced in the 70s/80s given the changes to habitat? The vulnerability of elk would likely be higher now, given all the roading/logging etc, and increases in technology that we benefit from today.


1700 was just one year, as FD points out the average was around 1200 to 1400 bulls. It was obviously sustainable because the elk population was increasing and peaked in 1984/85 which prompted the LEH.

Why was this harvest sustainable and why did the population continue to grow under this high harvest level? Well obviously we weren't shooting cows yet and population manipulation is not usually possible by shooting only males. Also in the 70's and early 80's we were logging the Trench tributary valleys heavily, large clearcuts and thus producing a lot of summer range. This isn't happening today and the upper tribs do not have the same carrying capacity. This quite likely explains why elk are not using the upper tribs as much and probably is a contibuting factor as to why there's so many non-migratory elk today.

Additionally, we've been losing 2000 to 3000 Has of winter range in the Trench annually to forest ingrowth, that's a lot of winter habitat lost since the mid-eighties explaining the current high ag land depredation levels. So a lot is different, we don't have as much summer range, or winter range, and the seasonal transition ranges are becoming the new summer ranges. We may not be capable of carrying any more elk then there currently are. We had about 35,000 elk in 1984. It's obvious we cannot carry that many anymore.

None of this means that 1700 would not be sustainable today. Recruitment is high and a sustainable harvest only equates to total population anyway. I expect there's 25,000 or more elk so 1700 bull harvest is only 6% of the population. Thus i suspect an average of 1400 to 1600 bulls should be a sustainable harvest and still leave some room to kill a bunch of non-migratory cows.

Besides, we shouldn't have to worry about sustainability if we're shooting non-migratory elk, the objective is to get rid of them. We do want the migratory component to grow thus replacing the non-migratory harvest so as to maintain overall numbers so we have to harvest them more conservatively. This means we cannot harvest migratory cows. It would be hard to hurt that component with bull harvest alone. History has shown that conception rates and rut timing was not impacted even with a bull/cow ratio of 15/100 and we now have 30 bulls per 100 cows.

We should be able to kill over 2500 elk per year in the EK if the cow harvest is isolated to the non-migratories.

I believe the 10 trucks on every landing referred to the 80's when all the LEH tags were available, but things were pretty busy in the '70s as well because elk hunting in the EK was very good and it was the only elk hunting game in BC at the time.

Here's another consideration. When the LEH tags were decreased in 88, 89 and 90, the population continued to decline for a couple more years before stabilizing and finally began to increase in the early 90s. Why? The common thought is that the population was decreased too rapidly and got too far out of balance with predator populations. We hardly saw any wolves in the EK until the 80's, then they were everywhere and we were rapidly reducing elk numbers at the same time. We created a predator pit that took several years to settle out. Populations were increasing between nicely 1992 and 1996 until the killer winter of 96/97 drove the popluation down again to 12,000 to 15,000 estimated.

It's a long and complicated history, and the lesson should be to be careful not to reduce the population into a prey/predator imbalance again, and that's possible if we panic over the the non-migratory cow elk objective. Shooting buylls won't effect the population enough to cause this, but cow harvests can cause a rapid and dramatic reduction if not done carefully.

Right now, based on shear numbers alone, there is opportunity to increase the bull harvest.

[Fisher-Dude]

So answer me this ol' wise man, why did the Region 5 manager dismiss the BCWF proposal which gave great thought towards Hunter Recruitment????? And if the Hunter Recruitment is a go, and didn't need legislative review, which proposals are being implemented???? I have asked this question several times and yet those in the know have refused to answer which leads me to believe they either don't know the answer or they don't like the answer.

I don't know what the region 5 manager's motivations were. You seem hung up on it, so do us a favour, make a phone call tomorrow (25 cents - or you can use BC Access for free), and tell us what you find out.

Goat Guy can tell you all about the implementation strategies. And, there are some things he won't (yet) tell you about that are in the works.

I know the electronic licensing is a go (starting with fishing this year), the CORE/PAL intergration is in discussion stages (feds won't move fast with an election on the way), regulations standardization is on the table (eg reg 3 and 8 are being proposed for some alignments), the LEH review has happened, a whitetailed doe proposal is on the table for junior hunters province-wide, this thread is about the management of quantity over quality in setting seasons, the landowner enfranchisement proposal has been completed, B.O.W. was very well attended last year (I volunteered to work it, didn't see you there?), hunting simulators have been purchased by clubs (I arranged one for 40 cadets to use, have you?)...

Lots to be done, but lots has already happened, which is great to see. I think this government is much more driven to deliver results than previous administrations, so I'm optimistic that progress will continue.

[6616]

Hmmm. I am not gonna argue with you. :) In the Elk Valley they didn't seem to be climbing though. :)

Funny though that the number of hunter days per elk went up, and the number of elk hunters declined during that period. Was there way less cow/calf LEHs each year of that period?

Also, are the number of days per elk inclusive of the LEH permits? If so, that throws a wrinkle into the stats. In the heydays of the LEH permits it must have been real hard to find a bull to come up with averages like that.

Cheers,
4Ster


Elk population was increasing between 1991 and 2006 but it was slow and insignificant, we still had a serious predator problem. There were much fewer antlerless LEH tags during that era.

[Kody94]

That helps alot, 6616. Thanks!


1700 was just one year, as FD points out the average was around 1200 to 1400 bulls. It was obviously sustainable because the elk population was increasing and peaked in 1984/85 which prompted the LEH.

If 1200 to 1400 is the target, then we don't have far to go.

Why was this harvest sustainable and why did the population continue to grow under this high harvest level? Well obviously we weren't shooting cows yet and population manipulation is not usually possible by shooting only males. Also in the 70's and early 80's we were logging the Trench tributary valleys heavily, large clearcuts and thus producing a lot of summer range. This isn't happening today and the upper tribs do not have the same carrying capacity. This quite likely explains why elk are not using the upper tribs as much and probably is a contibuting factor as to why there's so many non-migratory elk today.

Good point. Although there are some tribs that are getting hit pretty hard today!

Additionally, we've been losing 2000 to 3000 Has of winter range in the Trench annually to forest ingrowth, that's a lot of winter habitat lost since the mid-eighties explaining the current high ag land depredation levels. So a lot is different, we don't have as much summer range, or winter range, and the seasonal transition ranges are becoming the new summer ranges. We may not be capable of carrying any more elk then there currently are. We had about 35,000 elk in 1984. It's obvious we cannot carry that many anymore.

None of this means that 1700 would not be sustainable today. Recruitment is high and a sustainable harvest only equates to total population anyway. I expect there's 25,000 or more elk so 1700 bull harvest is only 6% of the population. Thus i suspect an average of 1400 to 1600 bulls should be a sustainable harvest and still leave some room to kill a bunch of non-migratory cows.

I don't disagree. We need to wrap our minds around how best to hit that target. I think a short and early 3pt season in the trench would get us there.

Besides, we shouldn't have to worry about sustainability if we're shooting non-migratory elk, the objective is to get rid of them. ABSOLUTELY!! We do want the migratory component to grow thus replacing the non-migratory harvest so as to maintain overall numbers so we have to harvest them more conservatively. This means we cannot harvest migratory cows. It would be hard to hurt that component with bull harvest alone. History has shown that conception rates and rut timing was not impacted even with a bull/cow ratio of 15/100 and we now have 30 bulls per 100 cows. You are talking my language. :)

We should be able to kill over 2500 elk per year in the EK if the cow harvest is isolated to the non-migratories. I don't doubt that.

I believe the 10 trucks on every landing referred to the 80's when all the LEH tags were available, but things were pretty busy in the '70s as well because elk hunting in the EK was very good and it was the only elk hunting game in BC at the time.

Here's another consideration. When the LEH tags were decreased in 88, 89 and 90, the population continued to decline for a couple more years before stabilizing and finally began to increase in the early 90s. Why? The common thought is that the population was decreased too rapidly and got too far out of balance with predator populations. We hardly saw any wolves in the EK until the 80's, then they were everywhere and we were rapidly reducing elk numbers at the same time. We created a predator pit that took several years to settle out. Populations were increasing between nicely 1992 and 1996 until the killer winter of 96/97 drove the popluation down again to 12,000 to 15,000 estimated.

I believe the predator theory but I think contraception rates were an issue too (I recall discussion about both...low calf/cow ratios and black bears/wolves hitting those calves pretty hard). I wonder if the population was rebounding in the trench better than the Elk Valley, from 92 to 96? The numbers sure seemed low back then.

It's a long and complicated history, and the lesson should be to be careful not to reduce the population into a prey/predator imbalance again, and that's possible if we panic over the the non-migratory cow elk objective. Shooting buylls won't effect the population enough to cause this, but cow harvests can cause a rapid and dramatic reduction if not done carefully. I agree.

Right now, based on shear numbers alone, there is opportunity to increase the bull harvest.

Thanks again. That was a great summary.

Cheers,
4ster

[6616]

That helps alot, 6616. Thanks!



Thanks again. That was a great summary.

Cheers,
4ster

Conception rates were OK, that's when we had to send in cow fetus and they determined conceptio held above 80%.. You'e right about predation on calves, that was a big issue effecting recruitment.

[J_T]

Bowhunters have always maximized opportunity placing quality in the hands of the experience rather than the harvest.

If we have fear about opening up the opportunity, I'm confused why we aren't willing to test the waters by opening it up to archery as a first step. Or simply creating the opportunity in an archery only, or archery specific area. (IE tac on a 3 pt archery season to the existing GOS)

For background, until the advent of youth rifle opportunity, archery only was the first 9 days of Sept.

In the early 90's the season was for a 6 pt bull. Just like GOS. Sure saw lots of cows, spikes, 3's and 5's in those days. Up close.

In the mid 90's (approximately 97/98) we lobbied successfully for the archery season to be for 3 pt. Sure saw lots of cows and spikes in those days.

By the 2000/01 season we had achieved an any bull harvest for most MU's in the EK.

By 05/06 we had successfully made the case that an any elk in Zone X provided a management solution to certain needs.

The harvests never exceeded 100 animals. During the early 90's with a 6 pt restriction, harvest levels were around 25 - 50 animals depending on the year. Bowhunter numbers were around 1200

By the late 90's with the 3 pt harvest, hunter numbers were starting to reach 2400 (estimates) and harvest levels were increasing as well. I don't think much over 50 - 75 animals. In those days, reporting was compulsory.

With the any elk in Zone X archery hunter numbers have increased, showing there are many that consider an archery hunt "a hunting opportunity".

I don't have any approved paper on the subject, however talking with MOE and local shops, I don't think numbers of archery harvested elk the last couple of years have exceeded 100 animals. Now my stats didn't come from a report filed by a phd, but they do come from a group of guys that care and a couple of guys that dog people real well for information.

[6616]

Conception rates were OK, that's when we had to send in cow fetus and they determined conceptio held above 80%.. You'e right about predation on calves, that was a big issue effecting recruitment.


You are probably right about the Elk Valley, seems to me Kent P told me recovery was much slower up there.

[Kody94]

Thanks J_T. That's pretty much how I recall it too.

Wasn't there a year or two in and around the start of the 6pt season that the bull bow-harvest was only about 10-15 animals? Its stuck in my head for some reason.

You guys are keeping me up way too late. :)

Cheers,
4Ster

[6616]

That helps alot, 6616. Thanks!



Thanks again. That was a great summary.

Cheers,
4ster

There is no set target harvest 4ster, the Branch is supposed to harvest according to private land depredation levels and Crown Land range conditions according to the Elk Management Plan. There also is no poplulation target or objective.

[Kody94]

There also is no poplulation target or objective.

Its too bad about that one. We forestry guys have always wished there was a target, so we could consider it in our development plans. Vulnerability/access is always a huge consideration for us, especially when numbers are low.

Personally, I'd like to see 40,000 animals, with as many as possible occupying the backcountry in the summer/fall. If the US states can have hundreds of thousands of elk, surely we could sustain 40 or 50k. Of course, good luck getting that one by the ranchers, as they all come back in the winter. :) Would be nice though.

Would make it much easier to keep all of us "like minded" (not!) hunters happy, eh J_T?

Cheers,
4ster

[dana]

Does anyone have the hunter stats for the Peace Elk during the same period. Would be interesting to see if when the elk hunter numbers fell off in the Koots if they then were picked up in the Peace. Just because hunters stopped hunting elk in the Koots doesn't mean we lost them to hunting altogether now does it?

FD,
I have to ask, do you have kids? I get the impression you don't. Maybe if you did, you would understand that traveling around the province to events to so-called 'help' recruitment, isn't in the cards if you indeed care about the 'recruitment' of your own family. I really don't care what you have done for recruitment. Bragging about it seems kind of shallow as oneupsmenship doesn't seem like good rationale to volunteer. I do know one thing, and that is you don't know me. You have no clue what I have done and doing for the future of our hunting heritage. To make rude assumptions slamming me and other hunters just proves you are one inscure guy. Your constant slagging of hunters on this site is really in poor taste. If you think others on this site read that and then go 'Wow, dude is so smart. How could I have been so wrong. I must change my thinkin to be exactly like Dude' then you need a reality check. There are ways to discuss the issues at hand, and you've yet to discover those ways.

[Brambles]

Did any of you guys actually leave the computer today........ 15 pages on this one thread since this morning....damn

[6616]

Its too bad about that one. We forestry guys have always wished there was a target, so we could consider it in our development plans. Vulnerability/access is always a huge consideration for us, especially when numbers are low.

Personally, I'd like to see 40,000 animals, with as many as possible occupying the backcountry in the summer/fall. If the US states can have hundreds of thousands of elk, surely we could sustain 40 or 50k. Of course, good luck getting that one by the ranchers, as they all come back in the winter. :) Would be nice though.

Would make it much easier to keep all of us "like minded" (not!) hunters happy, eh J_T?

Cheers,
4ster

Colorado, Arizona, Wyoming, etc have a huge ranching industry as well and they seem to have found a way to deal with it and maintain high elk populations, of course not without some issues.

Bob Forbes figured we actually had the habitat capability for over 40,000 elk, but of course there is a suitability issue with ingrowth/encroachment on the NDT4 winter range land base, and it does not consider other social factors like the ranchers who only grudgingly agree that 50% of the available forage should be allocated to wildlife.

Bob also figured current suitability should carry about 24,000 elk.

[6616]

Did any of you guys actually leave the computer today........ 15 pages on this one thread since this morning....damn


It's getting a bit much alright, 2 hours in the morning to deal with Federation e-mails and another 2 or 3 hours in the evening on HBC, and even though I'm retired I've got some work to do as well one of these days. Wait until summer, I'll be outside doing other stuff and the computer can go to H.

[dana]

Brambles,
I didn't see a computer until I got home from work. Supposedly I need to donate my internet money to whatever freakshow org Fisherdude is part of. I guess he doesn't realize that when you have a family, you are not the only one that uses the computer in your family. The internet bill isn't just for surfin hunting sites where you can here from know-it-alls that say you are 'f***in up the hunting for your kids.' Maybe Fisherdude should sit down and actually read what he writes and actually see how much harm he is doing to the hunting heritage instead of patting himself on the back as somekind of saviour with the chicken little motto, 'The Sky is falling. The Sky is falling.' :)

[Brambles]

Brambles,
I didn't see a computer until I got home from work. Supposedly I need to donate my internet money to whatever freakshow org Fisherdude is part of. I guess he doesn't realize that when you have a family, you are not the only one that uses the computer in your family. The internet bill isn't just for surfin hunting sites where you can here from know-it-alls that say you are 'f***in up the hunting for your kids.' Maybe Fisherdude should sit down and actually read what he writes and actually see how much harm he is doing to the hunting heritage instead of patting himself on the back as somekind of saviour with the chicken little motto, 'The Sky is falling. The Sky is falling.' :)

After coming home today and seen 10 pages of stuff on this thread and a couple hours later another 5 pages, I just decided not to even bother responding to any of it, its like missing a few weeks of school, I feel too far behind:smile:

I had a very unsucessful day shed hunting, although it was very fun. I wore some fat of my dog, and some more off myself. Seen some animals, got some video of a real nice bull elk. Still any day on the mountain is much better than fighting on the puter all day.

The hunting season sure wore off early this year, can't wait for spring bear to open so guys don't get so stirr crazy.

Brambles

[hunter1947]

I'm sick of this thread ,I have said my peace ,you others can talk about this elk thing as much as you wish ,but at the end your opinion its not going to solve a thing. The only way this will be done is as I stated back in one of my threads ,put our thoughts together and send it into the management for elk. Hears the way I feel with my last words on this thread. You have to conserve elk in order have a good population of them. Your can't open up for 3 points or better for the entire season ,it will devastate the population ,if they do you will have the numbers drop to a low number after a few years ,this could bring in an LEH season especially if there was a bad winter in one of those years when the elk population is getting at a low number. I know that everyone in BC will be up there hunting these elk if they do open it up for 3 point or better ,it will be a slaughter field http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif. The number of elk what i seen in the last 10 years has increased buy 60% in population in the EK. Why screw it up now ????. This is why the elk population has come back in numbers over the last 10 years. #1,Impelmenting a 6 point season ,#2 less hunting presser ,#3 milder winters #4 having a proper bull to cow racial. In my books the elk management has done a good job in the past 10 years of managing the elk in the EK. There is only one thing that I myself would like to see changed is to open the season at a latter date for elk ,the time frame would be from Oct 1 to the Oct 31 ,6 point season only. Have an LEH for 5 days for any bull starting Oct 26 to Oct 31. Then see what the outcome will bring in a couple years ,you all would be surprised at the outcome ,would be more calf recruitment's. You members can go on all you want with this debate I'm not going to be a part of it anymore. If you voted to open up 3 point or better thats your option ,go ahead and open it up for a few years ,you will see the numbers numbers drop like a rock ,then you are setting yourselves up a posible LEH season only. 10 years ago it almost came to that if you remember. Good luck to all I'm out of this debate ,I have said whats on my mind ,take it or leave it. I think my elk knowledge after hunting in the EK for 38 years i should now a little bit about whats a good thing and whats a bad thing for conserving the elk.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

[BCrams]

hunter

Its understandable how it can be frustrating. Many felt the same way when the initial proposed changes were not voted in favour by the local game clubs in the Kootenays. (i.e., the short 10 day 3 pt season)

[Stone Sheep Steve]

FD,
I have to ask, do you have kids? I get the impression you don't. Maybe if you did, you would understand that traveling around the province to events to so-called 'help' recruitment, isn't in the cards if you indeed care about the 'recruitment' of your own family. I really don't care what you have done for recruitment. Bragging about it seems kind of shallow as oneupsmenship doesn't seem like good rationale to volunteer. I do know one thing, and that is you don't know me. You have no clue what I have done and doing for the future of our hunting heritage. To make rude assumptions slamming me and other hunters just proves you are one inscure guy. Your constant slagging of hunters on this site is really in poor taste. If you think others on this site read that and then go 'Wow, dude is so smart. How could I have been so wrong. I must change my thinkin to be exactly like Dude' then you need a reality check. There are ways to discuss the issues at hand, and you've yet to discover those ways.

Here's my take for what it's worth.................................

"The Sky is Falling"....Let me ask you this....How many times have you witnessed the Gov't taking a pro-active stance on anything? By the time the Gov't is willing to do something about anything, don't look up as you don't have much time before the sky nails you in the friggin noodle! You don't think there's a problem??

While you may pat yourself on the back for raising yours kids "in the tradition" (and I admire you and others for doing that) in reality, it has done nothing for the betterment of hunter recruitment in this province. It's something that you would have done regardless of hunter numbers.......yet you have the audacity to slag F/D for actually trying to do something about it. You sit on the sidelines saying you don't think "this will do anything for hunter recruitment" and "that won't do anything for hunter recruitment" but what have you done to recruit hunters other than your family?? I'm not saying that everyone has to be leaders in this but barking from the sidelines while other are actively trying their best is arrogance at it's finest!

You complain about the debockle in Reg 5...well, maybe if they were a couple of guys like F/D working for the clubs up there the situation might be different.

F/D only stated what he had done after guys were complaining and slagging from the sidelines. You know what?? He Gawd-damn deserves a pat on the back!!!:cool:

And no he doesn't have kids....so he has nothing to gain by efforts as he'll be long pushing up daisies before this is over(sorry F/D:-(). All the more reason to be proud of his efforts.

We need more people in this province(and world) like F/D that are willing to step up to the plate and fight what they believe in. Barking about what people are doing wrong or what they are not doing accomplishes SFA.

IF you think you can do better then DO IT!!

Again as Boxhitches sigline states "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem"

Complain about the mods...complain about the caribou situation........complain about hunter recruitment....compain about relaxing seasons............complain, complain,complain, complain...............

"Legendary Shitdisturber" might be better replaced by "Legendary Complainer":roll:.

I know you don't give a rats ass about what others think of you so this post should mean nothing to you.

Thanks. I feel better now;-).

SSS

[tomahawk]

This thread is going south real fast. Like Wayne (Hunter1947) says and I am too " I'm out of here"

[springpin]

yup, south quick...

[GoatGuy]

Yah... :eek:

I am very curious about the 2006 & 2007 numbers.

You gotta admit, the 2005 numbers are pretty good. 1229 bulls - all 6pts. 433 cows/calves. That's not all that far off the good ole days.

I don't doubt 1700 would be sustainable, although I really want to see the numbers.

And how its done is very important to me, as you can see from my previous posts on the homesteader/migratory elk issue.

This is kind of the way I look at it too.

Bull harvest is way up - particularly when you compare habitat avail to harvest and also consider the fact you're targeting 6pt or better vs 3 pt and up before. That, in itself, speak volumes not to mention the seasons in the 80s were sustainable.

Now, look at the bull:cow ratio, compare the current harvest to the past then ask the question:

Are we at max sustainable harvest?


When it comes to sustainable harvest we shouldn't be managing the hunters or the access, we should be managing the wildlife. That is a major distinction. Currently we are managing hunters and access in many areas, not wildlife - as a result nobody goes hunting and nobody harvests anything.

If there's potential to raise the harvest we should be doing that - not through LEH, through GOS. If it has to be baby steps then fine but lets get things moving in the right direction - over-harvest on the more prolific species such as elk, deer and to an extent moose doesn't happen overnight. It takes a couple years to really knock them back and as you can see it doesn't take long for them to rebound either.

[dana]

SSS,
You must have misread my posts. I haven't slagged FD at all. Instead the guy came on here slagging everyone that disagreed with him and then proceeded to slag me and my family, who he knows nothing about. You know my internet persona well enough to know that if someone wants to take a run at me, they better damn well have thick skin.

If you truly believe that making it a priority to raise your kids up in the hunting heritage does nothing for hunter recruitment, then hunter's in this province have no hope whatsoever. If you think that my only influence is on my 2 kids, you are sadly mistaken. You can talk till your blue in the face about programs and iniatives and the such, but if you don't take people out hunting, you will never win them over. Do you know how many 'first' animals I have been apart of??? I can tell you way too many to count. Do you infect people with your passion???? I can tell ya, because I am so passionate about my lifestyle, I have won over many many non hunters and even several anti-hunters. Think of hunter recruitment the same as the 'random act of kindness' theory. It definately works that way. If you are passionate about what you love, it is very infectious. Just look at internet sites like this one. Do you know how many people have PM'd me or emailed me telling me they are inspired by my love for hunting and how I include my family in it. I could go on and on, but why??? It really is non of you business how I promote our heritage now is it? If FD does things differently, is he somehow a better man than me???? Remember he is the one that attacked me, told me and my brother we were 'f***ing up hunting for our kids'. Why did he say that???? Does he know me? Nope! Is the sky falling today at this very moment. Nope! Do we have the best hunting in the world within BC? You Betcha!

[frenchbar]

SSS you would be surprized on how people like Dana and passionate people like your self have an effect on hunter recruitment.i grew up in a hunter family , when i first started hunting ,i couldnt get enough ,i lived and breathed it .but over the yrs starting a large family it started to slip away from me. In the last couple yrs i started reading all the posts of the fine hunters of this province and it s people like your self Dana and others that have got the fire burning in me again and this has rubbed off on my 2 boys as well,and if i never found this forum it could well be that my sons wouldnt have got the hunting bug.ive got the bug back thanx to people like you,and ive passed the bug on to my boys. im one that have pm Dana and personaly thanked him for his passionate posts and getting the fire burning again. passionate hunters do have an effect on hunter recruitment.i know a youngster that joined this forum recently ..steelhead sabo that has just passed his core and is ready to start his hunting and i will be a big part of showing him the way .just my 2 cents.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Dana
I am in no way standing up for FD's post where he took it personal. I'm sure he regrets that post(but I can't speak for him).......we've all (well some of us) made that mistake before.

But, I understand his frustration when people like you repeatedly slag all the studies done and all the hard work that has gone into implementing those changes which we have control over.

"That's not going to work" ..."This is not going to work" ..."How do expect that to work?"......wears people down eventually.

Afterall, these people are going on the only information that is available and are trying to reverse the trends. They are not complaing about it. They are actually doing something.

I applaud you for "raising your kids in the tradition" and also taking out their friends as well(which I was not aware of) but how many "Steve Danas" are there out in this province?? How many kids have Dads like you that spend countless days in the field each year? How many kids have Dads that can find game just as easily as a city Dad can find a Starbucks?
How many Dad's shoot monster mulies almost every year? How many Dads have to buy extra freezers for their game meat? How many kids have Uncles with cougar hounds? Are you getting my drift??

Hunter recruitment has to target the masses....not the elitists.

Think of a pyramid with the elitists at the top and the novices at the bottom.

I used you as an example but many other guys on this site would be considered hare-core by many others.........but remember 99.5% of those guys don't have what it takes:biggrin:............so that leaves you in the top 0.05%. You would need to recruit a swack of hunters to make up for the rest of us regular guys.

Do you see my point??

Maybe if Steve Danas made up 99.5% of the hunters in BC we might be in a better situation(no I'm not sucking up...just take a look at my previous post:roll:).............but, unfortunately, this is not the case.

So what do we have to go on??? A few studies and some hard-working individuals trying to implement those strategies.

At least some people are doing something for the masses.

Keep you eye on the sky. Once it's in motion it will be hard to stop it. Better to keep it where it is.

SSS

[chevy]

This thread is fu#@*d, goes from a poll on region 4 elk to hunter recruitment what the hell, and hunter1947 is right it will be a slaughter because you will get some shi# heads who have never hunted elk in their lifetime down here shooting elk, and slaughtering everything, think about it 2 years of 3 spike and better and guess what the elk will be thinned out, just like the mule deer were and now after how many years? the mule deer are finally coming back nicely, im not too sure about you guys but i dont want to see that happen ever, I say leave the season the way it is and if you want to shoot an elk, go learn how to shoot a bow, then you have 10 days to get your damn elk, but like i said before, i like hunting elk, 3 spike and better well that just isnt hunting to me really, if i wanted to kill something that easy i will go buy a cow from a farmer somehwere and shoot it, to me i think a 3 point season is a waste of time!!!!!!!
and remember, there is nothing better than having your adrenaline pumping and that 5 spike bull is coming in, and there is nothing you can do about it, but take pictures and film it, to me that is more of a thrill than just shooting it,!!!!!!!!!!!

[frenchbar]

I guess im a SHITHEAD eh Chevy .ive never hunted Elk. Time to grow up little man.

[Fisher-Dude]

I guess im a SHITHEAD eh Chevy .ive never hunted Elk. Time to grow up little man.

I'd like to see 20,000 new shitheads hunting in the next few years. It's my goal to help recruit as many shitheads as I can. Frenchie, a shithead like you can hang out at my campfire anyday. :wink:

[frenchbar]

I'd like to see 20,000 new shitheads hunting in the next few years. It's my goal to help recruit as many shitheads as I can. Frenchie, a shithead like you can hang out at my campfire anyday. :wink:Ive been called worse:wink:by the way i like weisers and coke at the campfire:-D

[horshur]

Stone sheep......the base is who is left...they didn't leave. The boy's that left.....they are not a base.

Fisher as just being passionate....I would expect nothing else. I think that's a good thing!. Only other person who accused me of the same was my mother in law.LOL:-P I have not changed her mind either.

Truth is I don't know what any of you guys have done.....don't even know many of you guys name. And you don't know either.

If you look in the poll....you will know where I stand:wink:

With no apology's I stand for the traditional family and believe if it remained that way we would not be having this discussion........My Dad had two boys (not replacement by the way) his boy's had three boy's and two girls...Because of my dad........probably eight hunters were born. That is the power of tradition!!!!!! And within that family we have friends that traditionally come up every spring for bear and every fall for deer.......I wouldn't want it any other way!!!!

You guy's we need both.....we especially need the family's that hunt(traditional or not, my dad learned to hunt from a step-dad) regardless of the restrictive seasons......they are the base! They will be here when the fair-weather folks go home. They will hunt no matter what the ego driven educated elite decide for us. If hunting depended on those who left....we would already be dead!
JMOYMMV
Andy Dana

[dana]

SSS,
Did you or FD ever look to see what I voted for on this poll???? The 'Recruitment Camp' actually swayed me over last year, but they are on the verge of loosing me due to their constant berating of hunters on this site. Just because someone might disagree with you doesn't mean that gives you the right to personally attack them, call them names and the such. This is what the Recruitment Camp do again and again on this site. Everything is the 'hunter's fault', 'hunters are their worst enemies' 'selfish' blah blah blah. It is sad, that they themselves are their worst enemies. The constant attacks do nothing but divide hunters not bring them together. FD's attack on me and my family was flat out WRONG!!! He should be man enough to apologize.

"I applaud you for "raising your kids in the tradition" and also taking out their friends as well(which I was not aware of) but how many "Steve Danas" are there out in this province?? How many kids have Dads like you that spend countless days in the field each year? How many kids have Dads that can find game just as easily as a city Dad can find a Starbucks?
How many Dad's shoot monster mulies almost every year? How many Dads have to buy extra freezers for their game meat? How many kids have Uncles with cougar hounds? Are you getting my drift??"

Do you know why I post up so many pics of success, wildlife, family outings ect on these sites??? It is to show people that 'Steve Dana' is no different than them. He is just an average hunter, that just happens to also be a passionate hunter. If 'Steve Dana' can take his family out into the great outdoors then maybe they can too. It really isn't that hard. If I were an elitist, I'd keep all my pics to myself. I know this because I've had many elitists giver me $hit because they too feel I am ruining hunting. :-P I want to show people that hunting is way way more than just killing an animal. It is a lifestyle. It is a passion. It can be their lifestlye. It can be their passion. Somewhere on this thread someone said that the hard-core hunters will never be lost as they are passionate and will hunt regardless of what the regs say. Did anyone ever think in order to keep hunters, we then need to build in them the passion for our heritage???

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Oh now the Sky is Falling is it FD. Our hunting privaleges are about to become extinct over the fact of 6 point versus 3 point elk seasons. Talk about over dramatic. It is indeed getting old. Selfish, selfish, selfish. Blah, blah, blah. Who's the selfish ones???? Don't see you railing against anything else other that areas YOU want to hunt. Maybe open up the West Koots so YOU might just have a chance at one of those monster bulls eh????? Keep throwing the words Hunter Recruitment out there to justify your own selfish goals maybe???? The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Actually Dana, it appears you laid down the first insult....at least between the two of you....
F/D selfish?? I can think of many words to describe FD but selfish isn't one of them. Why would he work so hard to get the youth seasons implemented in the OK when he has no kids?? For his own good??

Continuously undermining peoples efforts to do something that they believe in will only get negative results(and sometimes over-reactions).

We're all on the same side but we can go about it in different ways. Recuit them anyway we can. If we ever again get too many hunters we'll adjust the seasons when we get there. That would be a good problem to have:-).

SSS

[chevy]

well it is true then seriously anybody can drive down the road not even getting out of their vehicles and shoot a little bull elk i see so many every year, that could be shot, if ya wanna open the 3 spike elk season you might as well invite the world over to hunt them because soon they will all be gone and guess what no elk hunting, is that what ya want to do, really i dont know about you but i love elk hunting and quite frankly dont give a damn if you do or not, i just dont wanna see it effed up for many many years to come, and for the kids that wanna hunt them when they are older, wow some guys just get pissed off over the stupidest things really this thread was supposed to be a poll, not a bitch fest of recruiting hunters, think about it!!!!!!

[chevy]

oh and by the way very well said dana very good? my hat goes off to you

[dana]

SSS,
If you really want to research, maybe check to see how many times on all these Region 4 threads FD accussed others of being 'selfish' just because they disagreed with him. Heck, he actually attacked guys who said they had put a ton of their own sweat equity into the herds to get them where they are today and told them they were 'selfish'. Hmmm, sounds like a guy who really knows how to influence people eh? I believe on another thread I mentioned how you could reverse the selfish argument and that you could easily say that those who want the 'easy' meat without the sweat equity, that perhaps they were the selfish ones. FD scoffed at this and then continued to berate those in this thread as being 'selfish' so....I flipped it back on him. Is that wrong of me? No! I was making a point. That being, stop calling everyone that disagrees with you 'selfish'.

[Fisher-Dude]

well it is true then seriously anybody can drive down the road not even getting out of their vehicles and shoot a little bull elk i see so many every year, that could be shot, if ya wanna open the 3 spike elk season you might as well invite the world over to hunt them because soon they will all be gone and guess what no elk hunting, is that what ya want to do, really i dont know about you but i love elk hunting and quite frankly dont give a damn if you do or not, i just dont wanna see it effed up for many many years to come, and for the kids that wanna hunt them when they are older, wow some guys just get pissed off over the stupidest things really this thread was supposed to be a poll, not a bitch fest of recruiting hunters, think about it!!!!!!

So, how come we had twice the hunters and a SUSTAINABLE 3 point elk season for decades? How did we hunt for years and years with all those guys and the herd remained stable - in fact, it even kept INCREASING in size to the point where DiMarchi and company felt they had to trim the numbers back. Explain that to us?

I was hunting those elk before you were born and have seen how great it could be even with twice the guys in the bush. You've never experienced that, I wish you had, I know you'd view it differently.

How do you support your contention that all the elk will get shot when it has never happened before with double the hunting pressure?

[chevy]

if you had a sustainable 3 point season for decades how come, it is 6 point or better now, think about what you are saying if it worked back then why isnt it like that now and i could care less how long you have been hunting elk i know a guy who has been on more succesfull elk hunts than you, could ever dream of, he was also the canadian elk bugling champion, but in all honesty, even if they do bring ina 3 point and better i can almost guarantee i know tonnes and tonnes of guys who hunt elk that still wouldnt shoot it unless it was a six or better, so really what does it matter i just dont agree with a 3 point season, and quit your crying, and that was quite rude what ya had said about dana thank you and have a good day!!!!!!!!

[BCrams]

This thread is fu#@*d, goes from a poll on region 4 elk to hunter recruitment what the hell, and hunter1947 is right it will be a slaughter because you will get some shi# heads who have never hunted elk in their lifetime down here shooting elk, and slaughtering everything, think about it 2 years of 3 spike and better and guess what the elk will be thinned out, just like the mule deer were and now after how many years? the mule deer are finally coming back nicely, im not too sure about you guys but i dont want to see that happen ever, I say leave the season the way it is and if you want to shoot an elk, go learn how to shoot a bow, then you have 10 days to get your damn elk, but like i said before, i like hunting elk, 3 spike and better well that just isnt hunting to me really, if i wanted to kill something that easy i will go buy a cow from a farmer somehwere and shoot it, to me i think a 3 point season is a waste of time!!!!!!!
and remember, there is nothing better than having your adrenaline pumping and that 5 spike bull is coming in, and there is nothing you can do about it, but take pictures and film it, to me that is more of a thrill than just shooting it,!!!!!!!!!!!

Who says you need to shoot a 3 pt elk or a 4 or a 5 under a 3 pt season? You hardcore guys can continue hunting those 6 pt bulls with abandon!!

Other hunters, meanwhile will want to shoot a nice 3 or 4 pt meat bull and would be as thrilled as if they had shot a monster 6pt!!

[chevy]

and after they are all gone and become a limited entry hunt then what everybody starves, like i said you wanna shoot a meat bull go buy a bow and shoot one in the first ten days, its as simple as that!!!!!! i will never shoot an elk that isnt a six or better, i might shoot a 5 with my bow in the BOW SEASON that is about as much as i will do, i could care less about what everybody else wnats to shoot 3 point and better chances are aint gonna happen and i hope it doesnt!!!!!!!!!!!

[BCrams]

and after they are all gone and become a limited entry hunt then what everybody starves, like i said you wanna shoot a meat bull go buy a bow and shoot one in the first ten days, its as simple as that!!!!!! i will never shoot an elk that isnt a six or better, i might shoot a 5 with my bow in the BOW SEASON that is about as much as i will do, i could care less about what everybody else wnats to shoot 3 point and better chances are aint gonna happen and i hope it doesnt!!!!!!!!!!!

You're entitled to hunt your self imposed limit of 6 pt bulls only!

Heck, I have never shot what you would call a small muley!! Like you do with 6 pt bull elk, I prefer to hunt big bucks! I also fully support the removal of 4 pt buck seasons because we do not need them.

You will also never catch me berating the deer hunter who is very happy to shoot a spike, 2 point or 3 point buck. It is what makes them a hunter! I am sure some 2 and 3 pt muleys taken by other hunters have far higher value to them than some deer I have taken.

Who are you to push your vendetta onto other hunters that they must take up bow hunting or support the 6 pt bull elk season when there can very well be a 3 pt season???? There are many hunters regionally and provincially who would love to have the 3 pt season as it will give them a reasonable chance of success and you can continue to chase your 6 pt bulls! You are in the minority when it comes to support of 6 pt only seasons for elk.

The fear mongering about a slaughter, and more LEH etc is getting really old and will not work anymore.

[Fisher-Dude]

and after they are all gone and become a limited entry hunt then what everybody starves, like i said you wanna shoot a meat bull go buy a bow and shoot one in the first ten days, its as simple as that!!!!!! i will never shoot an elk that isnt a six or better, i might shoot a 5 with my bow in the BOW SEASON that is about as much as i will do, i could care less about what everybody else wnats to shoot 3 point and better chances are aint gonna happen and i hope it doesnt!!!!!!!!!!!

The annual harvest by bow hunters is somewhat less than 100 according to some very knowledgeable bow hunting folks on here. I fail to see how a harvest of <100 reflects an "easy" hunt for a meat bull. Instead, I'd consider it the toughest hunt for any elk.

[Mr. Dean]

if you had a sustainable 3 point season for decades how come, it is 6 point or better now,

Management is about tasking things at hand. As things evolve and change, new stratigies need to be implemented.
If things were to remain static, no management would be necessary. To sit back and do nothing with something that is SO dynamic, would be an extremely baaad practice.

Right now, my understanding is;
- Elk pop's are at or over carrying capacity. Sounds nice, but this isn't a good thing.
- We have a tool that could be used to 'fix' this problem, A tool that could have long term positive results. Remember the Hunter Conservation Trust Fund and what this money is used for? Remember how this money is generated??

I've heard that the biggest obstacle to the Elk herds is the lack of suitable habitat. If we want to see more Elk thrive and prosper, this 1st needs to addressed. Stock-piling animals that have no home, makes very little sense IMO.

I believe that a 3pt regulation could be a win-win. A person like me (little exp/no mentor) would have reason to get out and start learning the species behaviours. As is, why should one even bother? If one wants "the love of the outdoors" with little chance of meat, Stanley Park is just down the street. :???:

For the few that see this idea as a negaitve, its hard not to see it as little more than greed or selfishness. Not saying it is... Just stating what it appears to be. After all, there's a lot of science and stats that backs this up (3pt better season).

[Mr. Dean]

This thread is fu#@*d, goes from a poll on region 4 elk to hunter recruitment what the hell, and hunter1947 is right it will be a slaughter because you will get some shi# heads who have never hunted elk in their lifetime down here shooting elk, and slaughtering everything...

Your post seems to say that because I lack experience hunting Elk, I'm going to kill off more than allowed. Why so?

I asure you, I will only harvest/kill what I'm entitled too.
Being 'new' doesn't mean I can't read the synopsis.


Frankly, I find your comment insulting. It lacks reason and education. Not to mention, just full of assumption (Read: BS).


Good day!

:???: :neutral: :???:

[Mr. Dean]

This thread is fu#@*d, goes from a poll on region 4 elk to hunter recruitment what the hell,

Last I checked, the government mandate was to increase hunter recruitment. Makes sense that this shoud be the FIRST consideration for ANY regulation change...

You're certain that your thoughts are for the better of preserving a hunting heritage?


Just checking....